Article reveals racial IQ gap is not genetic

Discussion in 'Race Relations' started by Egalitarianjay02, Sep 8, 2015.

  1. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The high heritability of IQ is irrelavent to the cause of group differences in IQ. If you don't understand the argument that is your fault not mine.

    Your lack of understanding heritability and quantitative genetics renders most of your post meaningless.

    The paper in the OP. You know the one:

    • Race, Genomics, and IQ: Slight Return for Intelligence Quotient: Testing, Role of Genetics and the Environment and Social Outcomes, Ed. Joseph Kush, Nova Scientific Publishers, pp. 69 –86 (2013)

    Are you not able to use Megaupload links or read PDF documents? What reason do you have not to respond to the research in the opening post?


    What he referenced was a book.

    Introduction to Quantitative Genetics by Douglas S. Falconer

    https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Quantitative-Genetics-Douglas-Falconer/dp/0582243025

    The lastest edition of this classic text continues to provide the basis for understanding the genetic principles behind quantitative differences in phenotypes and how they apply to animal and plant improvement and evolution. It extends these concepts to the segregation of genes that cause genetic variation in quantitative traits. Key techniques and methods are also covered.

    The Amazon link says the book is in its 4th Edition. Expecting Graves to reference a page number during a Q&A session of a panel discussion is unrealistic. You can get the book and read it if you are that curious.

    Wikipedia and other online sources have some good free information on experimental quantitative genetics.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_genetics

    Gene effects

    In diploid organisms, the average genotypic "value" (locus value) may be defined by the allele "effect" together with a dominance effect, and also by how genes interact with genes at other loci (epistasis). The founder of quantitative genetics - Sir Ronald Fisher - perceived much of this when he proposed the first mathematics of this branch of genetics.[8]

    Being a statistician, he defined the gene effects as deviations from a central value—enabling the use of statistical concepts such as mean and variance, which use this idea.[9] The central value he chose for the gene was the midpoint between the two opposing homozygotes at the one locus. The deviation from there to the "greater" homozygous genotype can be named "+a" ; and therefore it is "-a" from that same midpoint to the "lesser" homozygote genotype. This is the "allele" effect mentioned above. The heterozygote deviation from the same midpoint can be named "d", this being the "dominance" effect referred to above.[10] The diagram depicts the idea. However, in reality we measure phenotypes, and the figure also shows how observed phenotypes relate to the gene effects. Formal definitions of these effects recognize this phenotypic focus.[11][12] Epistasis has been approached statistically as interaction (i.e., inconsistencies),[13] but epigenetics suggests a new approach may be needed.

    If 0<d<a, the dominance is regarded as partial or incomplete—while d=a indicates full or classical dominance. Previously, d>a was known as "over-dominance".[14]

    Mendel's pea attribute "length of stem" provides us with a good example.[3] Mendel stated that the tall true-breeding parents ranged from 6–7 feet in stem length (183 – 213 cm), giving a median of 198 cm (= P1). The short parents ranged from 0.75–1.25 feet in stem length (23 – 46 cm), with a rounded median of 34 cm (= P2). Their hybrid ranged from 6–7.5 feet in length (183–229 cm), with a median of 206 cm (= F1). The mean of P1 and P2 is 116 cm, this being the phenotypic value of the homozygotes midpoint (mp). The allele affect (a) is [P1-mp] = 82 cm = -[P2-mp]. The dominance effect (d) is [F1-mp] = 90 cm.[15] This historical example illustrates clearly how phenotype values and gene effects are linked.

    The information provided by the link confirms the position of Graves:

    • The racialists are claiming things about genes and their relationship to phenotypes. I am not. Thus, they must make a positive argument for how genetic differences between the so-called races are responsible for any measured difference in phenotype. Since they cannot make a positive argument, they cannot make the claim. Thus the burden of proof is on them.

      I have never said that I can "prove" that genetic differences are not responsible for measured phenotypic differences. What I have said is that what we know about genotype through phenotype relationships makes such a claim highly unreasonable. Thus population genetic theory supports my position. In addition, a number of experiments on gene x environment interaction support my position. In the case of the racialists, population genetic theory does not support their position and they can not produce any credible experiments that produce their position. Under these conditions, scientists would say that their claims are bogus. - Joseph Graves


    Comments like this are why I can not take you seriously in debate. This is similar to when you asked me how Blacks not being able to use the same bathroom as Whites during segregation had an impact on IQ.

    These are not serious questions. You are dodging responding to a scientific argument (see: Question Begging Fallacy) with not so subtle attempts at mockery (see: Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy).

    You have displayed an inability to understand a scientific position, the core concepts underlying that position or the evidence supporting it and keep making unreasonable demands for a defense of a position which is not considered to be a scientific controversy.

    • PSEUDOSCIENCE often pretends to be one side of a legitimate scientifc controversy. That is, pseudoscientists like to pretend that “the jury is still out,” and that “further research” is needed to clarify the validity of their beliefs. This is essentially never the case. There is no controversy among astronomers concerning astrology— they unanimously agree it is nonsense. There is no controversy among physicists concerning Velikovsky's ideas— they are unanimously condemned as simply wrong. There is no controversy among biologists regarding “Intelligent Design”— it is dismissed as a set of religion-based beliefs empty of scientific content. There is no case known to me in which a pseudoscientist's claims have taken advantage of any genuine scientific controversy. Instead, pseudoscientists operate entirely outside science, and their claims and beliefs are not relevant to any known scientific puzzle or uncertainty. One frightening trend observed more and more strongly during the last half of the 20th Century was the incorporation of contrarian pseudoscience into the core beliefs of various fundamentalist religions, so that today a fundamentalist is almost certain to deny the facts of global warming, biological evolution, human origins, etc., and to affirm that basic scientific research is essentially of no value.

      There is general agreement among interested observers that, over the past two decades, Americans have grown increasingly indifferent to the often-demonstrated fact of their ignorance of even the most basic scientific discoveries of the last four centuries, and increasingly unconcerned that US K-12 students generally tie for last place in knowledge of math and science, in comparisons among 70 or more nations. An actual and naked hostility to science and scholarship has been tied up seemingly inextricably with political and religious ultra-conservatism. This attitude of distrust and dislike of science, mathematics and rational thought in general very obviously has an entirely negative educational impact. And ultimately, such hostile attitudes must result in an ever-increasing popularity for various pseudosciences, particularly those which can adapt themselves to the prevailing political and religious dogmas.


    This is a strawman argument. You keep asking me to prove X, Y and Z over and over and over when the position is that multiple environmental variables impact IQ (not necessarily over the course of a lifetime and they are malleable) and do so in complex ways. Multiple forms of psychological disturbance for example which are not measurable in a meaningful way can impact IQ and behavior over the course of someone's life as can stereotype threat. Since the environmental conditions are not equal and can not be made equal you can not make the claim that comparisons of measured intelligence between groups is caused by genetic differences. You can't do it. You can repeat the same argument over and over but your claim has no credibility.

    I haven't time to repeatedly respond over and over to someone who doesn't debate in good faith, doesn't understand the argument, misrepresents my position and ignores evidence.

    So we're done. Have a good day.

    This is good post. Turkheimer understands the argument and the blatant racism of this pseudoscientific propaganda. I had a good discussion with him and I'm greatful to him for recommending Nisbett's book which is a compliment to my other sources that establish a scientific consensus for the position that racial IQ gaps are caused 100% by environmental differences (Pure Environmental Model).

    Scientific Consensus

    Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.

    List of Scientific Organizations representing Scientific Consensus supporting my sources:

    1. The American Psychological Association

    2. The American Anthropological Association

    3. The Genetics Society of America

    4. The National Academy of Sciences

    5. The American Institute of Biological Sciences
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2018
    Jabrosky, Derideo_Te and arborville like this.

Share This Page