IQ Test

[youngalexander]

Recognising that the denizens of IIDB are well read and knowledgeable coves, I am curious as to your opinion of the veracity of the above questions.

I realise that many of them may be accompanied by ifs, buts and maybes - please remember the space restriction of their formulation. If need be simply refrain from voting.

Comments welcome of course.

[Tao of Pooh]

Um...dude...
What questions?:huh:

ETA: Never mind, I guess I caught the thread between OP & poll, they're there now.


I'm through searching for the meaning of life, all I want now is a cookie.

[premjan]

Intelligence has not been defined or measured in a manner independent of IQ tests. If we can't compare and measure the intelligence of, say, an octopus vs. a dolphin, then IQ tests are not meaningful in a broader context.

[Garrett]

I don't know much about cellular biology, but I've read that genes are not the only source of heredity. During mitosis, for example, the placement of the Golgi Apparatus is determined by the form and structure of the original cell, and not by the genes.

If I'm way off base, I'm sure someone will let me know.

[premjan]

I think that is known as epigenetics and is definitely a factor in inheritance of some acquired characteristics.

[Artie Jessup]

Good luck getting a sane debate on this topic.

[perfessor]

All this "heritability of IQ" talk has an aroma of "my dad is smarter than your dad" about it. Rather silly if you ask me.

[Jesse]

Can you provide a cite for the claim that "Genetic cluster analysis can distinguish self-identified race groups to ~ 0.1% error"? It's possible it's true, but you can't expect people to agree or disagree with a specific figure like that off the top of their heads. Here (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html) is a paper from Nature dealing with cluster analysis on geographic differences in gene distributions, I don't see any such figure there. The paper suggests that although european, african and asian populations separate into clusters in a fairly consistent way, groups that are less geographically isolated from each other cluster less consistently: Considering the results shown in Figures 2 and 3a, it might be tempting to conclude that genetic data verify traditional concepts about races. But the individuals used in these analyses originated in three geographically discontinuous regions: Europe, sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia. When a sample of South Indians, who occupy an intermediate geographic position (see also Fig. 1) is added to the analysis (Fig. 3b), considerable overlap is seen among these individuals and both the East Asian and European samples, probably as a result of numerous migrations from various parts of Eurasia into India during the past 10,000 years40. Thus, the South Indian individuals do not fall neatly into one of the categories usually conceived as a 'race'. And immediately after that they explain that even the three "main" groups cluster less consistently than the "0.1% error" you suggest: In addition, examination of the posterior probabilities estimated by structure shows that most individuals in Figure 3 are not classified with 100% probability into one of the main clusters32 (similar results were obtained in ref. 33). In other words, each individual within a cluster shares most, but not all, of his or her ancestry with other members of the cluster (e.g., a member of the European cluster might have a posterior probability of 90% for assignment to that cluster, with 5% probability of assignment into each of the other two clusters in Fig. 3a). Ancestry, then, is a more subtle and complex description of an individual's genetic makeup than is race41. This is in part a consequence of the continual mixing and migration of human populations throughout history. Because of this complex and interwoven history, many loci must be examined to derive even an approximate portrayal of individual ancestry.

[djrafikie]

My IQ is high, my brothers is low, we come from the same background. I think there is a genetic component, but I also think that the traits identified and used to determine IQ can be learned traits.

[youngalexander]

Can you provide a cite for the claim that "Genetic cluster analysis can distinguish self-identified race groups to ~ 0.1% error"? It's possible it's true, but you can't expect people to agree or disagree with a specific figure like that off the top of their heads. Here (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html) is a paper from Nature dealing with cluster analysis on geographic differences in gene distributions, I don't see any such figure there.
I have not sed anything re the sources of these propositions because I did not wish to bias the results. Thanks for the Nature link - a quick check seems to indicate that I did not have it.

[Jesse]

I have not sed anything re the sources of these propositions because I did not wish to bias the results. Why would you expect anyone to agree with a totally unsourced numerical figure, though? No rational person should do that, unless they happen to know a source which verifies it. That question is not a test of people's opinions about race and IQ, it's only a test of whether they would agree with random statistics purely on faith, or perhaps a test of whether they happen to have read exactly the same paper that you got it from.

[youngalexander]

a test of whether they happen to have read exactly the same paper that you got it from.
That is in fact what I am interested in. On the other hand, it is an IQ Test. Perhaps they might have googled...

[Jesse]

Does that mean you would prefer that I didn't post a link to the study you're referring to on this thread? Anyway, now that I've read it I'll just note that in the case of the "hispanic" cluster, the study mentions that all the self-described hispanics were Mexican-Americans from a single location in Texas, so it's likely that a study which included a larger geographic range of Hispanics would not differentiate them from other groups so well. Similarly, although it may be true that genetic testing of people in the U.S. could predict their self-described "race" with a high degree of accuracy, things would probably be a lot fuzzier if your sample included a geographic continuum from east asia to europe or from either of those to Northern Africa (the U.S. population may contain relatively few people whose ancestry is from these 'intermediate' regions). And it should also be noted that out of all the genes that vary from one human to another, other studies have shown that only about 5-10% show any significant correlation to race/ethnicity, it's only by specifically picking a large number of loci from this 5-10% or so that you can make accurate predictions about race.

[youngalexander]

Does that mean you would prefer that I didn't post a link to the study you're referring to on this thread?
Well, why do you suppose that I sent it to you privately? As a favor since you asked.
Anyway, now that I've read it I'll just note that in the case of the "hispanic" cluster, the study mentions that all the self-described hispanics were Mexican-Americans ...
As I sed in the OP there are ifs, buts & maybes. I dropped the '/ethnic' to save space. Obviously it is a complex question. I was interested in knowing what % of viewers had any knowledge of these developments. Possibly a bad question. Not a big deal.
And it should also be noted that out of all the genes that vary from one human to another, other studies have shown that only about 5-10% show any significant correlation to race/ethnicity, it's only by specifically picking a large number of loci from this 5-10% or so that you can make accurate predictions about race.
So? The point is that you can make such predictions - at least according to the authors of this paper.

[premjan]

Quality of upbringing has a definite influence on IQ or at least life outcomes and educational aptitude etc. IMO - from experience with observing various individuals within the same family - some who lost a parent early in life for instance.

[whichphilosophy]

Perhaps one factor that throws out the racial claim that every man woman and child today are decended from the African San Bushman, whose first migration out of Africa for Homo Sapians was just 2,000 generations ago (60,000 years or so). (See the Book Out of Africa, by scientist Spencer Wells).

Behind the Bell Curve is the ultra right wing "Pioneer Fund" who bank-rolled Murray and Herstein.

There is no evidence of any sub species of human and the differences we have are adaptations to different climatic and dietry conditions.

If we are all one race then the reason IQs differ cannot be on skin colour but more likely to point to different environmental conditions.

Thus I am sure that in future the racial concept of IQ will eventually be superseded.

[youngalexander]

Thank you one and all for participating. The poll having passed beyond the radar it is time for some discussion. I apologise for not responding to many comments (not that there have been many), but I’ve been waiting for the figures to build up. Keeping a lid on the situation, so to say.

We have a self selected sample of 48. Of these the following % were recorded agreeing with each proposition as of the time of this post.

Discussion:
17%: Genetic cluster analysis can distinguish self-identified race groups to ~ 0.1% error
I appreciate that this was a trifle bewildering, especially as I had to fit it into a limited space. However, as pointed out in a previous post I was interested in how widely this was known. A little judicious googling would easily have found the source. Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v76n2/41839/41839.html?erFrom=2993797780355693906Guest)
Abstract: We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure Program). Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. On the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within each race/ethnicity group. 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.
As Charles Murray says The Inequality Taboo (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/production/files/murray0905.html)
When a statistical procedure, blind to physical characteristics and working exclusively with genetic information, classifies 99.9 percent of the individuals in a large sample in the same way they classify themselves, it is hard to argue that race is imaginary.
How refreshing to deal with the reality of ‘hard’ science, rather than the fuzzy world of sociology. Perhaps when the work of Risch et al becomes better known we can dispense with the formulaic postmodernist bilge that race is only a ‘social construct’.

The next three (2, 3 & 4) are in fact the Three Laws of Behavior Genetics. See Steven Pinker’s Why nature & nurture won’t go away (http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/papers/nature_nurture.pdf) (pg 10) or The Blank Slate (http://www.amazon.com/Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial-Nature/dp/0670031518/sr=1-2/qid=1161638235/ref=pd_bbs_2/002-4213104-0777635?ie=UTF8&s=books) pg 373. He presents stacks of references to back this up of course. In addition there is Wiki Nature versus nurture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature-nurture).
Pinker: The nature-nurture debate is, of course, far from over when it comes to identifying the endowment shared by all human beings and understanding how it allows us to learn… But when it comes to the question of what makes people within mainstream society different from one another … the nature-nurture debate … really is over, or ought to be.
Well, apparently not!

8%: All human behavioral traits are heritable
”All traits are heritable” is a bit of an exaggeration, but not by much.

The results come out roughly the same no matter what is measured or how it is measured. Identical twins reared apart are highly similar; identical twins reared together are more similar than fraternal twins reared together; biological siblings are far more similar than adoptive siblings.
A conventional summary is that about half of the variation in intelligence, personality, and life outcomes is heritable

25%: effect of being raised in the same family is far smaller than that of genes
I added ‘far’ but otherwise this is the Second Law as per Pinker pg373. In fact the effect is close to zero.
First, adult siblings are equally similar whether they grew up together or apart. Second, adoptive siblings are no more similar than two people plucked off the street at random. And third, identical twins are no more similar than one would expect from the effects of their shared genes.

85%: Genes and families account for only part of complex behavioral traits
If genetics accounts for 50% and shared environment is negligible, then unique environment must be the other 50% of behavioral variation.


The propositions dealing with IQ are rather more controversial. Again Wiki has some excellent articles, try Race and intelligence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_and_race) – but they are nearly all disputed. There is a substantial reference base. Less controversial is the APA Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns (http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/Correlation/Intelligence.pdf) which supports 5 – 8 but claims that “no adequate explanation of the differential between the IQ means of Blacks and Whites is presently available”, unlike the survey below.


40%: IQ as measured by psychometric tests is a scientifically meaningful quantity

56%: IQ is a predictor of a range of occupational and social outcomes

81%: IQ is at least partially heritable, ie. has a genetic component

56%: For whatever reason, Black & White groups consistently differ in mean IQ

21%: Black & White group differences in mean IQ have a genetic component


Compare those with these from from Linda Gottfredson’s Suppressing Intelligence Research: Hurting Those We Intend to Help (http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2003suppressingintelligence.pdf)
The results of a 1984 survey (Snyderman & Rothman, 1988) of experts on intelligence and mental testing… Here in abbreviated form are the survey’s major questions and the 600 experts’ responses.

• Q: What are the important elements of intelligence?
A: “Near unanimity” (96-99%) for abstract thinking or reasoning, problem solving
ability, and capacity to acquire knowledge (p. 56).

• Q: Is intelligence best described as a single general factor with subsidiaries or as separate faculties?
A: A general factor (58%, or 67% of those responding; p. 71).

• Q: What heritability would you estimate for IQ differences within the white population?
A: Average estimate of 57% (p. 95).

• Q: What heritability would you estimate for IQ differences within the black population?
A: Average estimate of 57% (p. 95).

• Q: What is the source of the average black-white difference in IQ?
A: Both genetic and environmental (45%, or 52% of those responding; p. 128).

Finally we have:
50%: At least some of these questions are politically incorrect

17%: At least some of these questions are racist

Thank goodness there are less than 50% politically correct and only 17% racists.

[Major Billy]

Out of 49 responders, 40 believe that "IQ is at least partially heritable, ie. has a genetic component". Yet 29 do not agree that "IQ as measured by psychometric tests is a scientifically meaningful quantity".

For what reason do at least 20 of you believe that a scientifically meaningless quantity has a genetic component?

[fließendes]

I did not participate in this poll, because I don't have enough knowledge of a lot of the options.

However, I am interested in the social/emotional issue here. Why is race and intelligence an uncomfortable subject? Whether this belongs to a different thread I'll let the moderators decide.

I don't want to discuss it. I work closely with black people, white people, eastern-european immigrants, and others. I have not generally found that what I perceive as each person's IQ is any determinant of how good of company they are. In fact, I would say that applies to any ability they might posess that does not have direct baring on their job or how I experience interaction with them.

Most people have enough intelligence to carry on a conversation, make a living, and experience most of the things we all experience. What good is generalizing about peoples' intelligence with reference to racial or ethnic or genetic markers? In my life I deal with individuals. I don't negotiate with representatives of various races.

[Jesse]

17%: Genetic cluster analysis can distinguish self-identified race groups to ~ 0.1% error
I appreciate that this was a trifle bewildering, especially as I had to fit it into a limited space. However, as pointed out in a previous post I was interested in how widely this was known. A little judicious googling would easily have found the source. I doubt judicious googling would turn it up easily, since you gave an approximate figure as opposed to the more precise 0.14% error given in the paper, and there are plenty of other papers and articles on cluster analysis and race. Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v76n2/41839/41839.html?erFrom=2993797780355693906Guest) This link doesn't work for me (it says 'cookies required for access' even though cookies are activated in my browser, perhaps you need to be a subscriber to the journal to have the right cookies), but I found another copy of the same paper here (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v76n2/41839/41839.web.pdf).

Anyway, now that you've made the link public, maybe you could discuss the criticisms I made earlier of taking this figure as representitive of what you would find if you randomly sampled people from around the world? Here it is again: Anyway, now that I've read it I'll just note that in the case of the "hispanic" cluster, the study mentions that all the self-described hispanics were Mexican-Americans from a single location in Texas, so it's likely that a study which included a larger geographic range of Hispanics would not differentiate them from other groups so well. Similarly, although it may be true that genetic testing of people in the U.S. could predict their self-described "race" with a high degree of accuracy, things would probably be a lot fuzzier if your sample included a geographic continuum from east asia to europe or from either of those to Northern Africa (the U.S. population may contain relatively few people whose ancestry is from these 'intermediate' regions). In this article (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050409/bob9.asp) on genetics and race I saw a similar criticism: Risch's results have stirred up controversy among many geneticists. For instance, Mark Shriver of Pennsylvania State University in State College says that Risch's method "can overcluster people," making associations between individuals and their race that don't exist with other types of analyses. Shriver and others haven't found similar clusters when they applied a different computer program to similar data.

Shriver also contends that the study's separation of people into four racial groups shrinks the natural range of genetic variation, making people within each group seem more alike than they really are.

Rather than there being clear racial lines, says Shriver, "there's really a continuum of variation across the globe." If researchers sampled only people in Africa and Sweden, the genetic differences between the two groups would be striking. However, a sampling of people from Africa, Sweden, and everywhere in between would reveal only small differences between each population and its neighbors. "You won't see a place where you'll say, 'There's the racial divide,'" says Shriver. Then there is also the fact that other studies have shown a weaker association between self-described ethnicity and genetic clustering. I already linked to the Nature paper Genetic variation, classification and 'race' (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html) by Lynn B Jorde & Stephen P Wooding which found only a 90% chance that each person would be matched with the cluster that corresponded to the area most of their ancestors came from. So until the methods of Risch's study are replicated by other scientists using a range of populations, I think a scientifically-informed person should consider it premature to agree with your first quiz option. 8%: All human behavioral traits are heritable ”All traits are heritable” is a bit of an exaggeration, but not by much.

The results come out roughly the same no matter what is measured or how it is measured. Identical twins reared apart are highly similar; identical twins reared together are more similar than fraternal twins reared together; biological siblings are far more similar than adoptive siblings.
A conventional summary is that about half of the variation in intelligence, personality, and life outcomes is heritable I think the wording of the quiz option was ambiguous, a lot of people would probably say that to identify a trait as "heritable" would mean that most of the variation in the trait is due to heredity, as opposed to, say, 90% environment and 10% heredity. And despite what Pinker says, I think there is a big difference between "all traits are heritable" and "all of the major personality traits studied by psychologists and sociologists are heritable"--for example, even if "religiosity" is hereditable, whether a person becomes a Christian or a Muslim is likely to be entirely a matter of culture. 25%: effect of being raised in the same family is far smaller than that of genes
I added ‘far’ but otherwise this is the Second Law as per Pinker pg373. In fact the effect is close to zero. Yes, Judith Rich Harris' book The Nurture Assumption goes into a lot more detail on this, for those who are interested. Pinker cites this book a lot when discussing the fact that how you are raised has very little effect on your adult personality. 85%: Genes and families account for only part of complex behavioral traits
If genetics accounts for 50% and shared environment is negligible, then unique environment must be the other 50% of behavioral variation. Harris' hypothesis is that the environmental component mainly has to do with a person's peer group growing up rather than their parents, while Pinker also suggests a large role for chance in how neurons are laid out during the development of the brain in the fetus, which differs significantly even between identical twins. [B]40%: IQ as measured by psychometric tests is a scientifically meaningful quantity

56%: IQ is a predictor of a range of occupational and social outcomes

81%: IQ is at least partially heritable, ie. has a genetic component

56%: For whatever reason, Black & White groups consistently differ in mean IQ I would probably agree with all of these, although I'm not totally sure I know what criteria would be used to decide a quantity was "scientifically meaningful". 21%: Black & White group differences in mean IQ have a genetic component This is the one where I don't think there is any convincing evidence for it, since culture-based differences in the experiences of black children and white children growing up could easily explain the statistical differences seen in IQ tests, and although it is possible to control for a few obvious cultural factors like the socioeconomic status of their parents, most of the cultural factors (like how others are likely to view you based on your skin color, or internal average differences in 'black culture' vs. 'white culture') are impossible to control for. And wouldn't you agree that controlling other potentially significant variables besides the one you're interested in is the key to determining causality in science? Anyone who feels confident that the answer to your question is "yes" based only on current evidence probably does so either for ideological reasons, or because they don't understand what a good scientific argument should look like, IMO. I think the only thing that would qualify as clear evidence to support a genetic basis for group IQ differences, short of transplanting babies' brains into new bodies with different races and checking their IQs as adults, would be to identify specific genes associated with higher or lower IQs in all races, and show a pattern of different frequencies in different races.

[youngalexander]

I doubt judicious googling would turn it up easily, since you gave an approximate figure as opposed to the more precise 0.14% error given in the paper, and there are plenty of other papers and articles on cluster analysis and race.
Ah well, hindsight is a wonderful thing. No doubt I should have given it more thort. Originally had 3 questions trying to convey the gist in a syllogism but gave that up as a silly/bad/complicated idea. Try googling 'self identified race', but I guess you have to know what to look for.
This link doesn't work for me
Nor me. Work in haste repent at leisure. I usually check all the links before submitting, but 'she who must be obeyed' was calling so I took a punt. Curiously I have the same link as you, dunno where the other came from.

Anyway, now that you've made the link public, maybe you could discuss the criticisms I made earlier of taking this figure as representitive of what you would find if you randomly sampled people from around the world? Here it is again: In this article (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050409/bob9.asp) on genetics and race I saw a similar criticism:
Well obviously we do not know the details of the science from those articles. This has been discussed at IIDB in the thread Can humans be divided into races? (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=3820420#post3820420) which continues for several pages.
As I sed there, admixtures and clines in human populations are found thruout the planet. I do not think that anyone is proposing that somehow genetic cluster analysis can ignore this. The Risch group results have so far only been applied to N America & Taiwan as far as I know. Thus your comment Similarly, although it may be true that genetic testing of people in the U.S. could predict their self-described "race" with a high degree of accuracy, things would probably be a lot fuzzier if your sample included a geographic continuum from east asia to europe or from either of those to Northern Africa may well be the case. We shall have to wait and see. I take Shriver's point but what is Risch's method "can overcluster people," making associations between individuals and their race that don't exist with other types of analyses. Shriver and others haven't found similar clusters when they applied a different computer program to similar data. supposed to mean? Maybe Risch et al's methods are superior? Yes, I understand the necessity for replication of results, but it is not at all clear that the methods are comparable here.

Then there is also the fact that other studies have shown a weaker association between self-described ethnicity and genetic clustering. I already linked to the Nature paper Genetic variation, classification and 'race' (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html) by Lynn B Jorde & Stephen P Wooding which found only a 90% chance that each person would be matched with the cluster that corresponded to the area most of their ancestors came from. I do think that the underlined statement is quite the correct. The only mention (apart from referenced papers) of self-identified is in the conclusion.
Conclusions
Data from many sources have shown that humans are genetically homogeneous and that genetic variation tends to be shared widely among populations. Genetic variation is geographically structured, as expected from the partial isolation of human populations during much of their history. Because traditional concepts of race are in turn correlated with geography, it is inaccurate to state that race is "biologically meaningless." On the other hand, because they have been only partially isolated, human populations are seldom demarcated by precise genetic boundaries. Substantial overlap can therefore occur between populations, invalidating the concept that populations (or races) are discrete types.

When large numbers of loci are evaluated, it is often possible to infer individual ancestry, at least approximately. If done accurately and with appropriate reservations, ancestral inference may be useful in genealogical studies, in the forensic arena and in the design of case-control studies. This should not be confused, however, with the use of ethnicity or race (genetically measured or self-identified) to make decisions about drug treatment or other medical therapies. Responses to these therapies will often involve nongenetic factors and multiple alleles, and different populations will often share these alleles. When it finally becomes feasible and available, individual genetic assessment of relevant genes will probably prove more useful than race in medical decision making.
Clearly this is a dispute over the most efficacious methodology in medical procedures. The paper does not cite Tang et al so it has not taken the later findings into account. That paper does show a remarkable result - which perhaps may not be repeated with other sample. Remains to be seen.

So until the methods of Risch's study are replicated by other scientists using a range of populations, I think a scientifically-informed person should consider it premature to agree with your first quiz option. Perhaps, but I sought to inform and engage interest, rather than quiz. And as far as that paper is concerned it is a true claim.

Apologies: "swmbo" is calling. Have to pick up the grandaughter after school.
cont. later!

[Idolator]

Finally we have:
50%: At least some of these questions are politically incorrect

17%: At least some of these questions are racist

Thank goodness there are less than 50% politically correct and only 17% racists.
What do you mean by that? I agreed with both statements, not that I really give a damn or let it affect my opinions.

[youngalexander]

What do you mean by that? I agreed with both statements, not that I really give a damn or let it affect my opinions.
It's called 'stirring you out of your lethargy'.

Congrats: at least you noticed.

[youngalexander]

I already linked to the Nature paper Genetic variation, classification and 'race' by Lynn B Jorde & Stephen P Wooding which found only a 90% chance that each person would be matched with the cluster that corresponded to the area most of their ancestors came from.
OK, I have had a deeper look at the paper and it seems to me that the reference to 90% comes from ref 32 which is Human Population Genetic Structure and Inference of Group Membership (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1180234) which says
We assayed 100 Alu insertion polymorphisms in a heterogeneous collection of 565 individuals, 200 of whom were also typed for 60 microsatellites. Stripped of identifying information, correct assignment to the continent of origin (Africa, Asia, or Europe) with a mean accuracy of at least 90% required a minimum of 60 Alu markers or microsatellites and reached 99%100% when 100 loci were used. which would seem to agree with the stats from Risch et al. Whatever!

8%: All human behavioral traits are heritable
I think the wording of the quiz option was ambiguous, a lot of people would probably say that to identify a trait as "heritable" would mean that most of the variation in the trait is due to heredity, as opposed to, say, 90% environment and 10% heredity. And despite what Pinker says, I think there is a big difference between "all traits are heritable" and "all of the major personality traits studied by psychologists and sociologists are heritable
So do I. Given 'me druthers' I may have chosen different words. Yet, suppose that I had? This is a sensitive subject. I stuck 'religiously' to Pinker's script.

25%: effect of being raised in the same family is far smaller than that of genes
Yes, Judith Rich Harris' book The Nurture Assumption goes into a lot more detail on this, for those who are interested."
It's a difficult concept, not fully appreciated by professionals according to Pinker. I'm not surprised - tried to explain it to my children, ie. the parents of my granchildren - not so easy. Harris, on the booklist, haven't got there yet.

21%: Black & White group differences in mean IQ have a genetic component
This is the one where I don't think there is any convincing evidence for it, since culture-based differences in the experiences of black children and white children growing up could easily explain the statistical differences seen in IQ tests, and although it is possible to control for a few obvious cultural factors like the socioeconomic status of their parents, most of the cultural factors (like how others are likely to view you based on your skin color, or internal average differences in 'black culture' vs. 'white culture') are impossible to control for.
The most detailed hereditarian case is given by THIRTY YEARS OF RESEARCH ON RACE DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY (http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/~mbmiller/journals/pppl/200504/2/235-2.html) by Rushton and Jensen. The Wiki files and referenceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_and_race are comprehensive.

Tis a very odd circumstance this. We have a select group of skeptical, scientifically knowledgeable, heathens. I put it to you, is the hereditarian case not at least possible? Does it not fit the evidence (all the evidence) more thoroughly than a 100% cultural hypothesis.:huh:

[premjan]

I bet there are a lot of other traits that are found to correlate a little with race - for instance territoriality, aggression, cooperation, personal space, etc. etc.

For Latinos, I bet there are a lot of people of "Indian" (Native American) heritage who should be in a separate cluster from "Hispanic" since Hispanic just means a racial combination between Native American, Black and White. Self-described race as observed in places like the "New World" and Australia are really mongrelized versions of much more subtle variations that are observed in the "Old World". I mean can you explain discrimination of Chinese against Tibetans or Japanese against Koreans on racial grounds? What's the meaningful racial difference between them? Why do Filipinos perform worse than other East Asians even though they are pretty much the same race? Etc. Etc. the real picture is more complex than the gross simplifications which are made especially by people living in modern melting pot immigrant cultures.

The thing with IQ is that education or hard work can go some distance towards erasing life outcome differences - often people can accomplish at the same level if they are permitted sufficient preparation to make up gaps in aptitude - and culture can maintain aptitude at possibly higher than IQ mandated levels. And people of higher aptitude may not always be inclined to perform at a level commensurate with their aptitude possibly due to cultural differences.

Also, even though IQ shows a certain difference in aptitude at solving set word problems between people, due at least partially to nature, real life problems involve achieving results by trying different possible methods. Academic training maybe reduces on your feet intelligence a little bit? I would even expect literacy to correlate with a small decrease in some aspects of intelligence as it ties up certain cognitive paths. Motivation may play a big role in life achievement and may compensate partially for IQ. Anyway IQ studies as they stand are just a way to reinforce racism - what other social purpose can they usefully serve? Other than the touted 'pure' motive of intellectual illumination - I doubt this sort of research is terribly difficult to do - it is not a great illumination IMO of the researcher's shining intelligence anyway. If I were picking a good area to research, I wouldn't pick something with as little intellectual challenge as this.

[youngalexander]

I doubt this sort of research is terribly difficult to do - it is not a great illumination IMO of the researcher's shining intelligence anyway. If I were picking a good area to research, I wouldn't pick something with as little intellectual challenge as this.
Saints preserve us! It's enough to turn a man to religion - or at least strong drink.:banghead:

[premjan]

Saints preserve us! It's enough to turn a man to religion - or at least strong drink.:banghead:

He can question my (group's) intelligence, I can question his (group's) intelligence. Fair is fair. Intelligence is on par with "humanness". Once you question it the gloves are basically off. Human rights can be denied to people with subhuman intelligence (e.g. they could be forcibly institutionalized).

[Berthold]

A good debunking of possible fallacies derived from correctly obtained results can be found in Stephen Jay Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man", new edition (shortly before he died), appendix on "The Bell Curve".

ETA: The poll contains no options for Gould's argumentation.

[premjan]

Now I am gradually becoming motivated to find out the actual IQ of researchers in this field (race-IQ correlations) vs. other neighboring fields. If I find that they are on average a little lower IQ, with mostly White/East Asian people of trailer trash origins (not unlike the way Nazis and Neo-Nazis got started) with an axe to grind (trying to compensate for something), trying to inflate their self-worth by emphasizing their group membership, I will be well on the road to having a sort of research career myself.

[Monkey Wrench]

I believe the I.Q. differences between blacks and white is largely caused by culture and economic station. I've also noticed a colleration between the decrease in the gap between black and white I.Q.'s and the decrease in racism.
I site culture because many of you may or may not have noticed that African Americans speak a language of their own that is terriblely ingrammatic.This fact can't make the standard school experience easy on your average black child.
One very notable point is that many blacks live in poverty, poverty leads to crime and as a result many black children have fathers who are in prison. A single parent house holds mean lower income as well as less time for parental nuturing.

[ohwilleke]

There is little doubt in my mind that the common sense notion of race is connected to particular observable physical characterists associated with an individual's ancestry.

A third party who is part of the same culture as the person observed, who observes someone even very briefly, will in the vast majority of cases conclude that the person observed is of the same race with which they identify. Maintaining a personal racial identity at odds with what a third party would tend to expect based upon cursory observation is difficult.

Inheritability is also pretty clear. A child's common sensical race, moreover, can in the vast majority of cases be accurately determined from the parent's race, at least when both parents are of the same race.

But, this doesn't mean that the characteristics that are commonly associated with race are particularly important, unless you are casting director for a movie or a fashion and hair styling consultant. Certainly, all humans alive today are homo sapiens sapiens and are fully capable of cross fertilizing and producing fertile children, which is the most common definition of a species.

The Flynn Effect, in particular, is strong evidence to suggest that an important share of interracial differences in IQ test performance have environmental causes -- with poor nutrition and exposure to pollutants in low income housing being particularly important likely culprits, especially at the low end of the scale.

The manner in which people at this time and place cluster people by race is also not fundamental. For example, the census has had different race categories in almost every couple of iterations, and the way race is categorized differs materially from culture to culture. The categories into which Brazilians divide people are not the same as the categories into which Americans do. There are categories of people who are systemically ill defined in contemporary American racial classification systems (for example, mestizos and Arab Americans and some people from the Indian subcontinent). There are also distinctions that were once important and considered racial (such as those between Northern Europeans and Southern Europeans) that have faded from public consciousness for a variety of reasons.

Customary racial classification is likely to change further over time as intermarriage in places like the United States further blends ancesteral genetic links from particular geographic areas. Tiger Woods, who has a multiethic ancestry, is the face of the future. Given half a dozen generations, individuals of mixed racial ancestry may very well outnumber those whose ancestry derives from only a single continent.

[Monkey Wrench]

^
^
I'm a 1/4 native american,1/4 german and the rest is irish and who knows what else. The father of my children is 1/4 african american with a mix of spanish, jewish and arab. Our children all have I.Q.'s well above average(haven't been tested, but it's pretty obvious) as do myself and their father. Hybrid vigor !