Intriguing! I wonder what GNXP's Godlesscapitalist would make of this ...

Posted by: Abiola Lapite at January 6, 2004 08:48 AM

The authors of the article are explicit in that they don't reject the hypothesis of group differences in g, rather the differences in IQ can be attributed to differences in g. In summary, an IQ test approximates a "general factor", but to postulate differences in this factor among groups, it must be the same factor measured in both groups. This is "factorial invariance". This article demonstrates that a different factor is measured in the two cases, hence the difference in IQ does not mean that there is not necessarily a difference in psychometric g in the two countries.

Posted by: Dienekes at January 6, 2004 05:33 PM

>> Intriguing! I wonder what GNXP's Godlesscapitalist would make of this ...

The IQ-worshipping crowd routinely dismiss contrary facts. As for myself, I believe strongly in the existence of remarkable physiological differences between the races; however, the belief in the existence of genetic differs in innate capacity for cognition are purely speculative. Unlike e.g., the dark skin color of Negroids or the brachyskelic bodily architecutre of Mongoloids, g is universally useful and there's no evidence that particular climates would select for higher g.

Posted by: Dienekes at January 6, 2004 05:39 PM

Dienekes,

I believe your comment is in bad faith. Your opinions of Godless aside, there are just as many upstanding scientists who find it more likely that populations differ in intelligence as there are those who don't. It's still an open question and there's little room for fiat. The partially genetic explanation for, e.g. black, white, east asian, ashkenazi jews non-trivial IQ differences, are just as "speculative" as 100% environmental theories for these differences. I find evidence for at least partial genetic explanations more convincing, and thus less "speculative" in my mind at this point in time. Dismissing the entire opposing side as immune to evidence, if that's what you were doing, strikes me as bad faith, especially because the political and social climate allows you to do that so much easier. I respect you more than that.

As to your more substansive objections, your 'race is only skin deep' position appears exceptionally Cartesian to me. Why would the external body adapt under evolutionary pressure and not the internal body. Why is normal human physiological variation likely to adapt locally while normal mental (emotional, tempermental, cognitive, behavioral) human variation not? Its a paradox on its face; the qualities would be genetically fixed for the species (10 fingers, 10 toes), if the variation wasn't creating some survival benefit to begin with. That is where I part from you on this statement:

" the dark skin color of Negroids or the brachyskelic bodily architecutre of Mongoloids, g is universally useful and there's no evidence that particular climates would select for higher g."

First drop the "climate" thing (explaining differences with any confidence demands too much presently. We can't even really explain the reasons for simple differences like skin tone and eye form too well). The 'g is universally useful' thing is a flawed premise, for the reason I stated above: If there really was some level of optimum g then it would be a fixed quality like 10 fingers. But, beyond much doubt at this stage in the game, the large differences in IQ between individuals has a lot to do with common genetic variation. For whatever reason, people within a population have many different genes moving them towards different temperaments, aptitudes, and behaviors. If this premise is true, it is almost fantastic to expect that the exact population balance of allele frequencies (x% of impulsive people, x% of shy people) will remain constant with evolutionary pressure (this refers to population splits resulting in separate paths of selection pressure as well as a single population adapting as time passes). Furthermore if IQs below 100 had no survival utility then people with genetics facilitating such IQs wouldn't exist in any population. But a gradient of low IQs certainly exist in every population due in a non-trivial part to genetics. If you don't accept this premise then why are we even arguing race? We obviously have bigger and more important issues to resolve. If you do accept that premise though, then there is no reason to suppose populations would have lower and higher levels of intelligence.

In fact, you have stated your agreement with both these premises recently and explicitly:

1.Individuals differ in intelligence, and Arthur Jensen's g factor, as measured by IQ, is a reasonable measurement of an individual's intelligence. Intelligence also has a significant genetic component.

2.Population groups are aggregates of individuals. Since individuals differ in IQ there is no reason to believe that averages of different population groups will be the same. And, indeed, it has been shown that social, ethnic, and racial groups differ in their average intelligence.

Have you changed your mind or did I miss the point of your objection?

Posted by: Jason Malloy at January 7, 2004 05:39 PM

"If you do accept that premise though, then there is no reason to suppose populations would have lower and higher levels of intelligence."

Make that 'wouldn't'. . .

Posted by: Jason Malloy at January 7, 2004 05:57 PM

>> I believe your comment is in bad faith. Your opinions of Godless aside, there are just as many upstanding scientists who find it more likely that populations differ in intelligence as there are those who don't.

There are various levels to what one can accept. At one extreme some people say that the fact that Africans score lower than Europeans is due to bad tests, etc. They don't accept that Africans would score lower on IQ tests ever. Then, some people accept that Africans do in fact score lower on IQ tests but bring objections as to whether IQ tests measure the same factor in the two cases (as in this article). Then, there are those who might accept that Africans have lower g than Europeans but believe that the differences can be explained by poverty, rurality and other environmental factors. There are those who believe that there are major genetic differences across racial boundaries for intelligence. Finally, there are those who think that every person of ancestry X is dumb.

I should stress that there is absolutely no evidence for any genetic causes of IQ differences across racial boundaries: i.e., there is no hard evidence that populations differ in intelligence-related loci. They might, but expressing certainty that they in fact do is pure speculation.

>> I find evidence for at least partial genetic explanations more convincing, and thus less "speculative" in my mind at this point in time.

There is no evidence for this. The only "evidence" is phenotypical (IQ tests) and estimates of heritability in single populations. But those two combined do not demonstrate across-racial boundaries differences in genetic capacity for intelligence.

>> As to your more substansive objections, your 'race is only skin deep' position appears exceptionally Cartesian to me.

When did I say that race is "skin deep"? Race is manifested all over the body. I know for a fact that e.g., Mongoloids differ in their teeth or the shape of their palate than Caucasoids. It is likely that differences across racial groups manifesting throughout the body would also be present in the brain. However, differences do not necessarily have to be differences of ability; they can just as well be differences in structure that do not affect ability.

For example, some of the racial differences do in fact relate to ability. For example, long-limbed Negroids are better at running than short-limbed Mongoloids. Other factors, such as the woolly hair of Negroids and the straight hair of Mongoloids don't seem to make much of a difference. Perhaps they were useful in the pre-technological past, but they don't appear useful today. We can't postulate that the brain differences between the races will turn out to be of the functional sort. Parsimony dictates that we assume them to be non-functional until they are identified and their function is revealed.

>> The 'g is universally useful' thing is a flawed premise, for the reason I stated above: If there really was some level of optimum g then it would be a fixed quality like 10 fingers.

Not so. Polygenic traits like e.g., some biological correlate of the statistical concept, g are likely to have some roughly normal distribution about a mean. If two populations are subjected to different selection pressures, then they will have different means and standard deviations. To make g identical, you would have to have selection against both lower and higher g values until after a long time all gene loci affecting it would be fixed in their optimum values.

It's obvious though that g isn't one of those quantities where you have to have a fixed value. Most people get by unless they are retarded.

Now, g would vary across populations if there was selective pressure that would have this effect. For example, if a country was invaded and its top citizens were hanged, it'd be artificial selection that would lower overall g. If dumb people were sterilized (as the eugenicists wanted), then it would rise. I have seen nothing but speculation as to which selective forces would act on g in this way in different populations, e.g., "easy life in the tropics vs. hard Siberian winter".

>> If this premise is true, it is almost fantastic to expect that the exact population balance of allele frequencies (x% of impulsive people, x% of shy people) will remain constant with evolutionary pressure (this refers to population splits resulting in separate paths of selection pressure as well as a single population adapting as time passes).

I'm not saying that innate capacity for g will be identical. Obviously, this is a stochastic quantity which will vary. But, g is such a good thing to have no matter what situation one finds themselves in. On the other hand, other behavioral attributes, e.g., introversion/extraversion may be shown to have different adaptive value in different settings.

Posted by: Dienekes at January 8, 2004 04:16 PM

Dienekes,

I'm glad you caught me before I fell off the page. Hopefully, Abiola caught me too.

"I should stress that there is absolutely no evidence for any genetic causes of IQ differences across racial boundaries: i.e., there is no hard evidence that populations differ in intelligence-related loci. They might, but expressing certainty that they in fact do is pure speculation."

To begin, note that these are really two different statements:

a)There is no evidence that [and you use the black/white gap example, so I'll focus on that] the difference in measured intelligence between the two populations is even partially influenced by genes.

b)There is no hard evidence [determined by identifying and comparing all intelligence related locii] that the difference in measured intelligence between the two populations is even partially influenced by genes.

Regarding statement 'B', there really is no hard evidence that the gap is genetic. But that's not a profound insight - at this stage of knowledge, not many complex traits are based on "hard" genetic evidence! This, in fact is the sorry cudgel Kamin and Lewontin have been using against all non-blank slate research for 30 years. Lewontin has even said that work on any sort of genetic hypothesis is useless until it can be explained at the molecular level. This double-standard allows them to throw out all behavioral genetic pseudo-experiments such as twin and adoption studies that easily suggest that genes play a big role in human physiological, aptitude, temperamental, and behavioral variation, while continuing to use a much more down-to-earth standard of evidence collection with their own scientific work. I assume you are not that unreasonable and hypocritical though. In the real world we have to use induction and the imperfect evidence and methods available to make probabilistic decisions. I assume you accept, but I'll challenge you to demonstrate using hard genetic data that [and please show all the locii]:

a) the average height difference between Dinka and Eskimo is genetic

b) the average size difference between men and women is genetic

Both of these are, no doubt, the results of complicated mixtures of genes, and both could theoretically actually be the result of here-to-fore undescribed environmental differences, but the basic convergence of what we would expect to happen if these things were genetic and the failure of various environmental alternatives (do dinka born in Canada grow shorter?) allow us to take reasonable positions on the role of genetics in these differences even if we don't have incontrovertible, rich mathematical diagrams explaining the differences at the atomic level. Hopefully, with time these assumptions will lead us on the right experimental paths to a fuller understanding of the causes behind these differences.

And that's where the measured gap between those of African descent and those of European descent come in to play. The total of things I have read lead me to the opinion that, like the difference in mathematical ability between men and women, this racial difference most probably has a genetic component. There is simply no "burden of proof" that falls on my head to prove that it does any moreso than it falls on the head of the 100% environmental sides to prove that it doesn't. The fact of the matter is that I am no more handicapped by the lack of hard evidence for a genetic role than the environmental side is for their similar position. Put another way: "there is no hard evidence that populations don't differ in intelligence-related locii" either.

"The only "evidence" [for genetics playing a role in the b-w gap] is phenotypical (IQ tests) and estimates of heritability in single populations. But those two combined do not demonstrate across-racial boundaries differences in genetic capacity for intelligence."

But, you've read Jensen, Dienekes, so I would suppose you wouldn't think that this was the only evidence*. Even if it were, what "evidence" shows that genetics don't play a role for the gap? Is there more? What is your alternative explanation for the gap? How is this explanation open to research and falsification? I follow cultural and economic experiments, but over the last 30 years these have had a mighty difficult time pin-pointing any satisfying source for the gap. This is why, when the Thernstrom's are presented with the counter-intuitive data that blacks spend more time studying than their white counter-parts all through school (yet get much worse grades) they have to appeal to ad hoc theories that the black kids must be distracted more by TV while they study. Similarly trying to explain the gap by way of test bias and economic differences have been pursued rather aggressively too and failed. This leads to things like the New York Times continually shaking its head in confusion at the mystery of "Shaker Heights Syndrome" and related puzzles.

"We can't postulate that the brain differences between the races will turn out to be of the functional sort. Parsimony dictates that we assume them to be non-functional until they are identified and their function is revealed."

What if the differences mean the same thing for each population? Let's be hypothetical: lets say measured intelligence corresponded to color-coded brain differences, which we will assume are a result of genetics. A person born with a red brain means his IQ can be expected to hover around 115, blue means IQ = 100, yellow means IQ = 90, and green means IQ is below 80. Let's say we're not sure if these brain colors mean the same thing for minority B as they do for majority A, yet we know that minority B has ten times fewer people scoring 115 and ten times as many scoring below 80. We also know that B has way more green brains and way less red ones; but perhaps minority B's color codes don't mean the same thing as A's or anything at all - perhaps B has a lower intelligence for a different reason. All we have to do to test this is match people from A and B by brain color, if the brain differences mean the same thing for both populations we would predict that someone should score an IQ of 115 if their brain is red and below 80 if their brain is green regardless if they are from population A or B. If this experiment were conducted and this was the result would you then agree that this strongly suggests an average, genetically influenced difference in intelligence between these two hypothetical populations?

". To make g identical, you would have to have selection against both lower and higher g values until after a long time all gene loci affecting it would be fixed in their optimum values . . . I'm not saying that innate capacity for g will be identical. Obviously, this is a stochastic quantity which will vary. But, g is such a good thing to have no matter what situation one finds themselves in."

(Note that we are referring to heritable differences not just g, which could still exist and differ among people even if humans were all identical genetically.) I still don't get your argument - if g were good "no matter what situation one finds themselves in", there would be no such thing as higher intelligence to select against, as the highest one available would be selected for and all lower intelligence would have been quickly selected away and the highest intelligence allele combination would become a fixed quality. This is not what we find. Not for humans, not for mice, not for dogs, and, presumably, not for any mammals. All of these species have stronger and weaker, bolder and more timid, more violent and more nurturant, and yes, less intelligent and more intelligent members due to genetic variation. This strongly implies that qualities such as greater strength and greater intelligence are not necessarily the same as greater Darwinian fitness. To quote Talk Origins fitness FAQ:

"...Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest."

. . . Add to that most intelligent. Because there is no optimum level of g for the species, be it for whatever reason, I conclude that the better assumption is that there is no optimum or necessary average level of g for different human populations either. To conclude otherwise is to misapprehend Darwinism, and to wrongly conflate what we assume is a "better" quality (i.e. faster, stronger, sexier) with reproductive fitness.

"I have seen nothing but speculation as to which selective forces would act on g in this way in different populations, e.g., "easy life in the tropics vs. hard Siberian winter".

The climate theory is superficially appealing and seems to be compatible with a lot of what heavy-weight neuro-psychologist William Calvin describes in A Brain For All Seasons, but I think it is tangential to the core of this debate. I believe observed differences in intelligence between races has something to do with genes, but exactly like the reason for eye-form differences, I do not believe the reason for these differences has to be (or perhaps even can be) identified, in order to verify them. Remember, it's still controversial why life-forms are even split-up into male and female, but that doesn't mean we reject sexual differences.

I wouldn't mind debating this issue with you more Dienekes, but I hope you just won't attack my position [regarding the b-w IQ gap] but will also defend one of your own that you think the evidence is pointing to in a more persuasive way. We are looking for the better theory, not the perfect or unambiguously correct one.

(As a side note: if you don't mind, let's not take these arguments to the front page, as I don't want to blog about this yet. We might take it to Dodona though, if you think it would raise interest there)

*In fact, just like the failure of the climate theory for explaining the different body shapes between Eskimo and Dinka, every tested and failed environmental explanation for the b-w gap is a form of evidence in favor of a non-environmental conclusion. Where do the tested assumptions converge?

Posted by: Jason Malloy at January 9, 2004 03:56 AM

Jason, I won't adress each and every aspect in your detailed reply. Here is my position in a nutshell.

I certainly don't expect molecular-level elaboration to accept a tentative genetic explanation for any complex character. So, for example, I am wholly convinced that the differences in physique between Negroids and Caucasoids is due to genetic factors and not to some yet-unknown environmental factor. This is due to the fact that Negroids are present in art, literature and tombs for several thousand years and in various parts of the world. I have never seen a case of a Negroid in all this body of evidence who became non-Negroid because e.g., he was raised in a different climate, society, culture, etc. (in other words, different environment). The constancy and continuity of the Negroid traits in space and time despite changes in culture and environment tell me that they are genetically based. Similarly, perhaps women are shorter for some unknown environmental factor. But, by observing that each and every historical and prehistorical population has taller men than women, as do populations of other primates, I am fairly convinced that men have greater size than women for genetic reasons.

So, the differences in physical characters between Negroids-Caucasoids, or between men and women have a great body of evidence in support of them and span many centuries and lots of different environments: their constancy in space and time and environment tell me that they're genetically based. Additionally, there are fairly good theories about why e.g., Negroids are dark, broad-nosed and prognathous as adaptations to their ecological habitat. So, I have data both on the facts of their difference and on the why's of their difference.

By contrast, differences in IQ between the races of man are based on less than a century of IQ research, which coincides with a period in which environmental differences between most people belonging to the various races are especially marked. Not only is this direct evidence from IQ too little, but if one searches for proxies of IQ in the past he gets results that do not agree with the supposed hierarchy of IQ among Mongoloids-Caucasoids-Negroids. Additionally, no convincing theory has been proposed that would create such differences.

So, in conclusion, we should not be equally doubtful or supportive of genetic explanations for different polygenic complex traits that differ between populations: we must lean towards accepting those differences that are well established (factually) and well explained (theoretically) and doubt those that are not well established or explained.

Posted by: Dienekes at January 9, 2004 07:39 PM

DP,

Thanks for the nutshell. I'm sorry my reply was more involved then you are willing to get with this issue right now, but I think it is important, interesting, and sorely under-discussed (in any honest/apolitical or detailed way at least[1]) in proportion to its relevance. I assume that you are bowing out, but I'm responding in detail again. Feel free to not reply in turn, I'll understand.

Regarding your newer points:

"So, the differences in physical characters between Negroids-Caucasoids, or between men and women have a great body of evidence in support of them and span many centuries and lots of different environments: their constancy in space and time and environment tell me that they're genetically based . . . By contrast, differences in IQ between the races of man are based on less than a century of IQ research, which coincides with a period in which environmental differences between most people belonging to the various races are especially marked. Not only is this direct evidence from IQ too little, but if one searches for proxies of IQ in the past he gets results that do not agree with the supposed hierarchy of IQ among Mongoloids-Caucasoids-Negroids."

First of all, I agree with you that lack of inconsistent examples through space and time is the first step in formulating genetic assumptions. Uniformity, I take for granted as an important tool of the scientific materialist. I agree that tentative positions[2] on a natural average size difference between men and women and physical characteristics between racial populations can be accepted reasonably on this basis. Likewise, though, from a non-cartesian perspective, differences of behavior, temperament, and ability that pass the same inspection are reasonable inferences in no different way (i.e. Women are smaller in average size than men, they are also less aggressive on average than men as well). I must disagree with you if you are telling me that an aptitude difference between Caucasian and sub-saharan Africans doesn't pass this initial historical and spatial first step in the same way[3]. Proxies of IQ, such as historical levels of technological, economic, and organizational development most certainly don't contradict a genetic hypothesis for this gap. Guns, Germs, and Steel takes a totally environmental position for it, but it clearly describes the asymmetry of historical development, with asians and caucasian populations showing a historical trajectory fairly consistently ahead of sub-saharan african and new world populations. I'm not aware that Diamond's history was flawed, and I'm not aware of a motive for antiracists to downplay sub-saharan history which could actually be used against the genetic case. Just the opposite is what I find: historical revisionism such as Afrocentrism is allowed by some multiculturalists to serve as an artificial contradiction to the hereditarian hypothesis (in Afrocentrism's case by falsely crediting an advanced civilization to sub-saharan populations). Similarly, both in Africa and across cultures, both as voluntary migrants and slave descendants, both in the majority and as minorities, both with political power or without it, both with money or w/o it, Sub-saharan descendents are known to fall below those they share societies with in average IQ or IQ proxy. Thomas Sowell's book Migration and Cultures attempts to explain this pattern (presumably, like Diamond's book, to provide an alternative to genetics) by showing how cultural patterns often persist through time and with migration. Presumably, the Sub-saharan diaspora has taken with it, from Africa and its slave history, under-achieving values (which GG&S tells us is a result of their initial resource and geographic handicap). Another reasonable explanation for this uniformity of results across time and place that these books seek to explain might be the genetic assumption which we have used for other group traits that display a similar consonant pattern.

"Additionally, there are fairly good theories about why e.g., Negroids are dark, broad-nosed and prognathous as adaptations to their ecological habitat. So, I have data both on the facts of their difference and on the why's of their difference . . . [while] no convincing theory has been proposed that would create [intellectual] differences."

This second part of your argument I don't find convincing, Dienekes. If the existence of the phenomenon is established, it's much better to challenge the genetic explanation by establishing contradiction and demonstrating the convergence of data on a competing hypothesis then it is to lazily throw it out a priori over some, basically aesthetic, disagreement over mutually unfalsifiable historical theories about what sorts of adaptations should or shouldn't exist. There is certainly no scientific consensus or, more importantly, falsifiable methods to procure it with, on racial traits such as Negroid prognathism, or East Asian eye-folds, not to mention our familiar friend blondness, so why should that be any different for other racial differences? What can be tested though, are various theories about the role of genes in an intelligence gap between two populations. One way was mentioned above: do intelligence-related brain differences between two populations mean the same thing? I gave a hypothetical way to test that question, and asked if you thought that was a reliable experiment. You didn't answer, and that's Ok, but if you want to keep going I think that would be a good place to start.

[1] sadly, least of all on the net.

[2] all positions are necessarily tentative, unfortunately it's hard to articulate a hierarchy of certainty, and where exactly one should fall on it for issues such as what we are discussing.

[3] the intelligence of East Asians in relation to Europeans I consider as a separate and more ambiguous case.

Posted by: Jason Malloy at January 10, 2004 05:27 PM

>> I must disagree with you if you are telling me that an aptitude difference between Caucasian and sub-saharan Africans doesn't pass this initial historical and spatial first step in the same way[3].

Jason, there is certainly no historical pattern in differences in aptitude between Caucasoids and Negroids as could be measured by some proxy (since we don't have IQ data).

The reason for this is the following: to say that something constitutes a difference between Negroids and Caucasoids without further qualification, means that it is a distinction that separates Caucasoid and Negroid groups and individuals in general.

For example, a flat nasal root coupled with a broad nose is a character which separates Caucasoid and Negroid groups in general, without further qualification.

On the other hand, while it is true that the Caucasoids have historically produced more culturally than the Negroids, this distinction does not assume a general statement about the qualities of the Caucasoids and the Negroids.

For example, at any given point in time in the last, say, 5,000 years we would find Negroid/Caucasoid nasal configuration very clearly delimited. (*) Nasal configuration is a character in which Caucasoids and Negroids differ from one another without further qualification.

However, things aren't as simple with IQ, as measured indirectly by e.g., cultural achievements or written assessments. While it is true that individual Caucasoid groups were more culturally advanced than individual Negroid groups, these differences don't assume a general character that differentiated Caucasoids from Negroids without further qualification (e.g., Nigeria and Scandinavia made the transition to the Iron Age at approximately the same time). And, classical writers generally attributed mental acuity to the people of Africa and dullness to the continental Europeans.

It would be correct to say that the most advanced Caucasoid group has been more advanced than the average African group at any given time, but it would not be correct to infer a pattern about Caucasoids and Negroids on this basis.

(*) Allowing of course for individual variation.

Posted by: Dienekes at January 10, 2004 07:24 PM

DP,

I admit you are correct that psychological differences are extrapolated less well than physical ones by the historical method (in contrast with my statement of passing the step in the "same way"). For instance the roles and behaviors of men and women throughout history and between societies can be compared: who did most of the fighting, the athletics, the killing, etc. Though it would be harder to determine from this method if this was all just a by-product of physical differences or if there were psychological differences contributing to it as well.
I disagree that times and places without the IQ test provide us with no information that is applicable to the question of genetic differences in aptitude, though I agree that the strongest aspects of the debate are reserved for modern experimental evidence. Allele frequencies can change with time, but it would be less reasonable to infer that hypothetical failures of East Asians and their international diaspora were somehow related to genetics in light of actual Asian history than it would be if they had one with less technological and political acsendancy. A historical "civilization" gap between Europe (and the middle-east + India) and sub-saharan Africa certainly doesn't prove a difference in native ability, but, importantly, it doesn't contradict it either. You say that:

It would be correct to say that the most advanced Caucasoid group has been more advanced than the average African group at any given time, but it would not be correct to infer a pattern about Caucasoids and Negroids on this basis.

But has the average Caucasoid group been more advanced than the average Negroid group at any given time? If so, aren't we trying to resolve average intellectual differences anyway? And what sort of pattern don't you find it correct to infer? Are you saying that there are no geographic and macro-cultural patterns of progress (challenging the very premise GG&S seeks to explain)? Or are you simply saying that there are no historical instances where every sub-saharan population has been behind every Caucasian population? If it's the latter I would say that that is not something that should be predicted from the intelligence gap anyway (seeing as how IQ is only probabilistically related to success).

In summary:

1) there are patterns of geographic genetic structure (race)

2) the pattern of historical power and achievement (and its partial but non-trivial relation to 1)

3) the cross-cultural pattern of modern social power and achievement (and its partial but non-trivial relation to 1 + 2)

4) the partial but non-trivial relationship between higher IQ and higher achievement

5) the partial but non-trivial role genes play in between-person variations of IQ differences

6) the likelihood of some sort of variable IQ genes related distributions across populations (populations being collections of people)

. . . are the beginnings of a hypothesis and a reasonable assumption which of course can and should be (and has been) tested further. I am not sure if you have raised many objections which are damaging to these 6 fair premises or the hypothesis made from them. I am much disappointed that you have dodged away from making a competing hypothesis or a conversation about what experimental evidence contradicts or confirms our respective view-points on the matter.

Posted by: Jason Malloy at January 11, 2004 01:15 AM

From above post: "A historical "civilization" gap between Europe (and the middle-east + India) and sub-saharan Africa certainly doesn't prove a difference in native ability, but, importantly, it doesn't contradict it either."

Better way to write that would have been: ". . .between Caucasoids (i.e. Europe, middle east, india) and Negroids . . ."

Posted by: Jason Malloy at January 11, 2004 05:30 AM

I'm basically saying that there's a qualitative difference between e.g., nose shape and cultural achievement when comparing Caucasoids and Negroids. The first one is a general property which holds over space and time when comparing any population of Caucasoids with any population of Negroids. Hence, it meets the requirement for being evidence of a general Caucasoid/Negroid difference. The second one is a special property which does not hold in general. So, the evidence isn't about Caucasoids and Negroids in general and shouldn't be used to infer differences between Caucasoids and Negroids in general.

The statement could apply if we qualified it properly. To give one example, it would be correct to say that Negroids from the Congo have produced significantly less than Near Eastern Caucasoids at any given time over a period of several millennia.

We should be careful to distinguish what applies to each major race as a whole and that which applies to its subsets. E.g., dark color applies to all Negroids, but superior performance in basketball does not. Flat faces apply to all Mongoloids, but a long period of literary output does not. Projecting noses apply to all Caucasoids but the invention of mathematics does not. Coarse hair is shared by all Americanoids, but a legacy of urban civilization is not.

Posted by: Dienekes at January 11, 2004 08:45 PM

I don't have time to answer all these questions, but I will perhaps find some time in the future to blog about what I think are the major influences in creating civilization and thus present an "alternative theory". To summarize my view, I think that a certain pattern of behavior created by religious-philosophical systems over a long period of time, access to natural resources and suitable geography, access to the global cultural heritage via a common language and education, political independence, and a degree of ethnic homogeneity are the prerequisites of prosperity. High mean IQ is a consequent not a determinant of prosperity at the national level.

Posted by: Dienekes at January 11, 2004 08:57 PM

I really cannot see the point in all this heated arguing over which race or ethnicity is "superior" as measued by IQ tests.

I've even seen some radical idiots on various online forums hotly "defending their race's superiority", as if they themselves were personally involved in it's achievements. It seems to have become a kind of sport for many, ridiculing & demeaning people of lower IQ's, classes, & races. Team sport supports one kind of pride, & the insulting of, & disdain for, other races or classes supports another.

These are the very people who'd love to see eugenics return, only this time in the form of sterilization or germline genetic manipulation.

I have realized that man, being who he is, will not stop at anything, even if it means destroying himself. If the snobbery of genetically engineering humans becomes a reality, we can be fairly sure that certain social classes, "types", & even ethnic groups will be thereafter eliminated, changed from "undesireables" into "desireables", as judged by the "intellectually" & "morally superior".

I'm beginning to become a hardened misanthropist with a vary deep suspicion of mankind, particularly of the "intellectually superior", who somehow imagine that they are more worthy of drawing breath on this planet than the other, "inferior" groups they so despise, & would love to just scientifically exterminate. I'm of a very low IQ, 84, so i wonder just how deserving i am of the earth's resources, as compared to someone with an IQ of 124 or 134. I am aware that since IQ is highly heritible, my kids would be considered to be "inferior genetic material", or "genetic pollution" among "superior humans", who they should not breed with.

Reading such books as the "Bell Curve" has made me silently wish mankind to hell.

Posted by: Kushan101 at March 2, 2004 04:30 PM

Jason, your comments throughout this brief debate are exactly those I would have made. I consider it obvious that genetic explanations for intraracial differences in intelligence are the default explanations. (And Jensen obviously feels similarly.) It is patently absurd to suggest that all populations experienced equal selection pressure for g. We've seen throughout the modern world that high IQ types reproduce at higher rates in times of plenty and lower rates in times of economic hardship, which demonstrates that selection pressures on IQ are extremely sensetive to the environment.

I don't see how anyone could even imagine that the conspicuous lack of African civilization compared to the towering achievements of Eurasian populations indicate anything other than a genetic difference in intelligence between racial groups. Our only alternative explanation for this clear pattern of differential historical achievement is a feeble collection of ad hocs which Occam's Razor ultimately rips to shreds.

--Mark

Posted by: Mark Henshaw at March 7, 2004 12:04 AM

(Oops - I obviously meant "inter-racial," not "intraracial.")

Posted by: Mark Henshaw at March 7, 2004 12:21 AM