Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic
news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx
news-medical.netPosted Sep 14, 2011, 5:22 AM UTC
012
news-medical.netAwesome job posting controversial/disputed crap that is over 6 years old. :/ Methinks you are trolling.
2
Do you only want to be exposed to uncontroversial ideas?
4
Did you read the linked article? Did you think it was really "great" or "insightful"? Maybe you should go to r/niggers and share the good news, then.
0
from Wikipedia
The official position of the American Anthropological Association is that intelligence cannot be biologically determined by race. The American Psychological Association has said that while there are differences in average IQ between racial groups, and there is no conclusive evidence for environmental explanations, there is even less empirical support for a genetic interpretation, and no adequate explanation for the racial IQ gap is presently available. According to a 1996 statement from the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, although heredity influences behavior in individuals, it does not affect the ability of a population to function in any social setting, and all peoples "possess equal biological ability to assimilate any human culture" and "racist political doctrines find no foundation in scientific knowledge concerning modern or past human populations."
1
The AAA also denies the existence of a biological basis for race, which doesn't exactly bolster their scientific credibility; in fact, it's more than a little disconcerting that "the world's largest organization of individuals interested in anthropology" claims "to promote the science of anthropology," and yet actively evangelizes such blatant disinformation.
Racial beliefs constitute myths about the diversity in the human species and about the abilities and behavior of people homogenized into "racial" categories.
Racial myths bear no relationship to the reality of human capabilities or behavior.
Given what we know about the capacity of normal humans to achieve and function within any culture, we conclude that present-day inequalities between so-called "racial" groups are not consequences of their biological inheritance but products of historical and contemporary social, economic, educational, and political circumstances.
Race is a construct, yes; however, so are all categorizations—including those scientific (i.e., empirical; representational of the objective reality) in origin. The question, therefore, is whether different races reflect a coherent representation of reality, or instead are merely an arbitrary invention, and hence dependent upon the artificiality of their social environment of birth; in other words, is the existence of races grounded in innate biological differences, and hence are objective & scientific constructs reflective of biology, or are they subjective social constructs contingent upon a few arbitrary superficialities.
The answer is, of course, the former; races are a representation of the objective reality, independent of any given cultural or social environment, for races reflect ancestry. Races are simply the product of the very same mechanism that underlies all the diverse manifestations of life, genetics. Humans are no more immune from evolutionary pressures than any other life forms.
For if biological races did not exist, then it would be impossible to categorize people as such with only 50 randomly selected single nucleotide—the human genome consisting of three billion such nucleotides—polymorphisms (SNPs). Similarly, if races were arbitrary constructs, and thus completely unrepresentative of any meaningful biological reality, then it would be hard to explain how 3,636 subjects could, through blind genetic testing, be correctly classified into racial groups corresponding with their self-identified race with an accuracy of 99.86%.
Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ethnicity—as opposed to current residence—is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population.
Numerous recent studies using a variety of genetic markers have shown that, for example, individuals sampled worldwide fall into clusters that roughly correspond to continental lines, as well as to the commonly used self-identifying racial groups: Africans, European/West Asians, East Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans.
The results presented here show how investigators conducting genetic association studies can use small numbers of arbitrarily chosen SNPs to identify stratification in study subjects and avoid false positive genotype-phenotype associations. Our findings also demonstrate the extent of variation between continentally defined groups and argue strongly against the contention that genetic differences between groups are too small to have biomedical significance.
5
There is more genetic variation within racial groups of the same "race" than there are genetic variation between groups, because all humans very likely are descendant from a very small group of humans. The idea of "race" is an imaginary social construct we project onto ourselves, which is a product of human psychology and xenophobia.
0
Classic Lewontin fallacy you got there.
2
To be quite blunt, either you do not understand the claim you are asserting, and thus are simply echoing—apparently without thought, let alone critical analysis—something you've heard somewhere, or else you’re being disingenuous here.
You see, it's the population's allelic frequencies that matter, not the mere presence, within the population, of the alleles themselves. You’re claim is analogous to someone arguing that a circle and a square, the former possessing a diameter equal in length to the each of the latter’s sides, are the same shape, because, when viewed from a perspective parallel to their planes, they both appear as lines of an equal length; such an assertion is, of course, false because it neglects to factor in their differences manifesting in the second-dimension.
So, it is true that, as a rule of thumb, roughly 85% of humanity's alleles (i.e. polymorphic genes; the total range of diversity) are present within each of the continental populations (i.e., races, if you will), ~8% are confined to individual continental populations (i.e., more-or-less unique to a single race), and ~7% are confined to subpopulations within the continental populations (i.e., more-or-less unique to one or more, but not all, of a race’s constituent ethnicities). This information, however, reveals nothing about the degree of genetic relatedness shared amongst these populations and subpopulations; instead, the only inferences that, with any degree of reliability, can be drawn from such limited information are those regarding temporal estimates for the major divergences among humanity’s branches. And, as you correctly stated, the fact that most polymorphic genes are present in all human populations does, indeed, suggest all humans can be traced back to a relatively recent common ancestor.
However, as hinted at above, the degree of genetic relatedness amongst these populations and subpopulations can only be illuminated through enumerating each of their allelic distributions, or frequencies. To continue the analogy used above, this transition from a comparison involving only an allele’s presence within a population, to a comparison also factoring in the allele’s frequency within the population, is equivalent in magnitude to the shift from the linear to the planar comparisons of the circle and square—it is, in other words, essential if the conclusion is to be representative of reality.
Given the critical importance of also factoring in the allelic frequencies, it is unsurprising that studies accounting for this additional variable paint a much more vivid, and representational, picture of reality than the coarse and ambiguous outlines obtainable by accounting only for an allele’s presence. A recent such study analyzing the allelic frequencies used 642,690 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from more than a thousand subjects to calculate Wright’s fixation indices Fsts among the fifty-one different populations the subjects belonged to. This analysis reveals that, for instance, two randomly selected Frenchmen would, on average, be 18-fold more genetically related to each other than to a randomly selected Yoruba—a West African speaking a language of the Niger-Congo Family. In stark contrast, two randomly selected Frenchmen would, on average, be little more than 2.5 times as closely related to each other compared to a randomly selected Russian.
Needless to say, the fact that two random Frenchmen will, on average, share 18 times as many alleles between themselves as either of them would between a West African implies a very different reality than the one depicted by such misleading assertions—technically accurate, but irrelevant insofar as genetic relatedness is concerned—as “most genetic variation occurs between, rather than within, races” or “that all human genomes are 99.x% identical.”
Worldwide Human Relationships Inferred from Genome-Wide Patterns of Variation
1
My argument was that differences in intelligence are NOT due to genetics of race, and while you're obviously capable of rendering paragraph after paragraph on the topic of genetics (TLDR was invented for people like you, dude) you seem to have missed what the topic of the post was about. Not that it matters, because no ones read the topic but you and I anyway.
-1
...all peoples "possess equal biological ability to assimilate any human culture"
Can you point me to the studies that enumerate and quantify all biological abilities needed to assimilate any human culture? I'm not talking about the actual decree, but the studies upon which this conclusion has been established.
2
Can you click the link I very purposely put at the beginning of my post linking to the source of my post?
-1
2005 was a lovely year.