Interesting musings on IQ and the Wealth of Nations

[Caligastia]

It's one post above you. Made simple for all to understand.

Nope, don't see it.

[aneeshm]

I read the articles and they do not say so clearly that environment can be dismissed because the environment of early childhood development likely have a long term impact on intelligence. What you are trying to claim is that those early effects of environment disappear as someone gets older. Without that your entire argument falls flat on its ignorant and biased face.

Neither the articles nor I dismissed the environment or its role; you are missing crucial nuances, and reading things into my writing which are not there. To address the point you raised in greater detail, the role of infant and early child development is quite important. There is a single childhood intervention which has been associated with a seven-point rise in adult IQ, and that is breastfeeding. Babies who are breastfed are seen to have, on average, an IQ which is seven points higher than those who are not. At the moment, the mechanism of this rise is not known; it could be the composition of the breast-milk, it could be the physiological or psychological effects of that particular touch during infant and child development, it could be a combination of these, or it could be something else entirely. But this is one of those things which can be applied immediately, and which mothers can be advised to do today and now.

Second, I am of the opinion (I haven't looked into it further, though) that adult IQ is heavily influenced by childhood nutrition, if that nutrition is below a certain threshold. That is, up to a certain quality and quantity, nutrition is very important. But once a "threshold" is reached, the potential of nutrition to further affect IQ is practically negligible. I am also of the opinion that as far as the modern world is concerned, that threshold has either been reached or can be reached in an affordable manner, with a small investment of time and care. In any case, I do not see it as a confounding factor in the studies I mentioned.

To address your next point, I would say that you are again misreading or over-reading whatever has been written. That the influence of childhood environment wanes over time is known. That it disappears is ridiculous, and a claim neither I nor anyone else has made.

I read your articles here as well. While you cite this statistic, you don't mention the explanations for it. Numerous social factors are considered that were not controlled for, while heredity is dismissed because "despite endless speculation, no one has found genetic evidence indicating that blacks have less innate intellectual ability than whites." I guess you missed that part in your research.

I have cited my sources, including the original research from which it was culled. I would request you to provide me with yours. As it turns out, that quotation is from a book on this topic which is, it appears, endlessly quoted verbatim on the Internet. I, however, do not see the research behind it. Could you give me a link to the specific paper?

As for the "dismissal" of heredity as a factor, I would say that it is tremendously misguided, and that this "dismissal" alone would be enough to make me doubt the veracity of that source. The authors are either claiming that the APA is a bunch of idiots, or that heredity doesn't work for blacks but works for all other races.

Next, the "consideration" of social factors without any studies done to test them is meaningless. Again, I don't want to make any hasty judgements, so I'll wait for you to give me your sources.

Further, as concerns this particular quotation, it turns out that the "gap" they are referring to is that of subject and school evaluations, which are not known to correlate as well with IQ as the SAT or other tests of that nature. If you read the NYT review of that book, you'll notice that they're trying to use the reduction in the disparity of achievement scores to dismiss the disparity in IQ, which is misleading at best and dishonest at worst. For a more honest look at this issue, which includes the relevant data, look here.

Lastly, the reason that no-one has found "genetic" evidence for the disparities is because we had neither the instruments nor the data for anything of this nature. Only the general heritability is known; the genes "for" intelligence are not. I expect these genes to be found as the genetic mapping of the human genome of different races and groups continues. Some genes with significant correspondence with IQ (or one of its specific sub-abilities) have already been found, most notably those "for" proficiency in language and speech.

That's a bold conclusion to make. As I already stated there are factors that you have overlooked and that heredity information has not be found. The studied means between white and black IQ's cannot be treated as genetic differences given the current evidence. Therefore, blacks may be regressing to a lower mean than whites, but you can not claim that it is because of genetic deficiencies.

At the moment, it isn't a conclusion, it's an observation, one the truth of which you have already conceded. Whether it is a product of genetics is not yet fully "proven" in the sense you want it to be, but genetics would be the most parsimonious explanation given everything else we know about the topic, both inductively and deductively.

Secondly, the question of "deficiencies" is one that does not arise. It is not productive, in my opinion, to treat group differences as if they had a moral component. They are simply statistical phenomena of aggregates.

Thirdly, the heritability of IQ refers explicitly to the component of heredity as an explanatory factor in the variability of IQ. Given all the other data that we have up to this point, including that genetics is the only mechanism we know of for heredity, genetics would be the most parsimonious explanation. To claim that it is "dismissed" based on a few quotations from a book review or summary is, I think, premature.

Done. Conclusion: You are either extremely dishonest or extremely stupid.

In that case, I think it would be better for us to agree to disagree and conclude this discussion, and leave the question to the judgement of history (in the long run) and our peers here (in the short).

EDIT: Fixed a typo.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I don't like the use of "political" language, such as 'proponent', in discussions like this.

Your opinion is noted and duly dismissed, O foreign person in possession of a flawed grasp of English semantics.

If you have a problem with his research or his claims, I'd request you to state it outright, instead of resorting to cowardly tactics such as these.

The problem is with your presenting his work as a handy overview of the broad topic, without mentioning that he work is contentious among scientists. Hence my mentioning it.

If you have a problem with that, try complaining to someone who isn't me.

[Heraclitus]

:sigh: Because that is exactly what will happen if you apply his kind of "equality."

I want to understand your position better. Could you please comment on affirmative action in the world of Dystopia?

[aneeshm]

The problem is with your presenting his work as a handy overview of the broad topic, without mentioning that he work is contentious among scientists. Hence my mentioning it.

If you have a problem with that, try complaining to someone who isn't me.

It is a good thing, then, that the Wikipedia contains exactly the same information. The only difference is that the linked article aggregates and condenses the bits more pertinent to this discussion.

[DaShi]

Neither the articles nor I dismissed the environment or its role; you are missing crucial nuances, and reading things into my writing which are not there.

No, I understand you perfectly. Probably better than you do or want me to.

To address the point you raised in greater detail, the role of infant and early child development is quite important. There is a single childhood intervention which has been associated with a seven-point rise in adult IQ, and that is breastfeeding. Babies who are breastfed are seen to have, on average, an IQ which is seven points higher than those who are not. At the moment, the mechanism of this rise is not known; it could be the composition of the breast-milk, it could be the physiological or psychological effects of that particular touch during infant and child development, it could be a combination of these, or it could be something else entirely. But this is one of those things which can be applied immediately, and which mothers can be advised to do today and now.

Great. Thanks for that. It doesn't add to the discussion, but I guess it must make you feel smart. But that's what this whole thing is about isn't it. You have certain biased views of the world and since you believe yourself to be so smart, they must be correct evidence or lack of be damned.

Second, I am of the opinion (I haven't looked into it further, though) that adult IQ is heavily influenced by childhood nutrition, if that nutrition is below a certain threshold. That is, up to a certain quality and quantity, nutrition is very important. But once a "threshold" is reached, the potential of nutrition to further affect IQ is practically negligible. I am also of the opinion that as far as the modern world is concerned, that threshold has either been reached or can be reached in an affordable manner, with a small investment of time and care. In any case, I do not see it as a confounding factor in the studies I mentioned.

You lack vision to be a scientist at anything above a US high school level. Frankly, I thought they taught you better in India.

To address your next point, I would say that you are again misreading or over-reading whatever has been written. That the influence of childhood IQ wanes over time is known. That it disappears is ridiculous, and a claim neither I nor anyone else has made.

Great. Nice to know. By the way, I didn't say anything like any of this.

I have cited my sources, including the original research from which it was culled. I would request you to provide me with yours. As it turns out, that quotation is from a book on this topic which is, it appears, endlessly quoted verbatim on the Internet. I, however, do not see the research behind it. Could you give me a link to the specific paper?

Everything I said comes from your own sources. You should know that. You did read them, didn't you?

As for the "dismissal" of heredity as a factor, I would say that it is tremendously misguided, and that this "dismissal" alone would be enough to make me doubt the veracity of that source. The authors are either claiming that the APA is a bunch of idiots, or that heredity doesn't work for blacks but works for all other races.

Now I know you didn't read your own sources. That's what you get when you rely on a review by a single person with an agenda.

Next, the "consideration" of social factors without any studies done to test them is meaningless. Again, I don't want to make any hasty judgements, so I'll wait for you to give me your sources.

Seriously, stay away from science. You'll just embarrass yourself.

Further, as concerns this particular quotation, it turns out that the "gap" they are referring to is that of subject and school evaluations, which are not known to correlate as well with IQ as the SAT or other tests of that nature. If you read the NYT review of that book, you'll notice that they're trying to use the reduction in the disparity of achievement scores to dismiss the disparity in IQ, which is misleading at best and dishonest at worst. For a more honest look at this issue, which includes the relevant data, look here.

Actually, you should read closer. It does include IQ tests and the SAT. Frankly, this is tiresome for me.

Lastly, the reason that no-one has found "genetic" evidence for the disparities is because we had neither the instruments nor the data for anything of this nature. Only the general heritability is known; the genes "for" intelligence are not. I expect these genes to be found as the genetic mapping of the human genome of different races and groups continues. Some genes with significant correspondence with IQ (or one of its specific sub-abilities) have already been found, most notably those "for" proficiency in language and speech.

Great, but until they are found, you can't use them to make the racially bigoted remarks that you do here.

At the moment, it isn't a conclusion, it's an observation, one the truth of which you have already conceded. Whether it is a product of genetics is not yet fully "proven" in the sense you want it to be, but genetics would be the most parsimonious explanation given everything else we know about the topic, both inductively and deductively.

I've conceded nothing. I don't believe at all that genetics explain the difference. If research later proves otherwise, I will have to reconsider that point. At the moment, only racism would guide someone to taut the conclusions that you are treating as facts. There's no logic to your point, no matter how much you want to believe that. Of course, that maybe another part of the problem. You may truly believe that you are being logical. Perhaps you are not being dishonest afterall.

Secondly, the question of "deficiencies" is one that does not arise. It is not productive, in my opinion, to treat group differences as if they had a moral component. They are simply statistical phenomena of aggregates.

But you are drawing conclusions that aren't really supported by the statistics to categorize intelligence by race. This goes back the correlation not equating to causation statement made here earlier. Since you are making claims without evidence, do not pretend that you are looking at this rationally.

Thirdly, the heritability of IQ refers explicitly to the component of heredity as an explanatory factor in the variability of IQ. Given all the other data that we have up to this point, including that genetics is the only mechanism we know of for heredity, genetics would be the most parsimonious explanation. To claim that it is "dismissed" based on a few quotations from a book review or summary is, I think, premature.

The point doesn't change that not only can you not prove it, it hasn't been proved by researchers trying to prove it. Since you don't have the evidence to support your conclusion, it is premature (and racist) of you to claim that one race is inherently smarter than another.

In that case, I think it would be better for us to agree to disagree and conclude this discussion, and leave the question to the judgement of history (in the long run) and our peers here (in the short).

There is no agree or disagree here. I am clearly in the right as my "conclusions" acknowledge the limits of current knowledge. You are, frankly, wrong. Even if the evidence does redeem your conclusion, you still came to it for the wrong reason: racism.

[DaShi]

Ok DaShi have you ever heard of thesting your hypothesis in the worst of possible worlds? Now this is hypothetical I'm not asking you to change your mind. Ready? Lets call this scenario Dystopia:
Ok, in the world of Dystopia Black genotype (genetic) IQ is a standard deviation lower than that of Whites. Their incomes, accumulated wealth, education and employment where consisten with what a group of Whites of the same IQ would have. If in such a world they have affirmative action identical to what we have here. Is affirmative action racist in such a world?

Look, no matter what you say, I'm not going to justify your racism for you. Not going to happen, no matter how little sleep I've had.

[Caligastia]

No, I understand you perfectly. Probably better than you do or want me to.

At the moment, only racism would guide someone to taut the conclusions that you are treating as facts.

So...you "probably" understand aneeshm better than he understands himself, and the only possible reason for his opinions is racism? Well, it's pretty tough to argue against someone who confidently ascribes motives to you, and claims an intimate understanding of you. What a surreal conversation!

Can we nail you down to a position on this whole issue Dashi?

[DaShi]

Since I have made my position clear, I suspect that the reason that you want to "nail" me down on a position is because my current position is irrefutable and you wish to attack me from a different angle. This would allow you to demonize me and further give yourself justification for your own racist views. But actually, Frank Rich described it best. You aren't just trying to justify your racism that still stigmatizes you as a racist. You want to mask your racism so that you can express it freely without have it be called what it really is.

[Heraclitus]

Look, no matter what you say, I'm not going to justify your racism for you. Not going to happen, no matter how little sleep I've had.

I don't want you to do that. I just want you to comment on that hypothecial example.

Since I have made my position clear, I suspect that the reason that you want to "nail" me down on a position is because my current position is irrefutable and you wish to attack me from a different angle. This would allow you to demonize me and further give yourself justification for your own racist views. But actually, Frank Rich described it best. You aren't just trying to justify your racism that still stigmatizes you as a racist. You want to mask your racism so that you can express it freely without have it be called what it really is.

Seriusly if the views expressed in this thread here make me a racist, then I'm a proud racist. I don't need to mask it, I don't need to apologize for it. I don't see 5 lights my friend.



Can you just please exlain then why aneeshm is a racist too? I mean he's basically been arguing not only that Jews and East Asians have higher IQ's due to genetic components (like Whites do) but that Whites have a higher IQ than Indians (if we simplify this genetically very diverse population to one group and average it out). Heck I'm basically arguing that Slovenia will never be Sweden because we are probably dumber! How is this anything like Hitler's gost or KKKism people always invoke when using the race card? I don't know about the others but I'm trying to "nail down" your position to figure out if it makes sense! Let me repeat I really really really want a world where there aren't group differences in IQ since this would mean that we could someday get rid of global inequality and it would be easier to solve our environmental problems!

[Caligastia]

Since I have made my position clear, I suspect that the reason that you want to "nail" me down on a position is because my current position is irrefutable and you wish to attack me from a different angle. This would allow you to demonize me and further give yourself justification for your own racist views. But actually, Frank Rich described it best. You aren't just trying to justify your racism that still stigmatizes you as a racist. You want to mask your racism so that you can express it freely without have it be called what it really is.

It's hard to refute a position that hasn't been articulated. Can we say you are of the opinion that differing environments completely explain racial differences? Or are you somewhat agnostic on this?

[Heraclitus]

But these are hardly 'races', throughout history this would be rather things like families, tribes, clans, nations, realms, states etc.

Hey BeBro I think this is somewhat related to your question.

I originally noticed this in Dienekes' Antropology Blog
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/02...in-global.html

Genome Biology doi:10.1186/gb-2010-11-1-r10

Characterization of X-Linked SNP genotypic variation in globally-distributed human populations

Amanda M Casto et al.

Abstract

Background
The transmission pattern of the human X chromosome reduces its population size relative to the autosomes, subjects it to disproportionate influence by female demography, and leaves X-linked mutations exposed to selection in males. As a result, the analysis of X-linked genomic variation can provide insights into the influence of demography and selection on the human genome. Here we characterize the genomic variation represented by 16,297 X-linked SNPs genotyped in the CEPH human genome diversity project samples.

Results
We found that X chromosomes tend to be more differentiated between human populations than autosomes with several notable exceptions. Comparisons between genetically distant populations also showed an excess of X-linked SNPs with large allele frequency differences. Combining information about these SNPs with results from tests designed to detect selective sweeps, we identified two regions that were clear outliers from the rest of the X chromosome for haplotype structure and allele frequency distribution. We were also able to more precisely define the geographical extent of some previously described X-linked selective sweeps.

Conclusions
The relationship between male and female demographic histories is likely to be complex as evidence supporting different conclusions can be found in the same dataset. Although demography may have contributed to the excess of SNPs with large allele frequency differences observed on the X chromosome, we believe that selection is at least partially responsible. Finally, our results reveal the geographical complexities of selective sweeps on the X chromosome and argue for the use of diverse populations in studies of selection.

Picture and Dienekes' comment:

[

The frappe analysis for K=7 using ~16k and ~19k X chromosome (top) and Chromosome 16 (bottom) SNPs is shown. The pattern is almost identical.

This showcases the fallacy of a common objection to the concept of "race", namely that it is "trait-specific" and by looking at one trait (or locus) we will arrive at one racial classification, while looking at another wew will arrive at another.

The fact that by looking at two completely independently inherited pieces of DNA we arrive at the same conclusion is strong visual evidence that race is neither (a) a subjective property which depends on which part of the genome we look at, nor (b) a holistic property that can only be inferred by looking at the individual in toto.

[Caligastia]

Since I have made my position clear, I suspect that the reason that you want to "nail" me down on a position is because my current position is irrefutable and you wish to attack me from a different angle. This would allow you to demonize me and further give yourself justification for your own racist views. But actually, Frank Rich described it best. You aren't just trying to justify your racism that still stigmatizes you as a racist. You want to mask your racism so that you can express it freely without have it be called what it really is.

This is just really funny to me. So many contradictions. So paranoid! Can we please just have a civil discussion DaShi? I promise I won't bite!

[Heraclitus]

I still don't get what's with the whole "your racism that still stigmatizes you as a racist" thing. I don't mind being called a heretic when the evidence is behind me and my hypothesis is the simplest possible one that dosen't have contraindications.

[Drake Tungsten]

So, have we re-resolved the racial discussions of the 1930's yet?