…and this is a 
It's always much more complicated than you think
Category:
Posted on: October 19, 2007 4:00 AM, by PZ Myers
I mentioned before Cosma Shalizi's excellent discussion of heritability; add to that now his summary of g. We've got a few pompous no-nothings lurking in the comments who are fond of declaiming that they know that they have proof that the brain works in such-and-such a way, and that we can blithely assert an average stupidity exists in broad swathes of humanity (said broad swathes typically sweep across very diverse groups, united only by the obvious ephemera of skin color), but they need to read and comprehend those articles in order to learn that their certainty of a heritable simplicity is a phantasm.
Reality says that race is a category error, and that IQ foolishly tries to pin complexity into a cramped and tiny corner, and that human minds are both diverse and similar … and the great gross simplifications of racists, scientific and otherwise, are lies to comfort fearful bigots.
Cosma has another post that summarizes the exasperation we should all feel.
Comments
Those seem like useful pieces, though I don't understand them on a first reading.
Personally, I think that discussing the science is more beneficial than the name calling or accusations of racism.
It seems to me that both race and intelligence are vastly multidimensional properties, which are ill-defined, but must exist if taken to extremes. As a complete lay-person, I have to assume that in some sense Einstein was more intelligent than others, though it's probably true that the intellectual difference can't me measured by one number.
It's a pity that we're having this conversation because of some pretty pathetic comments by an eminent Nobelist. Like it or not, people are interested in this topic (witness the number of comments) and I suppose this is a good opportunity to educate us.
I still fail to see why people who consider that differences in group averages might exist are taking an inherently racist point of view. Personally, I'm persuaded that differences exist and that they're likely due to educational and environmental factors, including nutrition and racism. I think this is important. For instance, I think we ought to find out if it's possible to raise the average intelligence of any population by improved diet.
Looking at the comments, I have seen a few that I would consider to be racist. However, I'm still not convinced that shouting 'racist' is the best response. The way to defeat poor arguments is with better arguments.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | October 19, 2007 5:20 AM
In an upper-level statistics class, my professor spent a lot of time explaining the misuse of statistics by the "soft sciences" and the media. He didn't talk about IQ but he did rant about equating correlation and causation and that "there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
After reading that summary of g, I think he would have agreed that "nobody has presented a case for g apart from thoroughly invalid arguments from factor analysis."
Posted by: Jared | October 19, 2007 5:20 AM
hmmm...I've been following the Watson dialogues, as I call them, but I think he is on to something with half of what he said.
We are genetically different in certain regions of our DNA. That's not a lie. Local genomes diverged from the global genome. Yet, even these minute divergences did not equate to significant changes except physiological.
I'm not very convinced that the brain's functionality (and hence our mental prowress; welcome to physicalism) is limited to the genetic basis which it developed from. I know very little neurophysiology, but isn't our ability to process sensory data dependent on the functionality and connectivity of neural networks? I would argue that it is the development and structure of these networks would be a deciding factor on mental prowress, not our genes.
Even then, if I am wrong and everything is reducible to genetics, I don't see how we can dehumanize an entire local genome based on its genome. *shrug*
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | October 19, 2007 5:42 AM
I, for one, defend the "blithe" assertation of an average stupidity existing in broad swathes of humanity... albeit irrespective of race.
Wherever you go, the average IQ remains a constant 100.
Posted by: j.t.delaney | October 19, 2007 5:44 AM
sorry, j.t., the average IQ is 100 only because the average score in a given year is defined to be 100. The average score required to achieve a 100 score has been increasing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect).
On a different tangent: "intelligence" is not a single item. How can we assign a single number to simultaneously quantify such varied important abilities as the ability to judge spatial relationships, memory, language skills, mathematical ability, social canny, musical ability, ability to forecast trends, ability to judge the trajectory of a thrown object and to put the object on that trajectory, capacity to innovate, seductive ability, parenting talent?
And of course, the relative importance of each of these skills varies according to the environment in which its owner is embedded. I would not be surprised if a paleolithic human outscored modern humans on many of these measures and relatively bombed on others. The ones they did well on would be the important ones (to them). I doubt that my ability to extract square roots would have had any relevance during the ice age...And if some member of some 'race' did poorly on one measure, why conclude that he/she is 'less intelligent', when other skills were not tested.
The concept of an "intelligence" is an amorphous blob, too often defined (when defined) by people with a prejudice to support (I personally remember a mathematician who claimed that the only measure of intelligence is mathematical ability!)
My advice: f*ck IQ. Take people as they come. Dump them if they're @ssholes. But you can learn something new from nearly everyone.
Posted by: djlactin | October 19, 2007 7:05 AM
I still fail to see why people who consider that differences in group averages might exist are taking an inherently racist point of view.
It's not inherently racist to say that such differences exist (if supported by data). What's racist is to claim it is genetic.
Posted by: Graculus | October 19, 2007 7:12 AM
If and only if a trait is heritable, can it evolve.
Intelligence evolved.
Therefore, intelligence is heritable.
Q.E.D.
Posted by: Doddy | October 19, 2007 7:32 AM
What if it's true though? And backed by evidence?
Now, I'm not saying Watson is right - enviromental and social factors are much more likely causes, and no evidence seems to indicate otherwise as far as I can gather - but to say that it's racist to claim it is genetic with or without evidence, is wrong.
Posted by: CraigF | October 19, 2007 7:39 AM
Now that's why PZ is a fundamentalist: he's TOTALLY CERTAIN that intelligence doesn't happen to correlate with skin colour, and he admits NO ELEMENT OF DOUBT.
Richard Dawkins' discussion of this topic in "The Extended Phenotype" is far more dispassionate and reasonable than these bullying tirades from PZ. Here's an extract:
"...it still does not follow that there is any genetic variation in mental abilities left in the human population today: the genetic variance might all have been used up by selection. On the other hand it might not, and my thought experiment shows at least the inadvisability of dogmatic and hysterical opposition to the possibility of genetic variation in human mental abilities."
I've lost a great deal of respect for PZ recently. On issues of political correctness, he misrepresents furiously. Speaking of which, has anyone found some actual evidence that Hitchens did indeed promote genocide, as PZ claimed?
Posted by: John Smith | October 19, 2007 8:01 AM
Bizarrest thing in this whole 'discussion' (and I haven't read every comment, but I've read a lot) -- aside from Greg Laden's post on this, no one seems to be distinguishing between 'heritable' and 'genetically heritable'. (I'm talking simple word usage here, not the point people are arguing from.) This seems like a simple thing to do to at least clarify some of the arguments -- if you mean 'heritable' (you get it from your parents/group -- other people) and 'genetically heritable' (you get it from your genome).
Posted by: MyaR | October 19, 2007 8:06 AM
I just want to add to my last post: if you accept the possibility of genetic variation in intelligence between individuals, then you are open to the possibility of such variation between groups. There's no intrinsic reason why two arbitrary groups should have exactly the same average intelligence.
Posted by: John Smith | October 19, 2007 8:09 AM
but to say that it's racist to claim it is genetic with or without evidence, is wrong.
To say it's genetic *and tied to skin colour* without any supporting evidence and without even a basic understanding of how genetics interacts with the environment to produce the various things we call intelligence *is* racist, period.
There are several problems here.
One is that we do not know which genes or what role they play in in cognitive abilities, and what role cultural, epigenetic and other environmental factors play in same.
Two is that we have no reason to believe that any such set of genes is linked to the genes for skin colour. There are various "races" (I prefer the term "cline") in Africa itself, and they are easily as or more diverse than any other geographical area.
Three is that we have a measure of cognitive abilities that is, at best, fuzzy and badly understood.
Four, there are groups of "whites" that scored consistently low, yet somehow they go unmentioned in the discussion. How is it *not* racist to assert that "blacks" are genetically predisposed to lower IQs, but these "white" groups are just victims of environment?
In short: It's not racist to say that there is likely a genetic component to cognitive abilities. It is racist to say that it is linked to skin colour.
Isn't it interesting that these "serious" discussions of genetics and IQ manage to follow the lines of the arbitrary social constructs of "race"?
When the Irish weren't "white", they were also deemed intellectually inferior. It's about asserting one's own superiority over the "other". When the Bible was the authority. "blacks" were the descendents of Cain or Ham, doomed by God to be the underclass (hint: The Bible itself makes no such claims). Now "serious" thinkers say it's genetics that dooms them (hint: science itself makes no such claim).
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's quackery.
Posted by: Graculus | October 19, 2007 8:15 AM
Maybe the point PZ and others is making is that since there is apparently no evidence that there are differences in intelligence between groups, the only reason people would argue otherwise is in order to justify their own racism.
Would that be a fair summary?
Posted by: Christian Burnham | October 19, 2007 8:19 AM
I think one of the most interesting and telling things in that summary of "g" is the throwaway reference to Williams Syndrome. People with WS (I've known one) almost invariably have a higher than normal degree of linguistic and musical ability, lower than average mental ability in most other areas, and almost no ability to do arithmetic (the young woman I knew could talk very intelligently about all sorts of emotional or artistic matters, but could not add one pound plus fifty pence without the use of a calculator). There are similar interesting specific variations in intellectual ability with other genetic conditions. I don't think anyone familiar with congenital mental disabilities believes that "general intelligence" is anything but a fantasy.
Posted by: Andrew | October 19, 2007 8:23 AM
Only if you try to use IQ to represent the entirety of cognitive ability, which certain does contradict the scientific data on the subject - and the way that psychometrics, and IQ tests specifically, are actually used.
That's pretty much what the ignorant, uninformed, pop-culture understanding of them is, though.
O, those foolish neurologists, trying to access cognitive functioning with a battery of what's no better than voodoo. PZ should go enlighten them - I'm sure after he provides them with the proper education, they will abandon their primitive superstitions and treat all of their patients equally.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 19, 2007 8:27 AM
Re #9:
In the quote by Dawkins, he states that there may be genetic variation in human mental abilities.
You (Smith) are saying there is genetic variation and it is linked to skin color.
Slight difference in concept there...
Posted by: JRY | October 19, 2007 8:28 AM
Enough of this nonsense about there not being any grounds for suspecting that black-skinned people tend to be less intelligent on average than light-skinned people. The economic and intellectual performance of the former group is incomparably worse, on every continent. The difference is, quite frankly, enormos. In light of this, surely the the Bayesian probability of their happening to be less intelligent (on average) oughtn't be negligible.
Posted by: John Smith | October 19, 2007 8:30 AM
Five, skin colour is a very, very poor indicator of ancestry.
If and only if a trait is heritable, can it evolve.
Intelligence evolved.
Therefore, intelligence is heritable.
Intelligence evolved in Africa.
The African environment selects strongly for intelligence.
QED.
:-P
Posted by: Graculus | October 19, 2007 8:31 AM
"In the quote by Dawkins, he states that there may be genetic variation in human mental abilities.
You (Smith) are saying there is genetic variation and it is linked to skin color.
Slight difference in concept there..."
I'm talking about the genetic intelligence of an arbitrary group. I don't care about skin colour. If blonde-haired people were economically and intellectually backwards, and had showed little sign of improvement, I would also suspect them of being less intelligent than the rest.
Posted by: John Smith | October 19, 2007 8:34 AM
Yes, Graculus. But what about the other continents? If they had apes, what selection pressures for intelligence would they face there?
Posted by: Doddy | October 19, 2007 8:35 AM
So many difficult issues...
It's racism to suggest that the genes for skin color have anything to do with intelligence. It's not racism to suggest that the genes for skin color and appearance can give a crude indication of the geographic origin of a particular person.
I think it is racist to assume that skin color and appearance can be used to form any a-priori opinions- good or bad about that person.
There may or may not be inheritable traits that correspond to geographically isolated groups, but it's clear that those traits cannot have any serious correlation with the genes for skin color.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | October 19, 2007 8:37 AM
Maybe the point PZ and others is making is that since there is apparently no evidence that there are differences in intelligence between groups, the only reason people would argue otherwise is in order to justify their own racism.
But the point appears to be wrong. See, for instance, here. There are 50 academic signatories to this letter, which is specifically intended as a summary of mainstream science. It says both that intelligence (as defined) can be reliably measured, that there are consistent average differences between racial groups, but that there is not yet (mid-nineties) any definitive answer about the reason for these differences . Can anyone tell me why it should be ignored?
Posted by: potentilla | October 19, 2007 8:40 AM
Graculus:To say it's genetic *and tied to skin colour*
Good thing no one here has made any claims about associations with skin color.
Actually, I'm rather surprised that we haven't had any white supremacists frothing at the mouth in these post threads.
Not quite true: we know that all of those things have an influence. What is uncertain is precisely how much and what kind - which is why it is outrageous that you would deny the possibility that between-groups differences could have anything to do with genes.
True. Good thing no one's made any claims about that, then.
It's been said that if you were to try to group humanity into subgroups by genetic association, there would be five groups in Africa - and one for everywhere else.
But within that last group, there are still geographic trends and associationally-linked traits. Humanity is far more uniform that most other species, but that's relative.
No, IQ is quite well understood. That's how we know that it is NOT a measure of all cognitive potential, and it's not even a complete measure of the basic cognitive functions. It's cognitive abilities as a whole that we don't understand very well, much less how to measure them - but we're still trying. The more sophisticated the cognitive function is, the harder a time we have accessing it. Producing an effective measure of executive functioning, for example, has been a complete nightmare, but we're still better off than we were fifty years ago.
No, that is racist. But I have yet to see anyone (except some of my vehement detractors) suggest that these low-scoring white groups are only victims of environment. Indeed, it is entirely possible that genetics plays a role there as well.
NO ONE HAS SAID IT IS LINKED TO SKIN COLOR. No one's even said it might be. Although technically it wouldn't be impossible for genes controlling melanin distribution to have some effect on neurological development - but that would almost certainly imply that there's something very wrong with the very-pale section of the world popoulation, not that they're superior.
They don't... or only in your fevered mind.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 19, 2007 8:40 AM
JS: I agree with Graculus and others here. Linking anything to skin color except a very approximate guess at where that person's ancestors heralded from leads very quickly to racist ideology.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | October 19, 2007 8:43 AM
Shawn Wilkinson wrote, "We are genetically different in certain regions of our DNA. That's not a lie. Local genomes diverged from the global genome. Yet, even these minute divergences did not equate to significant changes except physiological."
The accusations of racism crop up in where you draw the lines between populations.
If, for example, you wanted to take a collection of expressed traits, and knew precisely which parts of the genome influenced those traits (maybe hundreds of genes), then determine what other traits this collection of genes influenced (and were able to determine them), you might be able to say that a person with the original collection of genes may have these additional set of traits.
That's what the medical studies on genetics are doing. They know that some people who visibly express a certain trait are also likely to have another trait which could result in treatments having different affects.
But to take a trait like intelligence which, depending on the various studies I've read, may be anywhere from 10% to 70% heritable (whatever that means) and then take another trait which would be arbitrary aside from our long history of abhorrent treatment of people with this trait, and try to correlate them is racist (in the prejorative sense of the word).
Take the same concept, but link it to a trait which has not been subject to institutionalized discrimination for a couple hundred years and you see how the concept in nonsense. If I were to propose that blue-eyed people are, averaged across an entire population, smarter than brown-eyed people, you would not only ask me for the correlation study, but the causal path for me to reach that conclusion.
Cripes, if you use a p of 0.05, and pick a hundred arbitrary traits, you will find correlations between a number of traits and the somewhat poorly defined trait we call intelligence.
If you want to avoid the label of racist, you need to specify precisely which traits you want to examine (amount of melanin in the skin and, say, proximity to the equator), determine if there is a correlation (Not 100%, but strong.), and find a causal path (vitamin D production).
Since intelligence cannot be precisely defined, trying to correlate it to another trait is either silly, or racist (if the attempt is to correlate it to a trait which has a history of being used prejoratively). People who propose that there is a genetic link between intelligence and any other trait must first define intelligence, then correlate it, then show the causal path.
Making the claim, even simply for the sake of argument, without defining what is meant by intelligence is either ignorant or foolish. Making the claim about a trait which has a history of prejustice associated with it is either ignorant, foolish, or deliberatly inflammatory.
Finally, Shawn, and you touch on this in your comment, we know that large sections of the brain develop after birth, and after the exposure of the senses of the body to the surrounding environment. There is ample evidence, and not more than a few theories, which suggest that the structure of the cogitive parts of the brain is only generally imposed by genetic constraints. Instead, environmental feedback has a tremendous influnce on how the structure of the brain develops.
For the record, I happen to think that Dr. Edelman's theory of neural darwinism has some merit to it, but I don't claim to be an expert in the field. I know there are some major theoretical questions to be answered in his theory, and it disturbs me not a little that he self-publishes quite a bit (it can be hard to find good criticism of a self-published theory), but the underlying premise of conservation of evolved systems strikes me as a good basis for study.
Posted by: Flex | October 19, 2007 8:44 AM
Caledonian: In fairness- John Smith said exactly that.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | October 19, 2007 8:44 AM
While what little (self-selected) science I've read on the subject appears to support PZ's views, I'd like to throw out a question that hasn't been discussed much, and that is, how important, after a certain point, is IQ in the actual performance of any human outside of certain narrowly defined fields of endeavour?
Anecdotally, thirty seven years ago, I accidentally was able to discover the measured IQ scores of about thirty of my high school classmates. Those scores, including my own, have in no discernible way predicted the 'success' of that group of individuals. Notable is the woman who scored 90 - 95 on the three rounds of testing our group was subjected to over six years (we were part of some kind of study). She is a respected artist and businesswoman who developed and owns four successful businesses. In person she is witty and well-spoken. Some, but not all, of the people who had relatively high scores, did well in academic fields. One of the high scorers has barely managed to stay off the streets.
Are there any respectable studies out there that have actually measured the human end result of having low average, average, high average or very high IQs? I ask because an unspoken undercurrent of these conversations appears to be the notion that having a high IQ is equivalent to having some kind of higher status, or makes a person better, or is a predictor of success, and I personally don't see that. In other words, does whatever IQ tests measure matter in any real way?
Posted by: Bee | October 19, 2007 8:47 AM
Watson, who got this whole discussion rolling, said exactly that: he maintained that "people" who "have to" deal with "black employees" "know" this.
If he was misquoted, I expect to see a retraction from the Independent; unless he is shown to have been misquoted, however, your assertion is mistaken.
Posted by: thalarctos | October 19, 2007 8:50 AM
Yes, Graculus. But what about the other continents? If they had apes, what selection pressures for intelligence would they face there?
Well, as Asia has apes, and humans didn't arise there, obviously Asia didn't have what it takes to select for intelligence.
If you see :-P or ;-) on a post of mine, it generally indicates that I'm not entirely serious.
Now, on to Caledonian...
Posted by: Graculus | October 19, 2007 8:52 AM
I think it is racist to assume that skin color and appearance can be used to form any a-priori opinions- good or bad about that person.
Absolutely right. Any average population differences that may or may not exist say nothing about any individual, unless the two distribution curves show no overlap (for instance, if you knew that a person had black knees you would be justified in assuming a priori that they also had black elbows, probably).
There may or may not be inheritable traits that correspond to geographically isolated groups, but it's clear that those traits cannot have any serious correlation with the genes for skin color
Absolutely wrong. There are average population differences in heritable susceptibility to sickle-cell disease, for instance, and such differences correlate with skin colour. There is no a priori reason to suppose that the same is not true for intelligence. It is not yet clear from the scientific evidence either way (see Gene Expression, passim).
Posted by: potentilla | October 19, 2007 8:52 AM
More accurately, he's using 'blackness' as a crude indicator of having African ancestry - or am I misreading him?
Maybe I *am* projecting my own nuanced and intelligent views on him, but that's what I get when I read his comments.
John Smith, your response?
Posted by: Caledonian | October 19, 2007 8:53 AM
Caladonian wrote, "NO ONE HAS SAID IT IS LINKED TO SKIN COLOR."
Aside from John Smith you mean.
Who wrote, "Enough of this nonsense about there not being any grounds for suspecting that black-skinned people tend to be less intelligent on average than light-skinned people. The economic and intellectual performance of the former group is incomparably worse, on every continent. The difference is, quite frankly, enormos. In light of this, surely the the Bayesian probability of their happening to be less intelligent (on average) oughtn't be negligible."
I don't know how you could get any out of that statement which doesn't imply that "black-skinned" people are "less intelligent" than "light-skinned" people.
I put the quotes in becuase I'm not entirely sure how those terms are defined. Are Hindus "black-skinned"? How about the native South Americans?
Posted by: Flex | October 19, 2007 8:53 AM
Watson clarifies. Sounds much more rational than what was connected to him:
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article3075642.ece
Posted by: True Bob | October 19, 2007 8:54 AM
Watson has published a statement on what his views are and discussing (briefly) how the interview reflected them.
Find it here.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 19, 2007 8:54 AM
I can't speak about the biology side of this issue. On this issue of social constructs I can say a couple of things:
It is interesting, and follows a trend within the materialism of many modern western cultures that turns to science for the justification of its (pre-existing) beliefs. Although the old prejudices and fears have not changed, a portion of society is no longer comfortable with the old authorities Graculus mentions. If they use their understanding of science to test the elements of their worldview, a scientifically-grounded theory of racial hierarchies is of great comfort to them.
Race, like gender, is a social construct (a category-error, as PZ says, when applied to a biological problem). Think of the differences between biological fact of being a female (on a group's average intelligence, strength, etc...) and the social fact of being a woman, and how much difficulty we have separating out the nature vs. nurture elements of the differences between the sexes. If someone found that girls' IQ scores were on average much lower than boys, would they interpret that as evidence that females are naturally more stupid than men? or would they see it as evidence of a social reality about the advantages of being raised as a boy?
I don't have a hard time believing the certain groups of humans have some real genetic differences that reflect their particular group history, but I'd be surprised if those genetic differences had any relation to the racial stereotypes about sexual prowess, agression, intelligence... As surprised as if scientists discovered that female humans have a 'cooking & cleaning' gene that predisposes them to be home-makers, or a 'pretty-in-pink' gene that makes my nieces enjoy disney princess movies.
Posted by: John B | October 19, 2007 8:56 AM
Potentilla: I'm no expert- but skin color is controlled by I would guess a tiny number of genes. It's not possible to tease out a plausible genetic history from such a small amount of near-irrelevant information.
Also- to concentrate on skin color to the exclusion of much more interesting and complex markers does smack of racism.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | October 19, 2007 8:56 AM
There are average population differences in heritable susceptibility to sickle-cell disease, for instance, and such differences correlate with skin colour.
Oh, I can't let this pass.
There are plenty of dark-skinned groups that do not have any pre-disposition to sickle-cell, mainly because their ancestors didn't live in areas where malaria was virulent enough to select for the gene. That is an artifact of geographical origin, not genetically linked to skin colour. The incidence of the sickle cell gene in USian "blacks" is dropping like a stone, due to lack of selective pressure.
Posted by: Graculus | October 19, 2007 8:57 AM
Bee - see here (scroll down to the sub-head "why all the fuss" if you don't want to read the whole thing.
Posted by: potentilla | October 19, 2007 8:57 AM
If he's using skin color as a proxy for Africanness, his statements are utterly defensible.
If he's really concerned with skin color itself, much less so... and I will have to stop making a very important claim, or at least modify it significantly.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 19, 2007 8:58 AM
Yes, Graculus, but I - and Christian Burnham who I was quoting - didn't say say "genetically linked" - I said "correlated", meaning (and sorry if it wasn't clear) "statistically correlated".
Posted by: potentilla | October 19, 2007 9:00 AM
Most certainly. The geographical origin question, however, is statistically associated with dark brown skin, in addition to various other traits.
Nonsense. What you mean is a lack of pressure maintaining the gene. Obviously there is significant selective pressure working against its perpetuation.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 19, 2007 9:00 AM
"Enough of this nonsense about there not being any grounds for suspecting that black-skinned people tend to be less intelligent on average than light-skinned people. The economic and intellectual performance of the former group is incomparably worse, on every continent. The difference is, quite frankly, enormos. In light of this, surely the the Bayesian probability of their happening to be less intelligent (on average) oughtn't be negligible."
John Smith, you seem to speak with great authority. How widely have you travelled? Ever been through the Caribbean where you have many nations of African ancenstry living quite comfortably and democratically? You write as if you a both a racist and an idiot. One of the things one would hope reading columns like PZs would teach is that in modern biology, the things we have learnt about the interaction between genes an the environment would make it seem that even if there were a general intelligence factor (this has yet to be shown), it would not be a simple genetic link that could be hooked onto a race, or that the genetic element of it (except in extreme defects) really had a great deal of connection with the final outcome once the environment was taken into account.
Posted by: sailor | October 19, 2007 9:02 AM
From True Bob's link above:
I will be very curious to see a couple of things: 1) whether or not he pursues action against the paper or the reporter for misquoting him, or whether he has to acknowledge the quotes in question, and 2) whether in a couple of years, we're having this very same discussion when he gives a similar interview again.
Posted by: thalarctos | October 19, 2007 9:02 AM
Even Watson has admitted that the quote attributed to him sound racist (see his apology);
The Sunday Times says that the interview was recorded, and that the quotes are accurate.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | October 19, 2007 9:05 AM
"Maybe I *am* projecting my own nuanced and intelligent views on him, but that's what I get when I read his comments.
John Smith, your response?"
We all have African ancestry; what you mean is recent African ancestry (but even that needs to be unpacked somewhat further). The advantage of using the label "black-skinned" is these self-deceptive wingnuts can't deny its existence, as it is a real characteristic. We don't need to define it precisely, any more than we need to define "human" and "kangaroo" precisely (yet it makes perfect sense to say that humans are more intelligent than kangaroos.)
Posted by: John Smith | October 19, 2007 9:06 AM
Snap!
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | October 19, 2007 9:06 AM
"But the point appears to be wrong. See, for instance, here. There are 50 academic signatories to this letter, which is specifically intended as a summary of mainstream science."
Yes and you can find 600 "scientists" signing something saing they don't believe in evolution. Dumb is as dumb does.
Posted by: sailor | October 19, 2007 9:07 AM
It's worth noting that the mean IQ of women is virtually identical to the mean IQ of men, but the variance of male IQ is larger than the female - which is exactly what we'd expect, since any x-linked traits will be homozygous in the male.
Females are also outperforming males in school and make up a disproportionate fraction of college students... although not in specific fields.
Yet we don't hear much talk about how this means that there's really no social burden with being female. Curious.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 19, 2007 9:07 AM
"John Smith, you seem to speak with great authority. How widely have you travelled? Ever been through the Caribbean where you have many nations of African ancenstry living quite comfortably and democratically? You write as if you a both a racist and an idiot."
Oh yes, how idiotic and terribly ignorant of me to suggest that light-skinned people are on average more economically and intellectually advanced than dark-skinned people. I really mustn't know what I'm talking about!
Posted by: John Smith | October 19, 2007 9:09 AM
I see nothing to disagree with here.
I will note, however, that the wingnuts can deny the reasonableness of your statements by linking your position in people's mind with actual racism, so there's a rhetorical danger.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 19, 2007 9:10 AM
There are two sets of people here with ideological blinders on.
The first set is the set that wants, desperately, to link skin color to intelligence. The second set is the set that wants, desperately, to deny that intelligence is largely genetically determined.
Both are off their rockers.
Skin color is determined by a set of genes that have nothing to do with intelligence as far as we know. But 'base' (by which I mean the intelligence of a person before environment begins modifying it) intelligence is clearly 100% genetic: Not everyone starts from the same point before the environment begins modifying their smarts.
Just ask any lemur.
Oh, right. They can't use language or complex tools. Guess they are just underprivileged and the result of poor nutrition, bad schools and negative, unstimulating environments.
Or maybe they just aren't very intelligent compared to humans because of their genes. And that fact, by itself, is telling. Because they are literally relatives: We share ancestors (admittedly, not recent ancestors). Our great-to-the-10000000th grandparents are the same.
Denying that intelligence (whether one big "g" factor or thousands of individual "intelligences") is primarily genetic is both contrary to observation and just as ideologically corrupt a position as the racists who want to claim that the amount of melanin in a person's skin determines their intelligence.
There ARE smart people and dumb people. And a large part of the difference is genetically determined: All other things being equal smart parents will tend to have children who are smarter than those of dumb parents. Seperated twin studies have unambiguously confirmed this.
This is a basic fact that many people don't want to face. They are willing to admit that if your parents were tall, you have a better than average chance of being tall yourself. That if your parents had straight hair, you will probably have straight hair. That if your parents get severe allergies, you have a good chance of getting them too. And they have no problem admitting that each of those are largely genetic.
But god forbid that you suggest that smart parents tend to have smart children and that it is in large part due to genetics.
Posted by: Benjamin Franz | October 19, 2007 9:11 AM
#49 settles it for me. JS, you are racist.
Posted by: True Bob | October 19, 2007 9:13 AM
Caladonian wrote, "If he's using skin color as a proxy for Africanness, his statements are utterly defensible."
Utterly defensible? Or simply a speculation of a linkage between a poorly understood trait like intelligence, and a huge geographical area which has greater genetic diversity than anywhere else?
It's fine for him to speculate, but surely he realizes that either the trait he is using as a shorthand ('black-skinned') or the continent he may be actually refering to (Africa) are both inflammatory topics and care should be taken in his communications to avoid raising hackles. Possibly he feels that clarity in communicating his thoughts (which means having some idea what the audience is going to hear) is secondary to being obtuse.
Then, of course, there is the evidence that his last statement did nothing to answer your question. It simply implied that the trait of "black-skinned" is the important one to consider, not the continent.
Posted by: Flex | October 19, 2007 9:15 AM
"Oh yes, how idiotic and terribly ignorant of me to suggest that light-skinned people are on average more economically and intellectually advanced than dark-skinned people. I really mustn't know what I'm talking about!"
For once I really agree with you.
Posted by: sailor | October 19, 2007 9:16 AM
"Human" and "kangaroo" are both common names of species, whereas "black" is an adjective which describes a superficial characteristic. Your analogy is fallacious. Clearly, "Human" and "kangaroo" are definitive, although there are a number of different 'roo species.
"Black" means nothing, it is a subjective judgement, as can clearly be seen by its varied and inconsistent usage around the world and in different parts of society. Who exactly is black? It depends who you ask. It has no more meaning than "white", which also includes various different ethnic groups, with varying degrees of shared genetic identity. It is a social epithet, not a biological concept.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | October 19, 2007 9:17 AM
Good thing no one here has made any claims about associations with skin color.
Oh, yes they have.
"One is that we do not know which genes or what role they play in in cognitive abilities, and what role cultural, epigenetic and other environmental factors play in same."
What is uncertain is precisely how much and what kind - which is why it is outrageous that you would deny the possibility that between-groups differences could have anything to do with genes.
How the fuck are these statements not essentially congruent?
Humanity is far more uniform that most other species, but that's relative.
Yet there are few discussions of the relative cognitive abilites of black cats vs white cats.
"Three is that we have a measure of cognitive abilities that is, at best, fuzzy and badly understood."
IQ is quite well understood.
I didn't say IQ
That's how we know that it is NOT a measure of all cognitive potential, and it's not even a complete measure of the basic cognitive functions.
That was my point.
(re: low scoring white groups) Indeed, it is entirely possible that genetics plays a role there as well.
And the USian South has been genetically isolated long enough to produce such an effect?
Although technically it wouldn't be impossible for genes controlling melanin distribution to have some effect on neurological development
And when we better understand what the genes and environment are up to we can have that discussion.
They don't... or only in your fevered mind.
Bollocks.
When did the Irish become white, and when did the alleles that contribute to cognitive function change?
Posted by: Graculus | October 19, 2007 9:17 AM
"I will note, however, that the wingnuts can deny the reasonableness of your statements by linking your position in people's mind with actual racism, so there's a rhetorical danger."
Well, yes. Normally I wouldn't say anything about skin colour when discussing genetic intelligence, for most people are stupid and highly self-deceptive, and they would willfully, maliciously misinterpret me. I (wrongly) assumed that the free-thinkers present here would be rather less volitile than ordinary, clueless people.
Posted by: John Smith | October 19, 2007 9:21 AM
Also, since we are all on a biology blog. You have all read about genes and the way things are expressed. Why on earth would you expect the biological mechanism that expresses skin pigmentation to have anything to do with what goes on in the brain?
Posted by: sailor | October 19, 2007 9:22 AM
'White' is a social construct. Hell, it includes the Welsh, who have an ancient indigenous lineage that seems to be related to the Iberians - heavily mixed with the genes of the Celtic and Anglo-Saxon invaders.
There's a whole heck of a lot of diversity, both subtle and obvious, that's include in 'white'. Same with 'black'.
Good thing the scientific research doesn't actually use those concepts in studying ethnic associations... or only when it's forced to. (And it *still* gets results! Good ol' science...)
Posted by: Caledonian | October 19, 2007 9:22 AM
Nonsense. What you mean is a lack of pressure maintaining the gene. Obviously there is significant selective pressure working against its perpetuation.
Perhaps you'd like to tell me what language you're speaking.
"Lack of selective pressure" is pretty fucking plain English.
Posted by: Graculus | October 19, 2007 9:22 AM
If you're going to deliberately conflate variations in different human ethnicities with variations across different species, you've chosen a historically very unfortunate example--"lemur" is what the colonial French used to compare the Malagasy (of Madagascar) to.
Personally, I'd stay away from such an invidious comparison; your mileage, as they say, may vary.
Posted by: thalarctos | October 19, 2007 9:22 AM
Hilarious. Some people are even trying to deny that white-skinned people are currently more economically and intellectually advanced than black-skinned people. What lunacy.
Posted by: John Smith | October 19, 2007 9:24 AM
'White' is a social construct. Hell, it includes the Welsh
A questionable decision. ;-)
Posted by: Graculus | October 19, 2007 9:26 AM
"Also, since we are all on a biology blog. You have all read about genes and the way things are expressed. Why on earth would you expect the biological mechanism that expresses skin pigmentation to have anything to do with what goes on in the brain?"
I wouldn't expect that, as you surely know very well. The skin colour is just a purely incidental feature. There's no reason why extra intelligence couldn't have evolved *in addition* to paler skin. As a wholly separate feature.
Posted by: John Smith | October 19, 2007 9:28 AM
Are Hindus "black-skinned"?
Are "Christians" white-skinned?
Posted by: Graculus | October 19, 2007 9:29 AM
Some people are even trying to deny that white-skinned people are currently more economically and intellectually advanced than black-skinned people. What lunacy.
No, we are stating that the two features are not genetically linked.
I also defy you to demonstrate that Fijian Polynesians (light skinned) are currently more economically and intellectually advanced than Fijian Melanesians (very dark-skinned).
Posted by: Graculus | October 19, 2007 9:33 AM
caledonian wrote: "Females...make up a disproportionate fraction of college students."
That statistic is quite variable over geography and time. Either evolution of IQ works damn fast and differently across political borders, or there's something else going on.
Posted by: Jud | October 19, 2007 9:34 AM
John Smith wrote, "Well, yes. Normally I wouldn't say anything about skin colour when discussing genetic intelligence, for most people are stupid and highly self-deceptive, and they would willfully, maliciously misinterpret me."
No.
I don't think we are willfully or maliciously misinterpreting you.
Your posts have been very clear that you feel it would worth while to look for a link between skin color and intelligence. Which has been done. Several times. With the results showing no linkage between skin color and intelligence. Disadvantaged "light-skinned" people perform as poorly as disadvantaged "black-skinned" people.
Caladonian has been defending you under the assumption that you are arguing that other genetic traits, which may be confined to recent African populations, could have an impact on intelligence. But even he is not making any claim about skin color being linked to intelligence.
Your continued speculation about skin color being an indicator for intelligence is what makes you a racist.
Posted by: Flex | October 19, 2007 9:35 AM
No John, Skin color is not a "purely incidental feature" it has evolved to help protect the skin from the sun. Giving maybe a protection factor of 15 over pale white skin.
Posted by: sailor | October 19, 2007 9:38 AM
Inherently "more advanced"? Where is the evidence? Who gets to be "black" or "white" (and what is everybody else)? And what the hell does "advanced" mean in this context?
There is plenty of evidence to show that many "black" groups and nations are economically and socially disadvantaged, and demonstrating the connection between socio-economic deprivation and poor health, development, social and educational achievement. Nobody disagrees with that.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | October 19, 2007 9:42 AM
I wouldn't expect that, as you surely know very well. The skin colour is just a purely incidental feature. There's no reason why extra intelligence couldn't have evolved *in addition* to paler skin. As a wholly separate feature.
Sure, "intelligence" could have developed differently for isolated populations but I still haven't seen any evidence that this is true. We can all work off our own biases and theorize with no evidence but I would like to see citations.
Since I don't do research in a related area, I rely on experts for information on the genetics of race or intelligence. So, if you have good citations please share.
At the moment, I will have to go with the American Anthropological Association:
Posted by: Jared | October 19, 2007 9:45 AM