How much are genetic variations responsible for the U.S. black-white IQ differences?

[ApostateAbe]

The black-white average IQ gap in the USA is an established fact in psychology, and estimates of the gap range from 10 to 15 points. The existence of the gap is not the question, but the cause of the gap is the question and often debated. The cause of the gap could be either genetic variations, environmental variations (education, diet, health, etc.), or both. In your personal opinion, how much are genetic variations responsible for the U.S. black-white IQ differences? If you are unsure (and I believe everyone should be at least a little unsure), then take your best guess. The poll is anonymous.

 

[Jokodo]

The black-white average IQ gap in the USA is an established fact in psychology, and estimates of the gap range from 10 to 15 points. The existence of the gap is not the question, but the cause of the gap is the question and often debated. The cause of the gap could be either genetic variations, environmental variations (education, diet, health, etc.), or both. In your personal opinion, how much are genetic variations responsible for the U.S. black-white IQ differences? If you are unsure (and I believe everyone should be at least a little unsure), then take your best guess. The poll is anonymous.

The poll is incomplete. 0 and 100% are not the extreme values. You have to include negative numbers (and possibly numbers above 100%) too: It's entirely possible that if it were for genetics alone, blacks would be on average a few points more intelligent than whites but that difference overshadowed by environmental factors acting in the opposite direction. It is also technically possible though extremely unlikely (i.e. contrary to everything we know about environments of blacks and white in the US and everything we think we know about the ways environments can influence intelligence) that the difference would be even greater if it weren't partially compensated by environmental factors.

If there were an option "around 0%", I'd pick that. The true answer is probably somewhere between -20% and +20%. But the way things are, this is unanswerable.

Heads up, though, for putting it in Pseudoscience where it belongs straight away!

 

[ApostateAbe]

The black-white average IQ gap in the USA is an established fact in psychology, and estimates of the gap range from 10 to 15 points. The existence of the gap is not the question, but the cause of the gap is the question and often debated. The cause of the gap could be either genetic variations, environmental variations (education, diet, health, etc.), or both. In your personal opinion, how much are genetic variations responsible for the U.S. black-white IQ differences? If you are unsure (and I believe everyone should be at least a little unsure), then take your best guess. The poll is anonymous.

The poll is incomplete. 0 and 100% are not the extreme values. You have to include negative numbers (and possibly numbers above 100%) too: It's entirely possible that if it were for genetics alone, blacks would be on average a few points more intelligent than whites but that difference overshadowed by environmental factors acting in the opposite direction. It is also technically possible though extremely unlikely (i.e. contrary to everything we know about environments of blacks and white in the US and everything we think we know about the ways environments can influence intelligence) that the difference would be even greater if it weren't partially compensated by environmental factors.

If there were an option "around 0%", I'd pick that. The true answer is probably somewhere between -20% and +20%. But the way things are, this is unanswerable.

Heads up, though, for putting it in Pseudoscience where it belongs straight away!

Good points. A negative value should be answered with 0%. I put this thread in the Pseudoscience forum because I expect 0% to be the most popular answer, but we will find out.

 

[bilby]

Heads up, though, for putting it in Pseudoscience where it belongs straight away!

While I in no way wish to prevent people from doing whatever they choose with their own bodies, I must point out that the head is not the part of the anatomy usually moved up to show appreciation or to indicate approval.

In idiomatic English, 'Heads up' indicates an advance warning of something about to occur.

One might raise a number of appendages to show appreciation, but I am going to guess that you intended to say 'Thumbs up', as it seems unlikely to me that Abe's choice of forum would cause other body parts to rise in approval (Not that there is anything wrong with that).

 

[Jokodo]

The poll is incomplete. 0 and 100% are not the extreme values. You have to include negative numbers (and possibly numbers above 100%) too: It's entirely possible that if it were for genetics alone, blacks would be on average a few points more intelligent than whites but that difference overshadowed by environmental factors acting in the opposite direction. It is also technically possible though extremely unlikely (i.e. contrary to everything we know about environments of blacks and white in the US and everything we think we know about the ways environments can influence intelligence) that the difference would be even greater if it weren't partially compensated by environmental factors.

If there were an option "around 0%", I'd pick that. The true answer is probably somewhere between -20% and +20%. But the way things are, this is unanswerable.

Heads up, though, for putting it in Pseudoscience where it belongs straight away!

Good points. A negative value should be answered with 0%. I put this thread in the Pseudoscience forum because I expect 0% to be the most popular answer, but we will find out.

The thread doesn't belong in Pseudoscience because of what the answers will be, it belongs here already because of the way the question is asked.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Good points. A negative value should be answered with 0%. I put this thread in the Pseudoscience forum because I expect 0% to be the most popular answer, but we will find out.

The thread doesn't belong in Pseudoscience because of what the answers will be, it belongs here already because of the way the question is asked.

OK, how would you change the question to make it "science"? Should "0% of differences due to genes" be "0% (or less) of differences due to genes"?

 

[Jokodo]

The thread doesn't belong in Pseudoscience because of what the answers will be, it belongs here already because of the way the question is asked.

OK, how would you change the question to make it "science"? Should "0% of differences due to genes" be "0% (or less) of differences due to genes"?

I'm not going to do your work for you.

But what you're insinuating the way you are phrasing it is that everyone who doesn't think there are positive arguments for a strong genetic component is necessarily claiming there can't be one. That's a strawman. When the scientifically most likely answer isn't even among the options offered except in a strawman version, we're deep in pseudoscience.

How would you find a poll asking: "Do you believe that (A) a female chimp randomly popped out a human baby at some point in the last 5 million years or (B) god created humans"

How about: "(A) The Earth is getting colder, (B) the Earth is getting warmer because the Sun's changing, or (C) the Earth is getting warmer and we're to blame, what with 7 billion transpiring their body heat?"

You're getting the general idea.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Jokodo, in your opinion, what is the scientifically most likely answer that isn't among the options?

 

[Keith&Co.]

A poll in pseudoscience seems to be a rather melodramatic way to say that everyone who disagrees with your thesis is not being scientific. But neither is your poll.
There's no option for 'we don't know,' for one thing.

 

[Jokodo]

Jokodo, in your opinion, what is the scientifically most likely answer that isn't among the options?

I've explained that in my first post of this thread. The truth is that the environments of black and white Americans greatly differ on average, and all we know leads us to expect a significant difference in average IQs on that basis alone. We don't know exactly how much of a difference to expect solely on that basis, it could be a perfect fit for the observed average difference, or more, or less. So basically, the argument for genetically based group differences is as strong with those empirical observations as it would be without any data about group-level differences.

So, out of your options, 0% comes closest, but you're clearly trying to corner people into saying something you can interpret as "there can't be any group-level differences; I won't allow it even as a possibility" so you can happily convince yourself that their position is only ideological, and I'm not playing along.

 

[ApostateAbe]

A poll in pseudoscience seems to be a rather melodramatic way to say that everyone who disagrees with your thesis is not being scientific. But neither is your poll.
There's no option for 'we don't know,' for one thing.

I intended to leave out the answer "I don't know." No rational person "knows," but you can always take your best guess. "I don't know" is the answer of people who just don't like the question for fear of their own answers. "Don't ask me to scientifically justify my vote. I am a senator, not a scientist." But, this poll is anonymous, so there should be no fear of losing the next election.

 

[Keith&Co.]

"I don't know" is the answer of people who just don't like the question for fear of their own answers.

''WE don't know" is also the answer of people who don't think there's sufficient science to justify taking a stab at the options you've given.

If you're not going to play honestly, then the conclusions you draw are just going to be your prejudice, with numbers.

 

[ApostateAbe]

"I don't know" is the answer of people who just don't like the question for fear of their own answers.

''WE don't know" is also the answer of people who don't think there's sufficient science to justify taking a stab at the options you've given.

If you're not going to play honestly, then the conclusions you draw are just going to be your prejudice, with numbers.

I have been perfectly honest, and I am in full agreement that the results of the poll will be reflective of mere prejudices, but not because of the way I constructed the poll. Our social systems and established common policies are built on the best guesses held with excessive passion, not on the uncertainty. The "I don't know" answer would merely obscure that reality, as would be intended.

 

[Godless Raven]

Let's say there is a difference between the average IQ of black American's vs White American's. And lets even say that there weren't a ton of other variables that could account for those statistics...is it possible it's a regional thing?

I personally don't care if there's a slight difference between any group of people. If I found out tomorrow that women in Switzerland score 5 higher than males do on IQ tests, what does it really tell you?

A thought occurred to me, but with the caveat that I have no special knowledge or experience in any relevant field related to this topic and I'm basically just pondering...during slavery in the US...I would assume it would be advantageous to lynch or otherwise kill any exceptionally intelligent black persons...male or female. And I'm assuming encouraging the reproduction of physically strong males that don't appear to be particularly bright would be advantageous to their sinister plans. So if my assumptions are even somewhat accurate, wouldn't that be like selectively breeding intelligent dogs only in reverse? It's not like anyone is guaranteed to have children with the same IQ they have, but there does seem to be some genetics involved.

I have my doubts whether it would have any notable affect on the over all IQ of a person because I also think more intelligent, educated people are far more likely to use birth control or limit the amount of children they have. Stupid people love to fuck and have tons of stupid kids. Race has nothing to do with that.




I don't know...like I said, I'm talking out my ass...(and also pretty baked )

 

[Jokodo]

''WE don't know" is also the answer of people who don't think there's sufficient science to justify taking a stab at the options you've given.

If you're not going to play honestly, then the conclusions you draw are just going to be your prejudice, with numbers.

I have been perfectly honest, and I am in full agreement that the results of the poll will be reflective of mere prejudices, but not because of the way I constructed the poll. Our social systems and established common policies are built on the best guesses held with excessive passion, not on the uncertainty. The "I don't know" answer would merely obscure that reality, as would be intended.

What does the bolded sentence even mean?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I have been perfectly honest, and I am in full agreement that the results of the poll will be reflective of mere prejudices, but not because of the way I constructed the poll. Our social systems and established common policies are built on the best guesses held with excessive passion, not on the uncertainty. The "I don't know" answer would merely obscure that reality, as would be intended.

But you've incorporated YOUR prejudice in the way you project what would be the only reason to choose 'I don't know.' Which also shows your projections, since I said 'we don't know.' I think that's more scientific, anyway, since even in your threads you mostly just promise that some day there will be scientific evidence that it's genetic...

 

[Jokodo]

Let's say there is a difference between the average IQ of black American's vs White American's. And lets even say that there weren't a ton of other variables that could account for those statistics...is it possible it's a regional thing?

I personally don't care if there's a slight difference between any group of people. If I found out tomorrow that women in Switzerland score 5 higher than males do on IQ tests, what does it really tell you?

A thought occurred to me, but with the caveat that I have no special knowledge or experience in any relevant field related to this topic and I'm basically just pondering...during slavery in the US...I would assume it would be advantageous to lynch or otherwise kill any exceptionally intelligent black persons...male or female. And I'm assuming encouraging the reproduction of physically strong males that don't appear to be particularly bright would be advantageous to their sinister plans. So if my assumptions are even somewhat accurate, wouldn't that be like selectively breeding intelligent dogs only in reverse?

You could, with at least the same amount of reason and evidence, assume that slave holders were getting rid of exceptionally rebellious individuals, and that it takes quite some intelligence to suppress (or save for a day where you actually have a chance to succeed) your innate urge to rebel under the conditions in which slaves were held. In which case slave holders would have been selectively breeding for intelligence.

You could also argue that European Americans have sub-par genes relative to the people who stayed in Europe (most of the arrivers where economic refugees, i. e. people who failed to carve out a decent livelihood in the old place, which, according to some conservatives, strongly suggests they're innately stupid), while African Americans are a fairly random sample of their parent population (intelligence doesn't prevent you from being caught up in a raid or becoming a prisoner of war, which is how the ancestors of African Americans came to be slaves).

If you want to believe that European Americans are innately superior, you sure can think up a vaguely plausible just-so story for how that might come. But when someone who wants to believe African Americans are superior can with equal ease think up a just-so story explaining that, it is implied that the empirical weight of any such story is - exactly nil.

 

[Keith&Co.]

What does the bolded sentence even mean?

he means that racism is real, and accurate.

 

[Jokodo]

What does the bolded sentence even mean?

he means that racism is real, and accurate.

I know that he thinks that, but he didn't say it. What he said was something about social policies being based on best guesses rather than the uncertainty. This seems to imply that there are at least some current policies that make sense if our best guesses turn out to be correct but don't make sense under the condition of uncertainty. I'd like to see which ones.

E.g., barring employers from posting "no blacks need apply" ads sure as hell still makes perfect sense under the condition of uncertainty. More'n that, it would even make just as much sense if we knew that the inter-group IQ difference were 100% caused by genetics - employing a white person with an IQ of 100 over a black person with an IQ of 105 doesn't magically become fair or wise because there are proportionally more whites than blacks with IQ 105, and knowing or suspecting that the inter-group difference is based on genetics alone wouldn't change that assessment one iota.

 

[Bronzeage]

The black-white average IQ gap in the USA is an established fact in psychology, and estimates of the gap range from 10 to 15 points. The existence of the gap is not the question, but the cause of the gap is the question and often debated. The cause of the gap could be either genetic variations, environmental variations (education, diet, health, etc.), or both. In your personal opinion, how much are genetic variations responsible for the U.S. black-white IQ differences? If you are unsure (and I believe everyone should be at least a little unsure), then take your best guess. The poll is anonymous.

I am puzzled by this sort of thing. Is it possible to establish scientific facts by majority vote? Is there some kind of metaphysical phenomena by which personal opinion can affect reality.

Why would an intelligent person believe it was?