5 ms·

Is there a reason, in principle, why it is unlikely or impossible for average IQ to be related to “race” (however that concept is defined)? Maybe because IQ is

Is there a reason, in principle, why it is unlikely or impossible for average IQ to be related to “race” (however that concept is defined)? Maybe because IQ is the result of a huge number of interacting genetic factors, and is thus unlikely to experience substantial drift over the existence of the human species? That would differentiate it from e.g. melanin production or lactose tolerance, which are heavily determined by only a few genes, and thus more likely to respond to selective pressure.

13415 8y ago
> Is there a reason, in principle, why it is unlikely or impossible for average IQ to be unrelated to “race” (however that concept is defined)? Certainly not, but AFAIK phenotypical "race" - like the one when you distinguish between "black" and "white" "races" - plays no role in modern genetics.
- throwaway98621 8y ago
  Once you control for IQ, race has no correlation with IQ.
FakeComments 8y ago
We know that intelligence has a strong genetic component, though. [0] It seems strange to me to suppose a strongly heritable trait would be uncorrelated by “race” — while numerous other traits are. It’s certainly possible, but I haven’t seen anything to support that conjecture, which certainly isn’t the minimal assumption. The minimal assumption would be heritable traits have a racial correlation — since that’s generally what we find to be the case. Further, there seems to be an incredibly strong resistance to studying the topic, likely because it conflicts with ideological (rather than scientific) positions. (As an aside, “race” isn’t necessarily well defined — but we have a good enough idea to, eg, discuss lactose tolerance or certain disease prevalence.) [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
- eesmith 8y ago
  The assumption for more than a century was that intelligence has a racial correlation. This research failed to show that a correlation between those two. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization) : > By the 1970s, it had become clear that (1) most human differences were cultural; (2) what was not cultural was principally polymorphic – that is to say, found in diverse groups of people at different frequencies; (3) what was not cultural or polymorphic was principally clinal – that is to say, gradually variable over geography; and (4) what was left – the component of human diversity that was not cultural, polymorphic, or clinal -was very small. > A consensus consequently developed among anthropologists and geneticists that race as the previous generation had known it – as largely discrete, geographically distinct, gene pools – did not exist. That is, not only was no correlation found, but the environmental effects (at the presumed racial level) were found to be much stronger than any genetic effects - eg, see the Flynn effect -, and it was found that there is no genetic basis for the racial classifications that have long dominated both culture and (culturally influenced) research. Hence, the reason why there is "incredibly strong resistance to studying" your hypothesis is that scientific research has long since shown that it isn't valid.
  - FakeComments 8y ago
    From the same Wiki: > In his 2003 paper, "Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy", A. W. F. Edwards argued that rather than using a locus-by-locus analysis of variation to derive taxonomy, it is possible to construct a human classification system based on characteristic genetic patterns, or clusters inferred from multilocus genetic data.[97][98] Geographically based human studies since have shown that such genetic clusters can be derived from analyzing of a large number of loci which can assort individuals sampled into groups analogous to traditional continental racial groups.[99] Joanna Mountain and Neil Risch cautioned that while genetic clusters may one day be shown to correspond to phenotypic variations between groups, such assumptions were premature as the relationship between genes and complex traits remains poorly understood.[100] However, Risch denied such limitations render the analysis useless: "Perhaps just using someone's actual birth year is not a very good way of measuring age. Does that mean we should throw it out? ... Any category you come up with is going to be imperfect, but that doesn't preclude you from using it or the fact that it has utility."[101] Race is a fuzzy concept, not inherently related to skin color, not highly predictive for an individual, and perhaps disappearing with increased migration and interbreeding. However, there are clusters of human genetic trends, and there’s every reason to believe that these clusters can be associated with things like intelligence in addition to, say, thigh bone length or melanin production or muscle density.
buildingsramen 8y ago
Just a couple thoughts on this. No, it's not impossible. The position of the American Anthropological Association is that there is far, far greater variation within races (however that concept is defined) than between races. I think this is a sensible position to take, and one supported by evidence, even though it does not directly answer your question. For me, the real question is: Do we really want to pursue this research goal? As psychology is very far from a complete science there's a lot of room for ambiguity and interpretation in the cutting edge of the evidence. Given human history, and up to and including the present state of our politics, I really do not trust our society to see the nuance and contingency in emerging data. The risk of studying such a topic would be gargantuan, and for what practical benefits? There are certainly many other worthy topics which deserve our scientific attention without carrying all the risk of this one. On top of that: defining and measuring a concept as nebulous as "intelligence" is a nightmare. To reduce it to a 1-dimensional scale I think is your first sign that things are not quite right.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

13415 8y ago

> Is there a reason, in principle, why it is unlikely or impossible for average IQ to be unrelated to “race” (however that concept is defined)? Certainly not, but AFAIK phenotypical "race" - like the one when you distinguish between "black" and "white" "races" - plays no role in modern genetics.

throwaway98621 8y ago
Once you control for IQ, race has no correlation with IQ.

FakeComments 8y ago

We know that intelligence has a strong genetic component, though. [0] It seems strange to me to suppose a strongly heritable trait would be uncorrelated by “race” — while numerous other traits are. It’s certainly possible, but I haven’t seen anything to support that conjecture, which certainly isn’t the minimal assumption. The minimal assumption would be heritable traits have a racial correlation — since that’s generally what we find to be the case. Further, there seems to be an incredibly strong resistance to studying the topic, likely because it conflicts with ideological (rather than scientific) positions. (As an aside, “race” isn’t necessarily well defined — but we have a good enough idea to, eg, discuss lactose tolerance or certain disease prevalence.) [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

eesmith 8y ago
The assumption for more than a century was that intelligence has a racial correlation. This research failed to show that a correlation between those two. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization) : > By the 1970s, it had become clear that (1) most human differences were cultural; (2) what was not cultural was principally polymorphic – that is to say, found in diverse groups of people at different frequencies; (3) what was not cultural or polymorphic was principally clinal – that is to say, gradually variable over geography; and (4) what was left – the component of human diversity that was not cultural, polymorphic, or clinal -was very small. > A consensus consequently developed among anthropologists and geneticists that race as the previous generation had known it – as largely discrete, geographically distinct, gene pools – did not exist. That is, not only was no correlation found, but the environmental effects (at the presumed racial level) were found to be much stronger than any genetic effects - eg, see the Flynn effect -, and it was found that there is no genetic basis for the racial classifications that have long dominated both culture and (culturally influenced) research. Hence, the reason why there is "incredibly strong resistance to studying" your hypothesis is that scientific research has long since shown that it isn't valid.
- FakeComments 8y ago
  From the same Wiki: > In his 2003 paper, "Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy", A. W. F. Edwards argued that rather than using a locus-by-locus analysis of variation to derive taxonomy, it is possible to construct a human classification system based on characteristic genetic patterns, or clusters inferred from multilocus genetic data.[97][98] Geographically based human studies since have shown that such genetic clusters can be derived from analyzing of a large number of loci which can assort individuals sampled into groups analogous to traditional continental racial groups.[99] Joanna Mountain and Neil Risch cautioned that while genetic clusters may one day be shown to correspond to phenotypic variations between groups, such assumptions were premature as the relationship between genes and complex traits remains poorly understood.[100] However, Risch denied such limitations render the analysis useless: "Perhaps just using someone's actual birth year is not a very good way of measuring age. Does that mean we should throw it out? ... Any category you come up with is going to be imperfect, but that doesn't preclude you from using it or the fact that it has utility."[101] Race is a fuzzy concept, not inherently related to skin color, not highly predictive for an individual, and perhaps disappearing with increased migration and interbreeding. However, there are clusters of human genetic trends, and there’s every reason to believe that these clusters can be associated with things like intelligence in addition to, say, thigh bone length or melanin production or muscle density.

buildingsramen 8y ago

Just a couple thoughts on this. No, it's not impossible. The position of the American Anthropological Association is that there is far, far greater variation within races (however that concept is defined) than between races. I think this is a sensible position to take, and one supported by evidence, even though it does not directly answer your question. For me, the real question is: Do we really want to pursue this research goal? As psychology is very far from a complete science there's a lot of room for ambiguity and interpretation in the cutting edge of the evidence. Given human history, and up to and including the present state of our politics, I really do not trust our society to see the nuance and contingency in emerging data. The risk of studying such a topic would be gargantuan, and for what practical benefits? There are certainly many other worthy topics which deserve our scientific attention without carrying all the risk of this one. On top of that: defining and measuring a concept as nebulous as "intelligence" is a nightmare. To reduce it to a 1-dimensional scale I think is your first sign that things are not quite right.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]