IQ Comments/Questions

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Still working on that project on Scientific Racism. All in all, I have come to a conclusion:

(Please state your thoughts)

The IQ gap between races is, in a sense, both genetic and environmental; however, the differences we perceive as genetic, according to evolutionary theory, may have arisen due to environmental circumstances. Through scientific examination, it has been concluded that the 15-point IQ gap between blacks and whites is partially environmental. Test bias, nutrition, and SES factors undeniably account for some of this gap. That is to say, in an equal environment amongst races, the IQ gap would be smaller. Most supporters of the primarily genetic hypothesis do not deny this truth.

Moving on, we can remove part of the 15 point gap. Still, a large percentage remains. Oppression towards blacks has occured throughout history, and, due to environmental circumstances, it is likely that heredity would influence the IQ of the population, which, in this case, happened to be black. In conclusion, years of environmental circumstances have negatively influenced the IQ of certain black populations around the world. This could account for the vast IQ differences amongst certain black populations. While negative affects occured for black populations, Ashkenazi Jews encountered positive environmental affects, and they have boosted that populations IQ over time.

The idea that the gene(s) associated with black skin color negatively correlate with IQ is a ludicrous insinuation. Scientists attempt to use the higher IQs amongst mulatto populations to justify this. However, oppression is highly linked the the darkness of ones skin color. Therefore, the idea that populations, over time, would lose intelligence in correlation with skin color/oppression is a reasonable conclusion.

When these truths are accepted, we can work towards creating an equal society. Affirmative action and other social programs, while having flaws, are necessary to counteract racism in today's society. The Flynn Effect shows that recently the white IQ is remaining steady in comparison to the black IQ, which is constantly moving closer to the white mean. In fact, the idea that individuals move towards an IQ mean is quite widely accepted; therefore, the idea that all populations, over a greater period of time, move toward and above a mean due to environemntal circumstances is, in reality, a conclusion that should be accepted.

The idea of "genetics" is subjective to most individuals. However, when arguing a genetic hypothesis, scientists should realize that these supposably genetic characters have arisen due to environmental factors which are steadily equating over time. Sure, IQ tests are subjective and have flaws, but attacking the science of IQ is only one method of eliminating racism. When an environmentalist criticizes an aspect of a test, that aspect can be fixed. In some cases, the IQ gap lowers, and the environmentalist is pleased. However, if we were, in theory, to achieve a test as objective as possible, and the IQ gap remained, where would the environmentalist be left? If we are to discuss this issue rationally, we must approach it scientifically, as done above, and introduce new and different ideas. Instead of arguing environmental or genetic, we should argue what a genetic difference is - a difference caused by the environment. By accepting that equality will not be achieved in a day, but in generations, we can better work towards achieving the society that we all want.

****

Unfortunately, I am not sure what to do. Will people would view my conclusion as racist while? My audience consists of high school seniors.

My conclusion is environmental. It just argues that the environment has caused generational affects which will take time to remove. In short, it might take more than a generation to fix things. In my seminar, I would also mention that some blacks may be ancestors of a population not negatively affected by the environment.

Question: What does the scientific community, overall, feel about this issue? To scientists praise IQ tests, dismiss them, or are they skeptical?

[Cyanide Suicide]

I don't know a lot about the scientific experiments and whatnot, but in my class of probably 85 students, 8 are African-American. All 8 of them are at the top of my class in GPA and istep+ results.

So I agree with you on the enviormental reasoning. My town is pretty small, around 2000 in population. There aren't any 'slums' or gangbanging areas. Basically a middle class area. There's hardly any drug activity or criminal action. And my school always ranks at the top of the state in istep+ and MAP test scores. So what I'm saying is although these kids are african american, they grew up in a white dominated town with a white culture, and they turn out to be some of the smartest kids at school. Which kind of relates to your question anyway.

[ComradeRed]

One thing I have noticed is that IQ is not based on an absolute scale. It is "normalized" so the highest scorer gets x points, and everyone else is measured in relation to that.

It is not scientific (let alone precise in any sense of the word), and thus it is philistinism. There really is no way to measure intelligence.

As far as "scientific racism", that seems to be a misnomer. Racists will always claim to be scientific (misquoting Darwin et al.), but they are no more scientific than the Christians...or practitioners of "Oui-Ji" boards.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 1 2006, 02:23 PM
ppression towards blacks has occured throughout history, and, due to environmental circumstances, it is likely that heredity would influence the IQ of the population, which, in this case, happened to be black.
What does this mean? Environmental circumstances do not directly affect anyone's genes. That's Lamarckism, a long-disproved biological theory.

There is no evidence that any of the "IQ gap" is genetic, period. There's simply no way to design an experiment or study that would test that. If you're going to say it is, it's up to you to provide some evidence.

In The Bell Curve, Murray and Hernstein simply beg the question, with a little sleight of hand to confuse the issue. They talk a lot about the heritability of IQ differences among people within the same "racial" group, then change the subject to the IQ differences between "racial" groups. They say it "seems incredible" to them that there could be high heritability of one but not the other.

Well, that says something about Murray and Hernstein, but nothing about the genetic or environmental causes of IQ differences.

As any population biologist will tell you, the degree of heritability of within-group differences tells you nothing about the degree of heritability of between-group differences.

To summarize: I think you should learn at least a little about biology before tackling this subject.

It's not clear to me what political conclusion you are aiming at either.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I am aiming at an anti-racism conclusion, of course. Couldn't environmental effects influence breeding procedures? For instance, perhaps incest became more prevalent amongst a certain population. Therefore, the IQ gap would be present by steadily decreasing, like it is today?

I want to present an anti-racist message without skewing the facts. Most experts in the field, according to many sources, believe the IQ difference is partially genetic. I am curious if an environmental influence on heredity would account for that genetic difference? Or do all these scientists believe the gene for black skin is linked to low intelligence?

[ComradeRed]

Well there are some "scientists" who also believe in "intelligent design"...that doesn't make it true!

The worst sort of scientist is the bourgeois social scientist...those who were too dumb and failed being a hard scientist and tried social science instead without any sort of rigor whatsoever.

I think it is pretty safe to rule out the pseudo-scientific "Bell Curves" with Occam's razor.

The hard part is, as I emphasized before, there is no real way to measure intelligence! IQ is relative and not absolute, giving a false indicator of how intelligent people are becoming. Worse it doesn't even measure intelligence (how could it?). Thus anything can be concluded to be "true".

[Morpheus]

You should read The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Gould, Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor. IQ tests are not at all credible, they were created by rich white men and are skewed in their favor. Racial gaps in IQ scores merely show the biases of the test, nothing more. Races in the modern sense haven't been around long enough for them to have had an impact on biological evolution. With the average lifespan of humans being as long as it is, it takes at least tens of thousands of years for evolutionary changes to happen.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 2 2006, 01:36 PM
I am aiming at an anti-racism conclusion, of course.
Then you shouldn't start by assuming, without giving proof, that there is a genetically based difference in intelligence.

Frankly, if there was such a difference, it might not much matter why. There would still be "superior" and "inferior" races regardless of the cause. So I'm certainly not going to concede that without proof.


Couldn't environmental effects influence breeding procedures?

Through Darwinian natural selection, possibly. You've given no theory for how some populations could have been selected for higher or lower intelligence over tens of thousands of years.

Seems to me that survival and reproduction depend on intelligence more with a hunting-gathering lifestyle than any other. Make a stupid mistake, and a dangerous animal or poisonous plant will get you, or you'll starve, or your children will.

So if differences in IQ scores were caused by Darwinian selection for intelligence, we'd expect to see Australian aborigines, Khoisan and Ituri peoples in Africa, and some Native Americans scoring higher than anyone else. Since this isn't the case, the Darwinian explanation doesn't seem so likely.


For instance, perhaps incest became more prevalent amongst a certain population. Therefore, the IQ gap would be present by steadily decreasing, like it is today?

You've given no evidence that inbreeding is/was more common in Africa, for example. The fact is that there is more genetic diversity in Africa and the African diaspora than in the rest of humanity put together.

In contrast, one of the groups which tend to score high on IQ tests are Jews. A relatively small population with a history of mostly marrying within the faith. If inbreeding depression was the cause of differences in IQ scores, you'd expect the opposite results.

So your incest explanation doesn't look so good either.

The effects of inbreeding aren't as simple and dramatic as a lot of people assume anyway. And they effect health quicker than intelligence.


I want to present an anti-racist message without skewing the facts. Most experts in the field, according to many sources, believe the IQ difference is partially genetic.

Which experts? What sources? The best-known advocates of this view, AFAIK, are Murray and Hernstein; I dealt with their argument in my last post.

In contrast, it's an indisputable fact that environment - nurture - has a tremendous effect on IQ scores. Average IQ scores are going up with every generation, and it's clearly not because of any genetic change. Genetic change just doesn't happen that fast, and in the modern world there's no selection where smarter people have more children.

Probably it's because of education, etc.; it might even be video games or something. But in any case it's environmental.

So why couldn't the differences in IQ scores between the "races" be due to environmental effects, including schools, the effects of racist discrimination and especially the effects of social/economic class?

I'm leaving aside, as you have, the question of whether IQ scores have any special significance anyway. I tend to think not so much.


I am curious if an environmental influence on heredity would account for that genetic difference?

All genetic differences are caused by "environmental influence" in the sense of Darwinian natural selection by the environment. The genetic difference between us and flatworms is caused by environmental influence. So what? I still don't get what conclusion you're trying for.


Or do all these scientists believe the gene for black skin is linked to low intelligence?

I'm not aware of any scientist or even well-known pseudoscientist who believes that. If you're trying to knock down that idea, it's pretty much a straw man.

The likes of Murray and Hernstein, and other pseudoscientific racists, just claim that Black people tend to be dumber. Again, I ain't gonna concede that without solid proof.

Also, the Bell Curve is about class even more than race. Their primary claim is that rich people are smarter - and that's why they're rich. It's an attempt to rationalize class privilege. Unfortunately, less effort has been put into refuting the claims about class.

Again, I think you should learn more basic biology, especially evolutionary biology, before taking this up further.

Morpheus' recommendation, The Mismeasure of Man, is a good book by a respected biologist who refutes a whole range of racist pseudoscience. The author, Stephen J. Gould, has also written a bunch of books explaining basic concepts in evolution. One of them is "The Panda's Thumb."

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

You've convinced me - I'll be going with an entirely environmental hypothesis.