Race differences in intelligence: does genetic proof already exist?

Thanks to technological advances in the last few years, scientists are now able to sequence people’s genes. In my previous post [11/18/07 - I highly recommend reading the previous post, it's much better than this post, but the NY Times linked to this one for some reason] on race and intelligence, I pointed out that scientists have already discovered genes that correlate with higher intelligence as measured by IQ tests (for example: link1, link2). I wrote that soon we will be able to determine if the high intelligence version of various genes occur with greater or lesser frequency in the gene pools of the different races

It was pointed out in the comments that we already have a way to determine this! There exists a publicly available gene database, The HapMap Project, that contains random samples of genetic sequences from people in China, Japan, Nigeria, and people in the United States with European ancestry. It’s now possible to search the HapMap database for genes that have been linked with intelligence in published scientific studies. In this manner, we can determine if high intelligence genes occur with greater or lesser frequency in the various races.

Now, here’s an interesting point. If even a single gene correlated with intelligence occurs with different frequencies in the different races, this alone proves that there are racial differences in intelligence. How is that? Well, the egalitarian theory holds that every race has identical intelligence. Therefore, whatever genes there are that affect intelligence, they must be distributed exactly equally in all human races. Once even a small race difference is proven, the egalitarian theory is proven false. At that point, it’s only a matter of determining which race has the higher average intelligence based on the genetic evidence.

I have to confess that I currently don’t know how to use the HapMap database. Thus it’s impossible for me to determine if the following comment by “Marc,” about the DTNBP1 gene is true or false:

Let's look at rs:760761, rs:2619522 and rs:2619538, all of which are associated with increased or decreased intelligence in DTNBP1.

Regarding rs:760761, 18% of Europeans carry the T allele, which knocks about 8 points off the ol' IQ, compared to around 7% of East Asians and 37% of blacks.

Regarding rs:2619522, the numbers are similar. 18% of whites carry the G allele, which knocks about 7 points off the ol' IQ, versus around 8% of Asians and 35-36% of blacks.

Regarding rs:2619538, 39% of whites carry the A allele, which adds about 6.5 points to one's IQ, versus about 99% of Asians and 31% of blacks.

[UPDATE 11/16/07: I did the above calculations with more detail: DTNBP1 gene and racial IQ differences.]

Marc seems to be saying that there are statistically significant differences in the DTNBP1 gene in the different races. Thus, for the very first time in the history of the study of intelligence, we have actual proof that the races do not have identical distributions of genes that are correlated with intelligence.

Here’s another interesting fact about the DTNBP1 gene. This gene is also associated with schizophrenia. James Watson’s son has schizophrenia. James Watson obviously knows about this research because this is his field of expertise and he has a personal interest in schizophrenia. He probably knows about the HapMap project also. When he said there are race differences in intelligence, he based this on personal knowledge of the very latest genetic research.

Will this information convince anyone of anything? Even before genetic sequencing, we knew of at least one gene correlated with intelligence. That’s the gene for myopia. There have been many experiments conducted around the world, all showing that high IQ is a risk factor for myopia, independent of the amount of reading one does. Take, for example, this recent study . Before genetic sequencing, we knew that myopia was highly hereditary based on the usual kinship studies (children have myopia if their parents have myopia). And we also knew that myopia occurs with different frequencies in different populations. Jews and Asians have the greatest prevalence of myopia, non-Jewish whites in the middle, and blacks have the least prevalence of myopia. The distribution is as expected. The smartest races have the greatest prevalence of myopia. The distribution of myopia proves, even before genetic sequencing, that there are definitely genetic race differences in intelligence. Even though there is rock solid scientific evidence that the races are not genetically identical when it comes to cognitive ability, the left-wing anti-free-speech deniers just hold their hands over their ears and scream “racist” at anyone who speaks the truth.

The myopia gene is also an example of how a genetic variant can have both a good effect and a bad effect. All things being equal, it’s always better to be more intelligent than less intelligent. A gene that causes high intelligence but has no detrimental effects should appear with high frequency in all races. So when natural selection favored Europeans and Asians for higher intelligence, it must also have disfavored them in other desirable attributes. Good vision is but one example. (If you’re still interested in myopia, the latest research shows that there are two genes, PAX6 and SOX2, associated with it. At least one of those two genes probably has something to do with IQ.)

If it is true that natural selection favored higher intelligence in Asians and Europeans, we will probably find that for the vast majority of genes correlated with intelligence, the more intelligent variant of the gene will occur with greater frequency in Asian and European populations. The exception is genes that cause lower intelligence but nevertheless confer a unique survival advantage to Asian and European populations. Imagine a hypothetical genetic variant that causes both lower IQ but greater protection from the cold weather. This gene is useless to Africans living in the hot jungles, but valuable to northern people dealing with cold winters. This is an example of how a gene might buck the trend and appear to disprove the hypothesis that blacks are less intelligent than Asians and white. Unfortunately, those who dispute the race-based theory of genes and intelligence will scream loudly about these types of genes (even though, by pointing them out, they admit that genes influence intelligence and that such genes are not equally distributed among the races).

UPDATE

"Marc" offered the following correction:

Dude, you didn't post my correction regarding rs:2619538. (Maybe I hadn't made it yet when you were posting, though.) I got my alleles mixed up. Actually, 69% of blacks had the allele that correlates with the *higher* IQ, versus 31% of whites and only 1% of Asians. When you calculate the sum effects of the four alleles using the hapmap data, it leaves blacks with an IQ deficit of 3.6 points relative to whites (the boost they get from rs:2619538 doesn't entirely make up for the distribution of the other alleles) and whites and Asians are nearly equal, with Asians having a deficit of .2 IQ points relative to whites. Having said that, I got to say, once the gentle euphoria of "discovery" wore off, I realized that this doesn't really prove anything. I don't even know how many, if any, of the studies tying these alleles to intelligence have been replicated, and all the studies I've seen suggest that there may be as many as 50 alleles coding for intelligence, if not more. Still, it was a fun exercise, and I do think that as more alleles are identified (and verified) we will be able to get a much more complete picture.

In response to whether it proves anything, it proves that alleles associated with intelligence don't appear with the exact same frequencies in each race, as the left-wing-egalitarian theory insists upon. In fact, it's quite a big variation.

The assertion that the races are exactly equal in genes that effect brain functions has been proven false.

UPDATE 11/10/2007

This blog post has been linked to by the New York Times. My initial response to that article can be read here: Half Sigma in the New York Times.

For those who wish to read the blog post by Jason Malloy that was mentioned in the NY Times article but without a direct link, here is the link: James Watson tells the inconvenient truth: faces the consequences.

UPDATE 11/11/2007

I've written an additional post, Response to comments on race and intelligence, where I respond to the most common comments.

UPDATE 11/12/2007

A blogger whom I presume to be Indian (thus not a racist trying to prove white superiority) has a blog post summarizing the various genes that have been discovered that are related to intelligence, as well as comments regarding how they vary in frequency in different races.

The best blogospheric proof yet that races are not genetically identical in average cognitive abilities.

Comments

[Peter]

My knowledge of genetics is pretty much limited to what I've picked up from reading Gene Expression. Nonetheless, if I'm reading the quoted comment from "Marc" correctly, whites are closer to blacks than to Asians in terms of the three IQ-affecting alleles. According to most IQ studies, however, the IQ gap between whites and NE Asians is just a few points, nothing like the infamous 1 SD white/black gap. Is this really a contradiction, or am I just misinterpreting the comment?

[the professor]

To fully study the problem you need to take all genes into account, and this would be very hard. We don't even have a precise formulation for what IQ is. However, you might be right that there is some limited evidence that points to your conclusion.

[the professor]

The main problem with IQ that I see is that it doesn't fully describe intelligence. All the tests that measure something similar, including the IQ tests, SAT, GRE, LSAT, GMAT, are geared towards solving trivial problems fast. Because of the time concern, the view is that it measure raw IQness. But is this IQ?

No so! In my view, IQ needs to measure people's capability to make and understand complicated arguments and creativity. To be a researcher you need plenty of both, but you don't necessarily need to solve trivial problems quickly.

Take mathematics for example: in the IMO (International Math Olympiad), China has been leading.

According to http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/imo-scores/ this is the list of countries that won the IMO (since 1977):

China: 13 times
Russia: 4 times
Romania, West Germany: 2 times
US, Bulgaria, Iran: 1 time

Israel never made it to top 10. India has two 7th places, a 9th and a 10th.

The IMO tests are way more complicated than the so called IQ tests, and way more relevant. However, a researcher needs even more; he needs a lot more creativity and the ability to make much more complicated arguments, and not under time pressure. Take a look at the MIT math department (the most meritocratic university), particularly at who's faculty. http://math.mit.edu/cgi-bin/directory.cgi

[The Superfluous Man]

The egalitarians will say, correctly but speciously all the same, not all of the genes influencing intelligence have been found, so talk about racial differences in intelligence is premature.

[the professor]

Another thing is the ability to LEAD, which seems to be correlated with athletic power and not IQ.

Blacks have the highest athletic ability. Even body fat percentage is different: they have less of it.

Think of the top pro bodybuilders: nowadays almost all are black. There has never been an Asian bodybuilder competing pro.

[tommy]

Now, here’s an interesting point. If even a single gene correlated with intelligence occurs with different frequencies in the different races, this alone proves that there are racial differences in intelligence. How is that? Well, the egalitarian theory holds that every race has identical intelligence. Therefore, whatever genes there are that affect intelligence, they must be distributed exactly equally in all human races. Once even a small race difference is proven, the egalitarian theory is proven false. At that point, it’s only a matter of determining which race has the higher average intelligence based on the genetic evidence.

Wow, talk about a convergence of thought. I've been saying exactly this for years and I noticed the other day that Deogolwulf appears to have hit upon exactly the same idea. We may not be able to prove exactly how much difference there is by the discovery of a single "smart gene" but assuming intelligence is even slightly hereditary then it is impossible to come to the conclusion that all races are equally intelligent. In fact, the only reason to really presume they might be nearly equal is by some mechanism of cognitive convergence that hasn't been described or what Deogolwulf might call the "Conspecific Law of Equalising Inertia."

You could go further and state that even if intelligence genes had a roughly equal percentage distribution in various races, a mere difference in population sizes would guarantee that such gene distributions could not be exactly proportional at all times though they would almost certainly be otherwise inconsequential.

Finally, you need not even look for "smart genes" to prove there must be a difference in intelligence among various races: it could be pointed out that any difference in predisposition to genetic disorders resulting in mental retardation would guarantee differences in the mean IQ of races even assuming all non-retarded individuals of every race had the same mean intelligence.

[tommy]

The exception is genes that cause lower intelligence but nevertheless confer a unique survival advantage to Asian and European populations. Imagine a hypothetical genetic variant that causes both lower IQ but greater protection from the cold weather. This gene is useless to Africans living in the hot jungles, but valuable to northern people dealing with cold winters. This is an example of how a gene might buck the trend and appear to disprove the hypothesis that blacks are less intelligent than Asians and white.

I remember reading a physical anthropology study from way back in the 1950s which found that on average the children of whites and Native Americans from the Northern Plains were taller than either of their parents. This could be the result of different genes controlling height in Indians and whites.

Such a mechanism might have a parallel when it comes to genetic intelligence: even if we discover differences in intelligence among races that do not favor Africans or Native Americans (and mestizos) it could still be the case that individual genes at certain loci in either of these races are superior to European or Asian versions in conferring intelligence. The ideal combination of genes for intelligence might involve some African and Indian genes even in Africans or Indians are less intelligent on the average than whites or Asians.

I noticed this post a few days ago at Gene Expression:

TopTen the Hottest Smart Girls In Hollywood (NSFW if you page down). Any thoughts? These are supposed to be intelligent women, so I note that there is a 20% representation of Ashkenazi Jews (1 full, 2 half). Three women on the list are black-white biracial, while one is 1/8 Burmese.

This can't be considered strong evidence of the hypothesis I mentioned but it's a possibility worth keeping in mind.

[David Alexander]

Even before genetic sequencing, we knew of at least one gene correlated with intelligence. That’s the gene for myopia
...
Jews and Asians have the greatest prevalence of myopia, non-Jewish whites in the middle, and blacks have the least prevalence of myopia. The distribution is as expected. The smartest races have the greatest prevalence of myopia.

Anecdote Zone: David Alexander, his two siblings, mother, aunts, maternal grandmother, several cousins, and neice are perpetual glasses wearers, using them since childhood. OTOH, David's father, a civil engineer by training, does not wear glasses.

Retarded Question: What is the distribution of mentally challenged children of different races?

Once even a small race difference is proven, the egalitarian theory is proven false.

As an egalitarian*, the problem that many of us have is that this type of knowledge destroys our philosophy, and makes it hard to "sell". The egalitarian notion of races being equal is from my perspective the only thing that prevents the greater population from unleashing their hatred upon those of my race. I have no faith in the rest of humanity in either treating blacks equally if it's common and accepted knowledge that black average IQ is lower than white and Asian averages, nor do I have any faith in the ability of the average person to discern and treat the black population that reaches the white average with respect either.

*Yes, I'm one of those loser weirdos who wants to abolish the entire concept of "race" and just have people living together as one large cohesive group (yes, no more separate black neighbourhood), but you pesky scientists keep bringing it up and ruining "our" plans.

[David Alexander]

One of the half-Jewish women listed is Rashida Jones, who is Quincy Jones's daughter and per wikipedia, also of Cherokee, Black, and Welsh descent from her father. The other two mulatto women are Jennifer Beals (Irish Mother, Black Father), and Alicia Keys (Italian/Irish Mother, Jamaican Father).

[miles]

Tommy wrote:

"TopTen the Hottest Smart Girls In Hollywood (NSFW if you page down). Any thoughts? These are supposed to be intelligent women, so I note that there is a 20% representation of Ashkenazi Jews (1 full, 2 half). Three women on the list are black-white biracial, while one is 1/8 Burmese."

Sharon Stone was on that list, and her IQ has been shown to have been fraudulent PR-BS put out by her/her agent years ago.

The other women on that list majored in non-math, non-science subjects. Im sorry folks, but the ability to speak two or three languages while getting a degree in "theatre" does not a Newton make. Natalie Portman was numero uno on this list and she has said some zany things. There are so many other real brainy women out there in the real world, and Hollywood too (but with the wrong politics I'd bet), that could blow these ten gals out of the water.

David Alexander wrote:
"Yes, I'm one of those loser weirdos who wants to abolish the entire concept of "race" and just have people living together as one large cohesive group (yes, no more separate black neighbourhood), but you pesky scientists keep bringing it up and ruining "our" plans"

........People who have "plans" for the rest of humanity and how they choose to live (segregation is practically voluntary and happeing more now than ever as our wealthy whites move behind gated community fences to get away from non-whites they'd rather not live around) is what makes conservatives hate liberals so much. There is no way to end segregation rather than by ending choice or forcing people to interbreed until there are no more visually distinct races left. The left would like to see both happen, and of course this will be resisited and resented by both the center and the right (and secretely by much of the left).

[Gil]

Who know? Maybe being really smarr isn't that crash hot anyway? What about that episode of The Simpsons where the local mensa group ran the town for a while and failed (you know, the one that had Stephen Hawkings at the end "Homer I like your theory of a doughnut-shaped universe I may have to steal it")?

I actually likewise wonder if there is a inverse proportion between long life and living fully. As in 'those who know they probably won't live to see 60 will live life to the fullest' or alternatively 'boring types who eat right, exercise right, no real history of family illnesses, etc., tend to simple dreary lives. Hence a genetic tendency towards a long life may in fact threaten innovation as those who 'live life to the fullest' are the movers and shakers that cause society to progress.

[tommy]

Sharon Stone was on that list, and her IQ has been shown to have been fraudulent PR-BS put out by her/her agent years ago.

Ah! Thanks. So that is what this is about. I keep hearing some say this is true and others say it's a hoax but I've never been able to get the full story on the Sharon Stone/High IQ controversy.

The other women on that list majored in non-math, non-science subjects. Im sorry folks, but the ability to speak two or three languages while getting a degree in "theatre" does not a Newton make. Natalie Portman was numero uno on this list and she has said some zany things. There are so many other real brainy women out there in the real world, and Hollywood too (but with the wrong politics I'd bet), that could blow these ten gals out of the water.

Yeah, I know this is a pretty debatable thing but you aren't going to find too many attractive men who are math or science majors in Hollywood either.

[tommy]

Anecdote Zone: David Alexander, his two siblings, mother, aunts, maternal grandmother, several cousins, and neice are perpetual glasses wearers, using them since childhood. OTOH, David's father, a civil engineer by training, does not wear glasses.

I pwn myopia. I'm very nearsighted. Reading this text on a flat-screen monitor from six inches away is impossible without contacts or glasses. I'm also ambidextrous and can write well with both hands though I have a slight preference for my right hand.

[tommy]

My father was also a civil engineer. He wore glasses only for reading.

[Mark]

"The ideal combination of genes for intelligence might involve some African and Indian genes even in Africans or Indians are less intelligent on the average than whites or Asians"

Evidence: The Seminoles (aka "The Unconquered People" and one of the Five Civilized Tribes). Don't know if there is a study of IQ among Seminoles, though.

There is a paper on IQ as a function of hybrid vigor among Eur-asians in Hawaii, however. (About a fifth of the state is bi-racial). Alon Ziv refrences it in his book Breeding Between the Lines. Some evidence of hybrid vigour.

Back to Afro-Indians and IQ: Cuba and Brazil should yield relevant evidence. I will predict that the average IQ among Afro-Indians is lower than the average among Euro co-nationals. But I am open to being proven wrong (and have given the grounds for doing so).

[Mark]

Anecdote Zone: David Alexander, his two siblings, mother, aunts, maternal grandmother, several cousins, and neice are perpetual glasses wearers, using them since childhood. OTOH, David's father, a civil engineer by training, does not wear glasses.

Ed Miller has a paper on the IQ-myopia connection.

The "money quote":

"The proximate cause of myopia is known to be an eyeball that is long relatively to the focal length of the lens (Curtin 1985). Such a physical trait is very plausibly subject to strong genetic influence. It is also known that brain size and IQ are correlated. (I summarized the evidence in my papers and Storfer has summarized it in the target paper). Embryologically, the eye is an outgrowth of the brain. This makes it very plausible that one growth related gene could affect the size of both the eyeball and the brain."

And yes, Miller wares glasses. :-)

[Jason Malloy]

Afro-Indians and IQ: Cuba and Brazil should yield relevant evidence.

Amerindian admixture is small in both those countries.

[Mark]

"Yes, I'm one of those loser weirdos who wants to abolish the entire concept of "race" and just have people living together as one large cohesive group[...]"

Race denial can have life-and-death consequences, especially if you are a racial minority looking for a donor organ that your body (or the body of a relative) will not reject.

[Mark]

"Retarded Question: What is the distribution of mentally challenged children of different races?"

Epidemiologic Study of Down Syndrome in a Racially Diverse California Population, 1989–1991

"The racial/ethnic diversity and large size of the population allowed the data to be stratified into five racial categories—Hispanics, whites, Asians, blacks, and others. For the period 1989–1991, the observed prevalence of Down syndrome was 1.13 per 1,000 live births, and the adjusted total prevalence, which took into account the termination of affected pregnancies following prenatal diagnosis, was 1.53 per 1,000 live births. In a comparison of quinquennial maternal age-specific risk rates of Down syndrome by race, Hispanics and whites were the only groups with rates that differed significantly from each other, with Hispanics exhibiting higher rates at maternal ages under 40 years

[Jason Malloy]

"Retarded Question: What is the distribution of mentally challenged children of different races?"

There are two types of retardation: familial and organic. The former is caused by normal population variation in intelligence while the latter is caused by diverse problems such as genetic defects or head injuries. Organically retarded people usually have related motor and social problems.

Retardation is measured by a combination of IQ and adaptive scales. Sometimes an IQ of 70 is used as the threshold of retardation. People with familial retardation and organic retardation of matched IQ perform the same in academic and training contexts, but organically retarded individuals do worse on the adaptive scales which measure things such as self-care, motor skills, and social functioning.

There are over five times as many blacks (16%) with an IQ of 70 or below than whites (3%). But of these about the same number are organically retarded (whites 1.5%, blacks 2.0%).

[Source: The g Factor, p 369]

[Marc]

Dude, you didn't post my correction regarding rs:2619538. (Maybe I hadn't made it yet when you were posting, though.) I got my alleles mixed up. Actually, 69% of blacks had the allele that correlates with the *higher* IQ, versus 31% of whites and only 1% of Asians.

When you calculate the sum effects of the four alleles using the hapmap data, it leaves blacks with an IQ deficit of 3.6 points relative to whites (the boost they get from rs:2619538 doesn't entirely make up for the distribution of the other alleles) and whites and Asians are nearly equal, with Asians having a deficit of .2 IQ points relative to whites.

Having said that, I got to say, once the gentle euphoria of "discovery" wore off, I realized that this doesn't really prove anything. I don't even know how many, if any, of the studies tying these alleles to intelligence have been replicated, and all the studies I've seen suggest that there may be as many as 50 alleles coding for intelligence, if not more.

Still, it was a fun exercise, and I do think that as more alleles are identified (and verified) we will be able to get a much more complete picture.

[Jason Malloy]

Having said that, I got to say, once the gentle euphoria of "discovery" wore off, I realized that this doesn't really prove anything.

We plugged this stuff in nearly a year ago at gnxp, and decided it wasn't worth much commotion. But, yep, it's definitely a start.

[Marc]

It is a start of an intellectual and scientific lynching by a bunch of white racists who are using science as a cover for their bigotry. Reading some of the coments here on this hateful website was like having a noose hung on my office door.

Yes, I'm sure it was JUST like that. (Rolls eyes...) Take your histrionics elsewhere!

[Rob]

How much would you like to bet that the Columbia noose incident was a hoax perpetrated by the professor?

The value of finding alleles that cause higher intelligence is in creating smart drugs to make everyone smarter. Environmental interventions had this rationale once upon a time, but that justification was abandoned as it became clear that they could not raise IQ by small changes in social and academic environment.

I would love to know what gives the Eskimo their advantage in spatial ability. In frames of mind, Howard Gardner says that 60% of eskimo children do as well as the top 10% of caucasian children. Given identical standard deviations, that means eskimos are about 1.5 standard deviations above whites.

Presuming Gardner is not lying, that would make them the Jews of spatial ability.

[Rob]

It would not be the first college hate crime that was actually perpetrated by the "victim" against whites. I was using hoax to be polite. A more accurate term would be fraud, or hate crime. She did not experience much institutional racism-she is a professor at an Ivy League school.

The only racism institutionalized at colleges is against whites. You may well support it. We call it affirmative action.

And would it kill you to adopt a handle?

[Robert Hume]

Perhaps the invention of glasses in Europe around 1300, (Wikipedia on eyeglasses) removed the handicap of the myopia gene and allowed the intelligent to have more children. Recent natural selection?

[Peter]

Perhaps the invention of glasses in Europe around 1300, (Wikipedia on eyeglasses) removed the handicap of the myopia gene and allowed the intelligent to have more children. Recent natural selection?

Could be. Then again, before literacy was widespread myopia wasn't much of a handicap.

[Rob]

Robert,

Probably not, I would guess that it took even longer for a large fraction of the population to have access to them. Also Asians had glasses later, and they have a higher rate of myopia.

If I had to guess, I think it is the transition from hunting and gathering to farming that removed a big chunk of the cost of being nearsighted. But looking for selection looks like a job for our resident hapmasters. Also, having more jobs that required near work opened up more niches in society for the nearsighted.

There is also a diet-expressed myopia connection. If I feel ambitious, I'll see if I can find a study or two.

This page has a list of variables that correlate with IQ. http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/eugenics/articles/index.php

[Half Sigma]

Perhaps the invention of glasses in Europe around 1300 ... removed the handicap of the myopia gene

I was thinking the same thing, but I don't think eyeglasses became commonly available until the late 1600s, and it was probably only the rich (and the very small middle-class that existed back then) who could afford them.

Galileo did his astronomical observations in the first decade of the 1600s using a telescope, so that's probably when lenses were first available.

The invention of the telescope was like the invention of gene sequencing today. Galileo observed stuff through his telescope that was politically incorrect for his time. We can observe stuff through gene sequencing that's politically incorrect for the present time.

[Scott]

I will not choose a name, so why don't you give me a slave name like you did to my ancestors, like maybe Toby or Bigger Thomas.

Troll.

Mr. No Name is a white dude pretending to be a black militant.

Enjoy the pantomime if you must, but please don't feed the troglodytes.

[Dizzy]

All you're ever going to "prove" with this data, is that different races take different tests differently. Which doesn't seem very surprising if one is willing to concede that the test is nothing more-nor-less than a comparison device, and one which is likely to self-select for people most similar to the creators.

IQ tests don't prove intelligence. And race is such a huge group, with so many different other factors involved, that it is impossible to prove that one "race" is significantly different than another with nothing more than a test that asks you to recognize vocabulary words and match shapes and patterns.

It's silly and willful to pretend this says something deep about a whole group of people. And I don't know why this claim is so important to some of you. But these comments make for ugly, uncomfortable reading.

[Marc]

It's silly and willful to pretend this says something deep about a whole group of people.

What it says is that alleles are distributed differently among different populations. Why is that even controversial?

And I don't know why this claim is so important to some of you.

Um, because human biodiversity is interesting? Really, someone who collects stamps for a hobby isn't constantly put on the spot to explain why it is he finds stamps so interesting. Amatuer astronomers aren't asked to explain why they find the sky interesting. It's called human curiosity. I find human biodiversity interesting. Sue me.

Dizzy,
Your comments sound great for some anthropology class at Williams or Wellsley, but "different tests" won't cut it in the real world. Maybe you would like to go to a doctor who has passed a "different test" instead of the usual boards or hire a lawyer who passed a "different" bar exam. What could go wrong?

http://lyingeyes.blogspot.com/2007/05/feds-brightest-not-diverse-enough-for.html

Check out the link above. How many "different tests" can we come up with for the FD? So maybe some black fire fighter took a diferent test and didn't know how many 3 foot lengths of hose make 90 feet. It is only your property or life that could be lost. But that is a small price to pay right?
Sorry, but 1+1=2 no matter your race, intelligence or whatever.

[David Alexander]

The difference is that stamp collecting cannot be used as a means to prove that an about one sixth of the world's population is inferior and incapable when compared to the rest of the population.

[Cameron]

There are probably quite a few genes that increase or decrease intelligence. Making it difficult to determine which genes each population has. Suppose Europeans have gene A and Asians lack it, while another gene exclusive to Asians could have an even greater effect on IQ than gene A. Thus causing Asians to be smarter overall.

[Rob]

one which is likely to self-select for people most similar to the creators.

That is counterfactual. The tests were created by whites, but Asians get higher scores. But Jews score higher still, so I suppose one could argue that it is a Jewish conspiracy. But one would be wrong.

Genetic correlates of IQ are important because we may someday be able to create smart drugs. It is certainly more fulfilling to build robots than work as a Wal-Mart greeter. Few imaginable situations are worse than living in the Congo.

In our defense, the claim is considered interesting by lots of other people. Like the ones who suspended James Watson from his job. When people lose their jobs for making (possibly true) claims, it seems reasonable to see if the claims are actually true.

And I miss your blog Dizzy. I hope being a lawyer is better than law school. Your experiences in school convinced me not to apply.

[Scott]

The difference is that stamp collecting cannot be used as a means to prove that an about one sixth of the world's population is inferior and incapable when compared to the rest of the population.

Are you concerned that people will use information about longevity to "prove" that that Americans are "inferior" to Japanese?

Are you concerned that people will use information about height to "prove" that Japanese are "inferior" to Netherlanders?

People can and do use these sorts of data to "prove" these sorts of claims. But they are stupid.

[SFG]

It's silly and willful to pretend this says something deep about a whole group of people. And I don't know why this claim is so important to some of you. But these comments make for ugly, uncomfortable reading.
I don't know what anybody else's reasons are, but here I have something that powerful people know but want to keep quiet. And want it badly enough to cashier a Nobel laureate who everyone admits has shown real leadership in science as a followup to his prize instead of resting on his laurels.

I read the Memory Hole, was a conspiracy fan in my youth, and have to spend my whole working day pretending I like people I really couldn't care less about and who, for all I know, are badmouthing me behind my back. (That's the reality of the modern office, it wears easier on some people than others.) Being politically incorrect is nice for a change.

And I do like to argue. I could go to Daily Kos and post "yeah, I think Bush sucks too" but what fun would that be? Really, I can't get into physical fights because that would be painful (mostly for me), so I argue on a website. If you're hurt by what people say, you can always leave. It's closer to consensual S/M than anything else.

Speaking of arguing, where is Jewish Atheist? That guy usually has a response for everything. Maybe it has gotten too mean, nasty and (my favorite!) "uncomfortable" for him around here with all the "racists" and such. With all this reality going around he is in for a rough time.

[Loki on the run]

But these comments make for ugly, uncomfortable reading.

And, of course, the constitution gives all an inalienable right not to be made to feel uncomfortable. Thank god for the constitution.

[David Alexander]

People can and do use these sorts of data to "prove" these sorts of claims. But they are stupid.

But those people are influential, and can spread their knowledge to people that I have deal with to interact with on society on a daily basis, and I am afraid that once these people learn, the way that they treat me and others like me for the worse.

[Scott]

But those people are influential

Stormfront types are fringe. Unfortunately, when you outlaw ideas, only outlaws will have them. People who promote the Nobel Lie only make things worse by granting the fringe a monopoly on reality.

"Nobel Lie"

You mean Noble Lie, right? With all the stuff about Al Gore and global warming I was laughing my ass off.

[YOMAMA]

Why are you girls and guys so in love with IQ? I've met high IQ people who were idiots.

[Marc]

European White:

You got us pegged! Every person who is interested in issues of race and intelligence is really just trying to make up for the fact that we are 400 lb losers who can't get laid.

Grow up, dude.

[lukelea]

A point that needs making is that if the more intelligent among us were less highly "privileged" -- by which I do NOT mean they tend to be the leaders of society, but rather that they arrogate to themselves a disproportionate share of the fruits of our economy -- people wouldn't care so passionately about possible racial differences in intelligence, which is what they do when they about their children's future welfare, whom they choose to marry, etc.

In other words: a more egalitarian society, in the redistributionist sense, would also be a less race-conscious society, for the simple reason that racial differences wouldn't matter so much.

This is one more reason why the unaddressed economic disparities driven by our current trade and immigration policies are so controversial: one more reason to search harder for better and more efficient ways to redress the economic inequalities that are naturally produced in a market economy.

It can be done -- the answers are there in the literature of economics (see BornAgainDemocrats.com)-- it's just that we as a society don't know how to do it yet because we haven't studied those answers in a serious way. Hint: they have nothing to do with minimum wage laws, means tested welfare payments, a progressive income tax, or collective bargaining agreements.

[Dresidi]

Yeah, this brings to mind a huge fallacy regarding the topic of "genes for intelligence".

Just 2 years ago, they found 2 alleles- one that lowers IQ by a full 20 points, and another that raises it vice versa. And while the IQ lowering allele showed up at a frequency of about 25% in european and east asian samples, it was completely absent in a sample of african yoruba: http://foreigndispatches.typepad.com/dispatches/2005/12/genes_iq_and_ma.html

Now, let's look at what they also said:

"Jirtle cautioned that inheriting the different version of the gene did not guarantee a lower IQ. Although as a group average IQ scores were lower, there were still males who had the variant gene and a higher IQ. (Two boys with the variant version of the gene had very high IQs of 160, Jirtle said.) And males with the more common form of the gene can also have a lower IQ."

Interesting. Looks like you can be a genius yet still carry such heavily-lowering alleles. Guess what that means? IQ variation is a very baseline genomic trait, considering how brain size correlates the same with intelligence throughout the primate order. These geographically varying alleles, genes, whatever for IQ that work outside of normal variation are pretty much irrelevant. Let's play a scenario. Say we have someone with an IQ of 100 and someone with an IQ of 80.

We then give the person an IQ of 80 that one allele that boosts IQ by 20 points. Now they have equivalent IQ's.

But wait, the person that started off with an IQ of 80, and now has a higher IQ, has more alleles for IQ than the person with 100! Despite how they now have equal IQ's. Guess what that means?

External genes for IQ are completely irrelevant, as they add nothing more than cumulative effects that can be corrected for by simple environmental effects on IQ- since, only a fool would assert environment has no effect on IQ. And, since these also work outside of normal variation, and one has to be a carrier to even see an effect, they wouldn't even be passed down properly to have any effect.

That's why this talk about finding "genes for IQ" is a load of garbage for any real political relevance. Let's also not forget how neurological structures are so complex, and take so long to change biologically, that these external "genes for IQ" would be very uncommon.

BTW Half-Sigma, do you honestly believe the Bell Curve?

[Tony]

"Half Sigma reminds me of Hitler."

"All you have to do is get some computer science training get a blog and propagate racism. Hitler did it."

This is parody, right?

[Christina]

"The egalitarians will say, correctly but speciously all the same, not all of the genes influencing intelligence have been found, so talk about racial differences in intelligence is premature."

Why is it specious or egalitarian to say that talk about racial differences in intelligence is premature? It's just the facts, man. It _is_ premature. Don't get your panties in a bunch because no one can prove your agenda.

Even if there are important genetic differences (and keep in mind we are all still 99% the same), until we map all the genes, we won't know who has what, or how it affects them. And by the way, if you do nothing with your high IQ it won't matter anyway--no one is "born" a rocket scientist or a surgeon or a chemical engineer. Even smart people have to work hard to get ahead--think Thomas Edison, "1% inspiration and 99% perspiration."

[Christina]

Not that I would believe what James Watson has to say about race anyway, since the sexist bastard wouldn't even give Rosalind Franklin credit for co-discovering the DNA sequence--but he did retract his comments. Check out this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D._Watson