"Steve seems to believe that it has been scientifically proven that differences in average IQ between population groups cannot possibly be genetic,"
No, I don't believe this. My issue is with the assignation of population groups based on skin colour. As I've said countless times, this makes as little sense as assigning population groups b…
"Steve seems to believe that it has been scientifically proven that differences in average IQ between population groups cannot possibly be genetic,"
No, I don't believe this. My issue is with the assignation of population groups based on skin colour. As I've said countless times, this makes as little sense as assigning population groups based on hair colour or head shape. I make this point, albeit in different words, in the conversation itself:
"I'm not genetically or culturally similar to a black person living in Kenya. Or Namibia. Or Zimbabwe. They aren't similar to each other. Using this superficial similarity to categorise billions of people is silly whether it's Asians or black people or white people."
My skin is the same colour as somebody from Kenya. But the distance between my ancestors (from Sierra Leone) and Kenya is greater than the distance between my ancestors and Sweden! So what is the value of categorising us both as "black" for the purposes of IQ? We are not particularly similar genetically or culturally.
I think the question of whether IQ differences are genetic is an interesting one, but there's not nearly enough consensus to say one way or another. The point I'm trying to make (I feel as if a significant portion of my writing career has been spent trying to make this point😅) is that a genetic factor in IQ or any other measure wouldn't mean that black people would all be similar in how they tested for this measure.
A few notes tho. American descendants of slavery do not represent the genetic diversity of the continent of Africa. They came overwhelmingly from a few tribes in Western Africa. Likewise other "racial" or ethnic groups in the US are not statistically valid representations of Europe or China or anywhere else.
Today, about 10-12% of African-Americans did not descend from slaves (at least not slaves imported to the territories which became the US) - their families migrated more recently, and largely from different parts of Africa than the imported slave did. And their aggregate statistics differ as well. I have no objection to treating them as different population group, rather than lumping just by skin color and ignoring cultural differences, for example.
Most of the population group measurements of g in the United States cannot be extrapolated to conclude anything about whole continents which differ from US population groups, both genetically and culturally and socio-economically. But no scientist would pretend that they do so generalize; there's nobody here arguing that they do. So making points about the genetic diversity within Africa or Asia are entirely a distraction in a discussion of measurements of US population groups, as self identified.
The only value that such population group measurements may have, is in analyzing similar statistics in other areas, using the same self-identified population groups. Doing to in no way implies how much the population groups are genetically definable! Basically we are comparing, say, how people who check the "Asian-American" box differ from people who check the "Latino/Hispanic" box. Or Americans who self identify as "Catholic" versus "Protestant" or "Atheist". Let's not pretend that those categories of self identification are meaningless, and thus that any statistics gathered using those categories are completely meaningless, unless we can genetically distinguish every Catholic from every Protestant, or every Asian from every Latino. And invoking the world-wide genetic differences among Catholics does not inform such a discussion specifically limited to American Catholics and American Protestants (who are not being asserted to be indistinguishable from Catholics and Protestants in other parts of the world.
The frustrating part is making an carefully qualified and modest assertion specific to one context, and having people broaden it into some global assertion about the entire human race, which I would dispute myself, and then proceed to dispute that unqualified assertion as if that (accidental strawman) thereby invalidates my more modest one. I'm willing to defend, refine, or withdraw the assertions I actually make, based on new evidence and reasoning. But I cannot be held responsible for things I do not believe but which others imagine I might be saying.
"American descendants of slavery do not represent the genetic diversity of the continent of Africa."
True. But now, in 2022, "black people" in America do represent a meaningful portion of the genetic diversity of Africa. And, of course, black people have also mixed with other ethnicities but are still considered "black" for the census purposes.
>>>"But no scientist would pretend that they do so generalize;"
Yes, they do! I pointed this out during the conversation. Here's a report about Nicholas Wade doing precisely that (https://www.science.org/content/article/geneticists-decry-book-race-and-evolution)! Charles Murray does too. Albeit less overtly. Nobody *here* is arguing it, I haven't claimed they are. But that's very different to saying that *nobody* is arguing it.
I don't need to talk about the genetic diversity in Asia or Africa to make my point. I do so just because it's easier for some people to grasp when I talk about the diversity of entire continents. But sticking with the U.S., many self-identified African Americans have less than 50% African ancestry. Some have less than 2% (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4289685/bin/mmc1.pdf). The one drop rule was a trip. So even if we're talking exclusively about the U.S., I don't think talking about genetic diversity is a distraction.
But yes, I find the categories broadly meaningless. I'm a little lost on the point you're trying to make about Protestants and Atheists, but would you consider IQ research based on religion to be meaningful? What should we do if we found that Atheists had higher IQ, on average, than Protestants?
I'm generalising out the point Cas is making because doing so makes it easier to see the flaws in it. And because the people who make racist arguments based on these ideas about "race" and genetics certainly aren't being nuanced about population groups. But as I've hopefully demonstrated, those same flaws exist even if you're specific about America.
So I'm guess I'm just not clear about what qualified and modest assertion you're trying to make.
"What should we do if we found that Atheists had higher IQ, on average, than Protestants?"
I would be very, very surprised to learn otherwise.
We grow up under intense pressure to accept religion and until very recently the same was true almost everywhere in the world. Faith is expected to be exempt from analysis and logic (especially logic) and many a child has been beaten for even making a joke about church, much less expressing actual skepticism. And we are led to believe that we are under continual divine surveillance, even of our thoughts, by a vengeful god with his hand on a trapdoor lever.
To tunnel one's way out of believing this nonsense requires extreme intellectual independence, one that is not even exhibited by all very intelligent people, much less by average people.
Steve, let's examine this step by step to avoid accidental memory lapses. I said:
PGBR> "Most of the population group measurements of g in the United States cannot be extrapolated to conclude anything about whole continents which differ from US population groups, both genetically and culturally and socio-economically. But no scientist would pretend that they do so generalize"
I followed that link and read every word, and was not able to find where Nicolas Wade does "precisely that", ie: generalize American IQ measurements to characterize continental populations.
Could you quote where Wade generalized from US tests to global conclusions? If not, it would appear that your citation does not actually support the assertion you made, but perhaps you meant to cite something else.
What I did find, in Wade's own words, from your link, was:
NW> "They charge me with saying that "recent natural selection has led to worldwide differences in I.Q. test results." I say no such thing. What I do say (p. 193) is that "It may be hazardous to compare the IQ scores of different races if allowance is not made for differences in wealth, nutrition and other factors that influence IQ."
I am quite willing to change my assertion (quoted at the beginning above) if you can cite a scientist who does what I say no scientist does (generalize from US IQ data to global conclusions), but so far I've seen no example at all, much less one where a scientist "does precisely that".
PS: Wade is a journalist, not a scientist. But I'd still be interested in anything you can actually quote from him which does what I assert that no scientist does.
"Could you quote where Wade generalized from US tests to global conclusions?"
I'm not sure what to make of this. Is the only thing that will satisfy you a direct quote from Wade saying, "I think differences in IQ in racial groups in America can be generalised out to population groups from other continents?" Is your point that no scientist is literally saying the exact thing you're saying, not by implication and context, but verbatim?
In that case, no, I can't provide a quote to support that. But given that Wade's central claim is that racial differences are based on evolutionary differences between the "races," that's inescapably a genetic argument as far as I can see. Which then means that the differences aren't specific to the US (indeed, Wade is British) but are about "population groups," "races" in this case, across the world.
Wade identifies 3-5 "races" by misinterpreting research from one of the scientists quoted in the article. Not only is this counter to common knowledge (and common sense) about genetics, it again suggests, if you take him seriously, that the fact that one of the "races" happens to be in America would have no bearing on anything else.
And lastly, from the quote that you shared, what Wade is arguing here is that it "may be dangerous to compare the IQ scores of different 'races'"(there's a specific critique of his ideas on race here - https://www.huffpost.com/entry/a-troublesome-response-ni_b_5419505) when you control for income, health etc. I'm curious, what do you think he's implying here?
To be clear, I'm not calling Wade a racist or a white supremacist or anything of the sort. I'm saying that people do so generalise. Fair point about Wade being a writer and not a scientist, but he's presenting his ideas as if they're supported by scientific research. Again, Murray does the same thing. And while I'm confident that you are personally intelligent enough to nuance the specifics of these points, people like Peyton Gendron aren't. That's why these inaccuracies matter.
Also, just a quick aside: I'm sure this isn't intentional, but phrases like "to avoid any accidental memory lapses" sound incredibly condescending. Similarly, repeatedly talking about the inability of "some readers" to talk about racial issues objectively (while assuring me that you aren't referring to me necessarily) still feels very much directed at me.
After all, I don't see how it's helpful to inform me what other readers might do. And I talk about race and racism quite reguarly without getting emotional. So unless I start sobbing and calling you a white supremacist, can we assume that no further caveats about the potential emotionality of racial topics are required?
> "Is your point that no scientist is literally saying the exact thing you're saying, not by implication and context, but verbatim?"
You asserted that Wade did "precisely that". I am merely asking for you to quote the section of the article you linked as supporting your point, the words which you interpret as generalizing US tests to the world, whether precisely or fuzzily. I did not ask for verbatim, just show whatever words he said which you thing translate to the belief you attribute to him.
About your latter points If you and I were communicating privately, I would write differently. I always assume when writing on Substack (or public comments) that there will be more unknown readers than known ones, much less the direct person I am replying to. Taking it as if I must be talking about you or I wouldn't mention it, will lead to ongoing misunderstanding.
If I say I am not talking about you, then trust that. Exactly like I take you at your word when you say "And while I'm confident that you are personally intelligent enough to nuance the specifics of these points, people like Peyton Gendron aren't." I do NOT assume that you really are attributing lack of nuance to me, despite your explicit disclaimer otherwise; if I did, we'd needlessly go back and forth over my imagining that you were disingenuously insulting me. Instead I trust that you are speaking honestly and not indirectly trying to link me to someone else. If you give me the same trust, we'll avoid some miscommunication.
> "What should we do if we found that Atheists had higher IQ, on average, than Protestants?"
Same as any other population group:
(1) Assess each individual as an individual without pre-judgement based on group membership; remember that individuals may be typical or atypical of every population group of which they are a member
(2) Use group level statistics ONLY for context with other group level statistics using the same categories (comparing like with like). So if there were also population group level statistics about Protestants and Atheists differing in some social or material trait which might influence, or be influenced by, IQ, then examining for correlations or even cautious causations would be on the table. Such awareness could lead to alternative hypotheses which can be examined with evidence and reasoning. This "like with like" statistical group level analysis MUST be kept separate from assessing individuals!
(3) Take general intelligence (as measured by IQ) as only one of many factors which affect people's success and satisfaction in life; a significant one which should not be ignored or unduly discounted, but also not dominant in itself. True at both the individual and group levels.
I use such an example because some population groupings have such emotional charge that many readers may have trouble looking at them objectively - in part because they don't read what one is writing, but instead "hear echos" of some past thing that other people have written and are unable to emotionally separate the two. (Not saying you personally, just some humans in general).
"Steve seems to believe that it has been scientifically proven that differences in average IQ between population groups cannot possibly be genetic,"
No, I don't believe this. My issue is with the assignation of population groups based on skin colour. As I've said countless times, this makes as little sense as assigning population groups based on hair colour or head shape. I make this point, albeit in different words, in the conversation itself:
"I'm not genetically or culturally similar to a black person living in Kenya. Or Namibia. Or Zimbabwe. They aren't similar to each other. Using this superficial similarity to categorise billions of people is silly whether it's Asians or black people or white people."
My skin is the same colour as somebody from Kenya. But the distance between my ancestors (from Sierra Leone) and Kenya is greater than the distance between my ancestors and Sweden! So what is the value of categorising us both as "black" for the purposes of IQ? We are not particularly similar genetically or culturally.
I think the question of whether IQ differences are genetic is an interesting one, but there's not nearly enough consensus to say one way or another. The point I'm trying to make (I feel as if a significant portion of my writing career has been spent trying to make this point😅) is that a genetic factor in IQ or any other measure wouldn't mean that black people would all be similar in how they tested for this measure.
Compare the number of misspelled words on signs at Trump rallies with signs in gatherings of the other side.
Also the mixing of uppercase and lowercase.
We fundamentally agree on the key points.
A few notes tho. American descendants of slavery do not represent the genetic diversity of the continent of Africa. They came overwhelmingly from a few tribes in Western Africa. Likewise other "racial" or ethnic groups in the US are not statistically valid representations of Europe or China or anywhere else.
Today, about 10-12% of African-Americans did not descend from slaves (at least not slaves imported to the territories which became the US) - their families migrated more recently, and largely from different parts of Africa than the imported slave did. And their aggregate statistics differ as well. I have no objection to treating them as different population group, rather than lumping just by skin color and ignoring cultural differences, for example.
Most of the population group measurements of g in the United States cannot be extrapolated to conclude anything about whole continents which differ from US population groups, both genetically and culturally and socio-economically. But no scientist would pretend that they do so generalize; there's nobody here arguing that they do. So making points about the genetic diversity within Africa or Asia are entirely a distraction in a discussion of measurements of US population groups, as self identified.
The only value that such population group measurements may have, is in analyzing similar statistics in other areas, using the same self-identified population groups. Doing to in no way implies how much the population groups are genetically definable! Basically we are comparing, say, how people who check the "Asian-American" box differ from people who check the "Latino/Hispanic" box. Or Americans who self identify as "Catholic" versus "Protestant" or "Atheist". Let's not pretend that those categories of self identification are meaningless, and thus that any statistics gathered using those categories are completely meaningless, unless we can genetically distinguish every Catholic from every Protestant, or every Asian from every Latino. And invoking the world-wide genetic differences among Catholics does not inform such a discussion specifically limited to American Catholics and American Protestants (who are not being asserted to be indistinguishable from Catholics and Protestants in other parts of the world.
The frustrating part is making an carefully qualified and modest assertion specific to one context, and having people broaden it into some global assertion about the entire human race, which I would dispute myself, and then proceed to dispute that unqualified assertion as if that (accidental strawman) thereby invalidates my more modest one. I'm willing to defend, refine, or withdraw the assertions I actually make, based on new evidence and reasoning. But I cannot be held responsible for things I do not believe but which others imagine I might be saying.
"American descendants of slavery do not represent the genetic diversity of the continent of Africa."
True. But now, in 2022, "black people" in America do represent a meaningful portion of the genetic diversity of Africa. And, of course, black people have also mixed with other ethnicities but are still considered "black" for the census purposes.
>>>"But no scientist would pretend that they do so generalize;"
Yes, they do! I pointed this out during the conversation. Here's a report about Nicholas Wade doing precisely that (https://www.science.org/content/article/geneticists-decry-book-race-and-evolution)! Charles Murray does too. Albeit less overtly. Nobody *here* is arguing it, I haven't claimed they are. But that's very different to saying that *nobody* is arguing it.
I don't need to talk about the genetic diversity in Asia or Africa to make my point. I do so just because it's easier for some people to grasp when I talk about the diversity of entire continents. But sticking with the U.S., many self-identified African Americans have less than 50% African ancestry. Some have less than 2% (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4289685/bin/mmc1.pdf). The one drop rule was a trip. So even if we're talking exclusively about the U.S., I don't think talking about genetic diversity is a distraction.
But yes, I find the categories broadly meaningless. I'm a little lost on the point you're trying to make about Protestants and Atheists, but would you consider IQ research based on religion to be meaningful? What should we do if we found that Atheists had higher IQ, on average, than Protestants?
I'm generalising out the point Cas is making because doing so makes it easier to see the flaws in it. And because the people who make racist arguments based on these ideas about "race" and genetics certainly aren't being nuanced about population groups. But as I've hopefully demonstrated, those same flaws exist even if you're specific about America.
So I'm guess I'm just not clear about what qualified and modest assertion you're trying to make.
"What should we do if we found that Atheists had higher IQ, on average, than Protestants?"
I would be very, very surprised to learn otherwise.
We grow up under intense pressure to accept religion and until very recently the same was true almost everywhere in the world. Faith is expected to be exempt from analysis and logic (especially logic) and many a child has been beaten for even making a joke about church, much less expressing actual skepticism. And we are led to believe that we are under continual divine surveillance, even of our thoughts, by a vengeful god with his hand on a trapdoor lever.
To tunnel one's way out of believing this nonsense requires extreme intellectual independence, one that is not even exhibited by all very intelligent people, much less by average people.
Steve, let's examine this step by step to avoid accidental memory lapses. I said:
PGBR> "Most of the population group measurements of g in the United States cannot be extrapolated to conclude anything about whole continents which differ from US population groups, both genetically and culturally and socio-economically. But no scientist would pretend that they do so generalize"
SQ> "Yes, they do! I pointed this out during the conversation. Here's a report about Nicholas Wade doing precisely that (https://www.science.org/content/article/geneticists-decry-book-race-and-evolution)!"
I followed that link and read every word, and was not able to find where Nicolas Wade does "precisely that", ie: generalize American IQ measurements to characterize continental populations.
Could you quote where Wade generalized from US tests to global conclusions? If not, it would appear that your citation does not actually support the assertion you made, but perhaps you meant to cite something else.
What I did find, in Wade's own words, from your link, was:
NW> "They charge me with saying that "recent natural selection has led to worldwide differences in I.Q. test results." I say no such thing. What I do say (p. 193) is that "It may be hazardous to compare the IQ scores of different races if allowance is not made for differences in wealth, nutrition and other factors that influence IQ."
I am quite willing to change my assertion (quoted at the beginning above) if you can cite a scientist who does what I say no scientist does (generalize from US IQ data to global conclusions), but so far I've seen no example at all, much less one where a scientist "does precisely that".
PS: Wade is a journalist, not a scientist. But I'd still be interested in anything you can actually quote from him which does what I assert that no scientist does.
"Could you quote where Wade generalized from US tests to global conclusions?"
I'm not sure what to make of this. Is the only thing that will satisfy you a direct quote from Wade saying, "I think differences in IQ in racial groups in America can be generalised out to population groups from other continents?" Is your point that no scientist is literally saying the exact thing you're saying, not by implication and context, but verbatim?
In that case, no, I can't provide a quote to support that. But given that Wade's central claim is that racial differences are based on evolutionary differences between the "races," that's inescapably a genetic argument as far as I can see. Which then means that the differences aren't specific to the US (indeed, Wade is British) but are about "population groups," "races" in this case, across the world.
Wade identifies 3-5 "races" by misinterpreting research from one of the scientists quoted in the article. Not only is this counter to common knowledge (and common sense) about genetics, it again suggests, if you take him seriously, that the fact that one of the "races" happens to be in America would have no bearing on anything else.
And lastly, from the quote that you shared, what Wade is arguing here is that it "may be dangerous to compare the IQ scores of different 'races'"(there's a specific critique of his ideas on race here - https://www.huffpost.com/entry/a-troublesome-response-ni_b_5419505) when you control for income, health etc. I'm curious, what do you think he's implying here?
To be clear, I'm not calling Wade a racist or a white supremacist or anything of the sort. I'm saying that people do so generalise. Fair point about Wade being a writer and not a scientist, but he's presenting his ideas as if they're supported by scientific research. Again, Murray does the same thing. And while I'm confident that you are personally intelligent enough to nuance the specifics of these points, people like Peyton Gendron aren't. That's why these inaccuracies matter.
Also, just a quick aside: I'm sure this isn't intentional, but phrases like "to avoid any accidental memory lapses" sound incredibly condescending. Similarly, repeatedly talking about the inability of "some readers" to talk about racial issues objectively (while assuring me that you aren't referring to me necessarily) still feels very much directed at me.
After all, I don't see how it's helpful to inform me what other readers might do. And I talk about race and racism quite reguarly without getting emotional. So unless I start sobbing and calling you a white supremacist, can we assume that no further caveats about the potential emotionality of racial topics are required?
> "Is your point that no scientist is literally saying the exact thing you're saying, not by implication and context, but verbatim?"
You asserted that Wade did "precisely that". I am merely asking for you to quote the section of the article you linked as supporting your point, the words which you interpret as generalizing US tests to the world, whether precisely or fuzzily. I did not ask for verbatim, just show whatever words he said which you thing translate to the belief you attribute to him.
About your latter points If you and I were communicating privately, I would write differently. I always assume when writing on Substack (or public comments) that there will be more unknown readers than known ones, much less the direct person I am replying to. Taking it as if I must be talking about you or I wouldn't mention it, will lead to ongoing misunderstanding.
If I say I am not talking about you, then trust that. Exactly like I take you at your word when you say "And while I'm confident that you are personally intelligent enough to nuance the specifics of these points, people like Peyton Gendron aren't." I do NOT assume that you really are attributing lack of nuance to me, despite your explicit disclaimer otherwise; if I did, we'd needlessly go back and forth over my imagining that you were disingenuously insulting me. Instead I trust that you are speaking honestly and not indirectly trying to link me to someone else. If you give me the same trust, we'll avoid some miscommunication.
> "What should we do if we found that Atheists had higher IQ, on average, than Protestants?"
Same as any other population group:
(1) Assess each individual as an individual without pre-judgement based on group membership; remember that individuals may be typical or atypical of every population group of which they are a member
(2) Use group level statistics ONLY for context with other group level statistics using the same categories (comparing like with like). So if there were also population group level statistics about Protestants and Atheists differing in some social or material trait which might influence, or be influenced by, IQ, then examining for correlations or even cautious causations would be on the table. Such awareness could lead to alternative hypotheses which can be examined with evidence and reasoning. This "like with like" statistical group level analysis MUST be kept separate from assessing individuals!
(3) Take general intelligence (as measured by IQ) as only one of many factors which affect people's success and satisfaction in life; a significant one which should not be ignored or unduly discounted, but also not dominant in itself. True at both the individual and group levels.
I use such an example because some population groupings have such emotional charge that many readers may have trouble looking at them objectively - in part because they don't read what one is writing, but instead "hear echos" of some past thing that other people have written and are unable to emotionally separate the two. (Not saying you personally, just some humans in general).