5 ms·

Human ethnic groups are measurably different in genetic terms, as based on single nucleotide polymorphisms and allelic frequency. There are multiple PCA plots o

Human ethnic groups are measurably different in genetic terms, as based on single nucleotide polymorphisms and allelic frequency. There are multiple PCA plots of the 1000 Genomes dataset which show clear cluster separation based on ancestry: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Example-Ancestry-PCA-plot-containing-the-current-reference-data-from-the-1000-genomes_fig2_345399987 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Example-Ancestry-PCA-plo... We know ethnic groups vary in terms of height, hair color, eye color, melanin, bone density, sprinting ability, lactose tolerance, propensity to diseases like sickle cell anemia, Tay-Sachs, stomach cancer, alcoholism risk, etc. Certain medications need to be dosed differently for different ethnic groups due to the frequency of certain gene variants, e.g. Carbamazepine, Warfarin, Allopurinol. The fixation index (Fst) quantifies the level of genetic variation between groups, a value of 0 means no differentiation, and 1 is maximal. A 2012 study based on SNPs found that Finns and Swedes have a Fst value of 0.0050-0.0110, Chinese and Europeans at 0.110, and Japanese and Yoruba at 0.190. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2675054/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2675054/ A 1994 study based on 120 alleles found the two most distant groups were Mbuti pygmies and Papua New Guineans at a Fst of 0.4573. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Full_Fst_Average.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Full_Fst_Average.png In genome wide association studies, polygenic score have been developed to find thousands of gene variants linked to phenotypes like spatial and verbal intelligence, memory, and processing speed. The distribution of these gene variants is not uniform across ethnic groups. Given that we know there are genetic differences between groups, and observable variation, it stands to reason that there could be a genetic component for variation in intelligence between groups. It would be dogmatic to a priori claim there is absolutely no genetic component, and pretty obviously motivated out of the fear that inequality is much more intractable than commonly believed.

mock-possum 1y ago
…but that just sounds like scientific racism. Rather than judging an individual on their actual intelligence, these kinds of statistical trends allow you to justify judging an individual based on their race, because you feel you can credibly claim that race is an acceptable proxy for their genome, is an acceptable proxy for their intelligence. Or for their trustworthiness, or creativity, or sexuality, or dutifulness, or compassion, or aggressiveness, or alacrity, or humility, etc etc. When you treat a person like a people, that’s still prejudice.
- FeepingCreature 1y ago
  Well, the rational thing is obviously to be scared of what ideas sound like. > Rather than judging an individual on their actual intelligence Actual intelligence is hard to know! However, lots of factors allow you to make a rapid initial estimate of their actual intelligence, which you can then refine as required. (When the factors include apparent genetic heritage, this is called "racism" and society doesn't like it. But that doesn't mean it doesn't work, just that you can get fired and banned for doing it.) ((This is of course why we must allow IQ tests for hiring; then there's no need to pay attention to skin color, so liberals should be all for it.))
  - const_cast 1y ago
    > Well, the rational thing is obviously to be scared of what ideas sound like. Yes, actually. If an idea sounds like it can be used to commit crimes against humanity, you should pause. You should reassess said idea multiple times. You should be skeptical. You shouldn't ignore that feeling. What a lot of people are missing is intent - the human element. Why were these studies conducted? Who conducted them? If someone insane conducts a study then yes - that is absolutely grounds to be skeptical of said study. It's perfectly rationale. If extremely racist people produce studies which just so happen to be racist, we should take a step back and go "hmm". Being right or being correct is one thing, but it's not absolutely valuable. The end-result and how "bad" it is also matters, and often times it matters more. And, elephant in the room, nobody actually knows if they're right. Making logical conclusions isn't so, because you are forced to make thousands of assumptions. You might be right, you might not be. Let's all have some humility.
  - stonogo 1y ago
    The assertion that "actual intelligence is hard to know" followed almost immediately by "apparent genetic heritage" is what's wrong with your opinion. And no, it doesn't work -- at least it doesn't work for identifying intelligence. It just works for selecting people who appeal to your bias. IQ tests are not actual measurements of anything; this is both because nobody has a rigorous working definition of intelligence and because nobody's figured out a universal method of measuring achievement of what insufficient definitions we have. Their proponents are more interested in pigeonholing people than actually measuring anything anyway. And as a hiring manager, I'd hire an idiot who is good at the job over a genius who isn't.
gadders 1y ago
As we all know, genetics and evolution only apply from the neck down.
- dennis_jeeves2 1y ago
  True, nature is egalitarian although only intracranialy.
tptacek 1y ago
GWAS results are so inhospitable to race/IQ talking points that race/IQ people have for the last several years been slagging GWAS, and molecular genomics more generally, and saying the twin studies work was the right approach all along. It's a whole thing.

mock-possum 1y ago

…but that just sounds like scientific racism. Rather than judging an individual on their actual intelligence, these kinds of statistical trends allow you to justify judging an individual based on their race, because you feel you can credibly claim that race is an acceptable proxy for their genome, is an acceptable proxy for their intelligence. Or for their trustworthiness, or creativity, or sexuality, or dutifulness, or compassion, or aggressiveness, or alacrity, or humility, etc etc. When you treat a person like a people, that’s still prejudice.

FeepingCreature 1y ago
Well, the rational thing is obviously to be scared of what ideas sound like. > Rather than judging an individual on their actual intelligence Actual intelligence is hard to know! However, lots of factors allow you to make a rapid initial estimate of their actual intelligence, which you can then refine as required. (When the factors include apparent genetic heritage, this is called "racism" and society doesn't like it. But that doesn't mean it doesn't work, just that you can get fired and banned for doing it.) ((This is of course why we must allow IQ tests for hiring; then there's no need to pay attention to skin color, so liberals should be all for it.))
- const_cast 1y ago
  > Well, the rational thing is obviously to be scared of what ideas sound like. Yes, actually. If an idea sounds like it can be used to commit crimes against humanity, you should pause. You should reassess said idea multiple times. You should be skeptical. You shouldn't ignore that feeling. What a lot of people are missing is intent - the human element. Why were these studies conducted? Who conducted them? If someone insane conducts a study then yes - that is absolutely grounds to be skeptical of said study. It's perfectly rationale. If extremely racist people produce studies which just so happen to be racist, we should take a step back and go "hmm". Being right or being correct is one thing, but it's not absolutely valuable. The end-result and how "bad" it is also matters, and often times it matters more. And, elephant in the room, nobody actually knows if they're right. Making logical conclusions isn't so, because you are forced to make thousands of assumptions. You might be right, you might not be. Let's all have some humility.
- stonogo 1y ago
  The assertion that "actual intelligence is hard to know" followed almost immediately by "apparent genetic heritage" is what's wrong with your opinion. And no, it doesn't work -- at least it doesn't work for identifying intelligence. It just works for selecting people who appeal to your bias. IQ tests are not actual measurements of anything; this is both because nobody has a rigorous working definition of intelligence and because nobody's figured out a universal method of measuring achievement of what insufficient definitions we have. Their proponents are more interested in pigeonholing people than actually measuring anything anyway. And as a hiring manager, I'd hire an idiot who is good at the job over a genius who isn't.

gadders 1y ago

As we all know, genetics and evolution only apply from the neck down.

dennis_jeeves2 1y ago
True, nature is egalitarian although only intracranialy.

tptacek 1y ago

GWAS results are so inhospitable to race/IQ talking points that race/IQ people have for the last several years been slagging GWAS, and molecular genomics more generally, and saying the twin studies work was the right approach all along. It's a whole thing.