"social intelligence, emotional intelligence"

I believe these are included in what is called Executive Function.

i don't even waste time with people like rose. there is nothing 'progressive' about denying, or more precisely, contorting reality. it is true for example that exactly what constitutes the 'white race' for example is debatable, but it is clear that a Swede, for example, is quite different from a Pakistani, and both are distinct from a Vietnamese.

for example, it is clear that Miami and Minneapolis have distinct climates, even though there is no line that demarcates these climates from each other. saying for example, that open borders is ok because race does not exist is like saying that wearing shorts in Minneapolis in January is a good idea because no clearly defined climate zones exist.

none of this is to say that racism and sexism are anything but detestable. also the frequent right-wing garbage that the poor are poor because of their own 'free choice' is pure nonsense.

on a different note, it is pure hypocrisy to trash working-class & poor whites (as the Left often does) while practically sainting non-whites who are similar in outlook and habits, and more importantly (low) productivity.

to try to capture the many forms of size in a single measurement excludes most richly human dimensions. Width of shoulders, depth of chest, girth of thigh, length of index finger, all elude the 'height' straitjacket.

I choked on my coffee when I read about "the intelligent hands of the craftsman." Yeah, I get what he's saying, but come on, now. You can argue, rightly or wrongly, that general intelligence does not correlate with woodworking ability without being so flowery about it.

I am delighted someone took on the chore of pointing out the many shortcomings of Rose's article.

It's interesting, though, that the people asked to provide the "other side" -- in favor of research into group differences -- seem not to differ all that much in their view of the underlying facts, merely in what the facts imply about "morally defensible" (Nature's terminology) research agendas.

For instance, Stephen Ceci and Wendy M. Williams write, "Pernicious folk-theories of racial and gender inferiority predated scientific studies claiming genetic bases of racial differences in intelligence. . . Important scientific progress on these topics would never have been made without the incentive of disproving one's critics.

"There is an emerging consensus about racial and gender equality in genetic determinants of intelligence; most researchers, including ourselves, agree that genes do not explain between-group differences."

Well, not all of them; but the authors' clear implication is that genes have nothing to do with it.

Or this:
"In recent decades, the writings, statements and teachings of Arthur Jensen, Michael Levin and John Philippe Rushton, also on racial differences in intelligence, have met variously with acclaim, outcries and demands for job termination. So have writings of Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray on the differential distribution of IQ by race."

Not exactly; if they are referring to "The Bell Curve," what it is "on" is the differential effects of individually measured IQ and family socioeconomic status on life outcomes within racial groupings. The authors acknowledge there is a black-white between-group difference in the federal database they use, as they can hardly avoid doing, but if I recall correctly, they declare themselves "resolutely agnostic" on the question of what causes the difference.

Casual writers who summarize "The Bell Curve" in this way have often not read it, they've read only other people's critical comments. But it seems unlikely that Ceci and Williams are in this category. So one has to wonder why they choose to characterize it in so misleading a fashion.

So one has to wonder why they choose to characterize it in so misleading a fashion.

I assume they are worried funding will be cut for population genetics if they make the connection between IQ and race too explicit.

Linda, you are making the mistake of assuming that scholars read the important literature relating to their own field. While that may have once been true, modern scholars have liberated themselves from such an onerous burden. They understand that reality is socially created, having virtually nothing to do with "objective" observations.

Some interesting posts in the comments section by James Flynn, Phillippe Rushton, and this by Volkmar Weiss:

"Volkmar Weiss 17 February 2009 | 20:59

With an intelligent-looking black schoolboy at the head, Nature is opening this discussion at this very moment where the first halfblack president of the US is sworn in. Now, time seems to be ripe for a preventive blow against all those who do not believe that all men are created equal deep under their skin.

And Ceci as the chosen defender of freedom of research? He did never glance into the abyss! Why Nature did not ask Richard Lynn, author of the monograph “Race Differences in Intelligence “ (2006), to join in the debate? In the book “The Global Bell Curve: Race, IQ, and Inequality Worldwide” (2008) by Richard Lynn, the publisher wrote in his foreword: “We are distinguished by the fact that we are not a publisher of choice but one of last resort. We celebrate that status as itgrows directly from our resolve not to tolerate the strictures of political correctness. Our authors come to us after having been worn to a nub by rejection slips from established houses that only a few years ago would have been figthing for their manuscripts. But now a velvet tyranny seeks to oppress the mind.”

For years Nature rejects papers on IQ, even without refereeing, see for example, The Golden Mean as Coding Principe of the Brain .
I fear that the only aim of this discussion is to declare – now with the authority of Nature behind – IQ-research as a “bad science” which shall never be funded, supported and published anymore. We are already only a very small step from this.

At this very year 2009, does anyone know someone all over the world who was funded to study race and the genetics of IQ? Someone, who, confirmed by empirical facts, does not believe that behind IQ differences are hundreds of genes and factors, each with very small effects, which makes any effect practically meaningless?

That the concept of general intelligence in the sense of Charles Spearman is mixed up with personality traits and even emotional ones, to make it illogical for the layman, this is not deliberate destruction enough. At the present state of genetic art, any research into the genetics of IQ must be suppressed, because there is imminent danger that – as a byproduct of reseach into alzheimer, dyslexia, schizophrenia and so on – such research could be successful before being banned completely.

At present, compare Genes underlying national IQ means , a rationale for the search of genes underlying IQ could include the following knowledge and steps: 1. homozygosity mapping among the relatives of highly gifted, who have an IQ above 123; 2. nonsynomously coding SNPs and other genetic polymorphisms that are found to be homozygous among relatives should be checked whether their distribution of allele frequencies in the data bases does fit a certain racial distribution within socially representative samples: about 0.20 of the rare allele among Eurasian populations and approximating 0.01 in sub-Saharan Africa; 3 .if either 1 or 2. are given, the possible association between genotypes and IQ could be checked by comparing with the genotypes of Craig Venter, James Watson and the highly intelligent volunteers of the Personal Genome Project, whose genomes can be accessed freely, without any funding needed.
For example, the protein neuroregulin 1, coded by the gene NRG1 and thought to be involved in alzheimer and schizophrenia, has only one common polymorphism, coding nonsynonymously, namely rs3924999 with alleles C/T. This SNP exhibits striking racial differences. In the HapMap samples the frequency of the T allele among Europeans is 0.36, among Asians about 0.79, among Sub-Saharan Blacks 0.02, among African American 0.11. The Asian samples were drawn from the inhabitants aof Tokyo, Beijing and Los Angeles. The Chinese HapMap-HCB sample comprises even a Beijing university resident academic population where the hypothetical homozygous low IQ-typ CC of the ancestral allele could be expected only among subjects of the technical staff. With other words: The Asian samples are not socially representative in any way. Under the assumption of a correlation between this SNP and IQ and hence social status, the T allele should be overrepresented in the Asian samples to a high degree. In most cases heterozygotes of this allele should have an IQ above 105, homozygotes above 124. Indeed, Craig Venter is homozygous as predicted. But in this case all this can only be pure coincidence. But it shows, in which way genetics could be succesful, by not avoiding to exploite known racial distributions of gene frequencies.

For Rose this must be an abhorrent nightmare. Instead of such research, today and finally, scientific truth has to become what the vote of a majority of ignorants determines and allows to be truth. Of course, no formal ban will be needed. What is needed only, that anybody who plans such research and publishes it, can be absolutely sure not only to lose his job but also be thrown in the purgatory of public opinion as James Watson. Only such a threat can rescue the eternal victory of egalitarism. And if despite such a taboo, something on high IQ genes should ever be published, in this case high giftedness must be declared to be a state of mental illness.
Therefore, my greetings and best wishes to all so-called IQ-fascists, IQ-racists, IQ-classists, IQ-sexists and so on, who are still trying to study IQ and its ethnic differences. Once, about 1920, the inventors of IQ tests, many of them socialists, were on the vanguard of social progress towards a meritocratic society. Now, in the dawn of industrial civilization, we are the rearguard of rationality. In 1936 IQ tests were forbidden in the Soviet Union (and later in all communist countries). Between 1933 and 1945 in Germany IQ tests were declared – of course, without formal banning – to be “Jewish tests”. Otto Selz, who did publish on IQ tests still in 1935, died at Auschwitz in 1943. Since about 1960 in the Free World sociologists and educational psychologists are sure by self-censorship that IQ genes can never be a cause of interindividual differences in the normal range. In such a way in these fields thoughtcrime has become impossible, and time has come to extend this to differential psychology.

We must learn to love Big Brother, not to hate him anymore. He and Rose, they will make us free from our unhealthy drives. We must learn: Two and two is five, and black is white and white is black, and the earth is flat. We should surrender und become happy. Rose intends only our best. He loves us all"

http://network.nature.com/groups...ics/3871? page=3

It's pure and simple: Comrade Rose is Lysenkoist of the worst kind. Had he lived in the USSR, his opponents would have rotted in Gulag.

Charles Francis Adams, Jr. took an interesting view:

So far, then, as the institution of slavery is concerned, in its relations to ownership and property in those of the human species, I have seen no reason whatever to revise or in any way to alter the theories and principles I entertained in 1853, and in the maintenance of which I subsequently bore arms between 1861 and 1865. Economically, socially, and from the point of view of abstract political justice, I hold that the institution of slavery, as it existed in this country prior to the year 1865, was in no respect either desirable or justifiable.

That it had its good and even its elevating side, so far at least as the African is concerned, I am not here to deny. On the contrary, I see and recognize those features of the institution far more clearly now than I should have said would have been possible in 1853. That the institution in itself, under conditions then existing, tended to the elevation of the less advanced race, I frankly admit I did not then think. On the other hand, that it exercised a most pernicious influence upon those of the more advanced race, and especially upon that large majority of the more advanced race who were not themselves owners of slaves—of that I have become with time ever more and more satisfied.

The noticeable feature, however, so far as I individually am concerned, has been the entire change of view as respects certain of the fundamental propositions at the base of our whole American political and social edifice brought about by a more careful and intelligent ethnological study. I refer to the political equality of man, and to that race absorption to which I have alluded—that belief that any foreign element introduced into the American social system and body politic would speedily be absorbed therein, and in a brief space thoroughly assimilated.

In this all-important respect I do not hesitate to say we theorists and abstractionists of the North, throughout that long antislavery discussion which ended with the 1861 clash of arms, were thoroughly wrong. In utter disregard of fundamental, scientific facts, we theoretically believed that all men— no matter what might be the color of their skin, or the texture of their hair—were, if placed under exactly similar conditions, in essentials the same. In other words, we indulged in the curious and, as is now admitted, utterly erroneous theory that the African was, so to speak, an Anglo-Saxon, or, if you will, a Yankee "who had never had a chance"—a fellowman who was guilty, as we chose to express it, of a skin not colored like our own. In other words, though carved in ebony, he also was in the image of God.

Following out this theory, under the lead of men to whom scientific analysis and observation were anathema if opposed to accepted cardinal political theories as enunciated in the Declaration as read by them, the African was not only emancipated, but so far as the letter of the law, as expressed in an amended Constitution, would establish the fact, the quondam slave was in all respects placed on an equality, political, legal, and moral, with those of the most advanced race.

I do not hesitate here—as one who largely entertained the theoretical views I have expressed—I do not hesitate here to say, as the result of sixty years of more careful study and scientific observation, the theories then entertained by us were not only fundamentally wrong, but they further involved a problem in the presence of which I confess today I stand appalled...

The quote is from an address delivered in Charleston, SC, in 1913. So, yes - change can happen.

The more interesting question is whether Steven Rose practiced what he preached by urging the East German Communist dictatorship to shut down Volkmar Weiss's IQ research in the 1980s.

According Weiss, a dissident under the East German Communist dictatorship, Rose ratted him out to the East Berlin regime, setting in motion the crushing in East Germany of IQ research and human behavioral genetics.

Weiss explains this in a 1983 essay entitled The Suppression of Human Behavioral Genetics by the Radical Left—unpublished, for obvious reasons, until 1991. He wrote:

"In 1980, the manuscript of the monograph Psychogenetik (Weiss 1982a) was complete. Now some fierce dogmatists were discovering that a cuckoo’s egg had been laid in the nest of socialism. One example: S. Rose asked his East German colleague, the professor of neurochemistry D. Biesold at the Karl-Marx-University of Leipzig (personal communication by Biesold), whether there was no means of stopping further publications by Weiss, because such publications printed in a socialist country were particularly disadvantageous to the propaganda of the Radical Left in the Western world. …”

Rose’s wish appears to have been the East German Communists’ command:

"[A]t the end of the year 1982 [Walter] Friedrich [director of the Central Institute of Youth Research in Leipzig] sought and obtained the backing of high-ranking officials of the Communist Party and all further research in psychogenetics in East Germany came to an end."

Weiss goes on to describe the aftermath he endured, which would be familiar to anyone who saw the tremendous 2006 film about life in East Germany under the thumb of the secret police, The Lives of Others:

“… the cited author was under the threat of arrest and had already lost all possibility of doing further empirical work of defending his field of research. After 1984, Weiss was forced to work in a quite different field … What follows is the usual story of life and resistance under totalitarian conditions. In order to be published abroad, any new theoretical contributions had to be smuggled out of the GDR."

I asked Weiss about the incident. He replied:

"What I have written and published is completely true.

"However, in 1993 a journalist of a leading English daily (which I do not remember) visited me in Leipzig and tried to confirm my publication by independent sources. At this time [Dietmar] Biesold had already died, his widow did not know anything. Biesold, who had done research together with Rose, had told me about Rose under four eyes [in secret], and there was no witness. Evaluating this, the English daily, afraid to be sued for libeling by Rose, did not publish anything.

"After my publication, Rose had published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung a note in which he declared that he never was involved in activities against East German scientists. My name and my publication was not explicitly mentioned, and I had never personal contact with Rose. He tried never to be active in any direct way against me and never mentioned or cited me.”

About the Rose/Weiss story.
May be the good ol' Ministry of Truth is flexing his muscles again, there sure is plenty of volunteers to work here.
Adding religion to leftism will make political correctness lethal.

The funniest part of this debate is how people think racism somehow depends on proof of inferiority. Since when do racists rely on scientific evidence? Hatred of outgroups is built into human nature, and has absolutely nothing to do with the qualities of the outgroups, other than the fact that they are not in-groups.

Scientific proof of African genetic inferiority would likely have no effect at all on levels of racism, for the same reason that scientific proof of evolution has little effect on religion.

One argument against the studying of race and IQ is bias. I have no reason to believe that the western scientific community, composed of mostly whites, would be completely fair in their methods. Sure, you could say, "but these same scientists seem to not have a problem with proclaiming asians to be smarter". But I would respond that white men have no problem giving asian men that concession, due to a slight superiority complex in that direction.

Science will always be biased by other deep seated motivations so unless you can put together a multicultural group of scientists, there is no point - we'll always doubt the output. An example: given the current AIDS crisis, one would think that there would be massive studies around how condom use could be increased among african men, given that they seem to use the excuse of discomfort more than others. Yet, there does not seem to have been any large scale studies on penis size differences relative to white males. Why? Cos the scientific community of mostly white males dont want to feel bad about themselves. Awwww, poor things :( On the other hand, there have been several studies on the relatively small size of indians and other groups which of course spread like wildfire over the internet.

To think that this has to do with the desire for truth is ridiculous. It all has to do with the propagation of your own gene pool. The typical reaction of all men is to aim to keep their women. If there is a group of men that pose a threat, they must be castigated as dangerous brutes, cos women respond to that. Hence the white male obsession with IQ - particularly as relating to blacks - not indians, pakistanis, bangladeshis or others who also score about the same as african americans on average.


An example of biased methodology: ben above says to examine watson and venters genes, both white men. Given that the genetic drivers of IQ could differ by race, this is clearly incorrect methodology. The proper way should be to examine high IQ blacks separate from high IQ whites and try and figure out what's going in. In this way you may actually discover the truth instead of proving your biased views - maybe different genes need different environments to get the same result. Unless of course it is very important for some people to believe otherwise....

One Lisa Gellagos also made an excellent point over at the Nature forums:

"The relevance of race-intelligence research is obvious: The most troubling feature of the world economy today is not the financial crisis, but the enormous difference in wealth, technological and cultural creativity, technical know-how and social organization between countries. The per-capita GDP is 30 times higher in the USA than in most African countries. We do not know the reasons for the “great divergence” that created these inequalities, and without this knowledge we will never be able to reverse them. Genetics is one hypothesis. It is also the one that is tested most easily, with genome-wide association studies and whole-genome sequencing. Rose’s contention in his reply to Ceci & Williams that “the research questions were ill-posed and not susceptible of scientific answer” betrays a profound ignorance of existing gene technology. By not investigating the race-intelligence link we not only perpetuate ignorance and the prejudice that thrives on ignorance, but also deprive ourselves of the possibility to tackle the existing inequalities, first by a judicious development policy and, should genetic differences indeed be important, by eventually changing the allele frequencies of the offending genes. Steven Rose seems to be thoroughly stuck in the 20th-century assumption that environments are changeable but genes are not. This will no longer be the case in the 21st century!"

This is a point that those of us who support such research need to hammer home again and again. People of low intelligence suffer from their cognitive impairment, much as people with mental disorders suffer as a result of their cognitive malfunctions. By studying all factors of intelligence, including its distribution among various human population subgroups, we are laying the foundations for gene therapies that will alleviate human suffering. Self-professed egalitarians who are trying to shut down this avenue of research are only hurting the cognitively impaired in the long run, which begs the question, "What do they really care about, real flesh and blood humans, or the preservation of their own threatened ideology?"

Hatred of outgroups is built into human nature, and has absolutely nothing to do with the qualities of the outgroups, other than the fact that they are not in-groups.

I wonder if this fact is the reason why leftists and pseudo-rightists like to say things to the effect of "racism is ingrained in the history of America." The statement per se is true, but its implication is false in a dangerous way: racism, or at the very least tribalism, is ingrained in the history of *every* country. To pretend that America or the West has a monopoly on evil is as silly as pretending they are morally white as snow.

Orwell's essay "Notes on Nationalism" (available online) provides, IMO, a useful angle on this issue.

As an aside, reading Orwell's essays, I can see why cognitive elitism is compared to both Nazism and Stalinism, and totalitarianism more generally. Also, the "Stuff White People Like" crowd seems to have been alive and well even in the 1940s, though, as one might expect, it was not as huge as it is today.

DionneinAfrica,

I have to agree with you on one point, and disagree with you on another.

I agree with you that it would be great if the scientists studying intelligence were more multiracial and multicultural. There are a plethora of asian scientists researching IQ/race, but not so many black ones.

I disagree with your implication that the majority of white scientists working today have a vested interest in proving a(n innate) white intellectual superiority. The white scientists you speak of are liberal egalitarians who deplore the idea of genetic differences in intelligence between the races. They support interacial marraige more than the general public.

There are definitely some bad apples. A small, but significant, minority of the guys studying intelligence differences between the races are white nationalists, and/or racists. However, the existence of these guys in this field is an argument for mainstreaming this field. To quote Dan McArthur:

Who would you rather have crunching the numbers... respectable researchers with a sound knowledge of the limitations of genetics and psychometrics, or individuals working in their basement with a political axe to grind? Labelling the field off-limits to "civilised" scientists essentially guarantees the latter.

If there's anything to the Rose/Weiss allegations, there should be some evidence in the East German archives, not the Stasi, I suppose, but presumably with the universities or scholarly associations.

(1) The initial response to Rose is that there is a substantive literature demonstrating that IQ is consistently correlated with various performance outcome. Can you point to some primary literature pertaining to this question?

(2) Can you lay out some firm criteria regarding the distinction of races? (how many races are there? what characteristics are used to determine someone's race? does it make sense to talk about multiracial individuals? why not scrap race and use biogeographic ancestry instead? there are significant benefits to the latter, not least of which is a distance from all of the baggage attached to race, but also a definition that provides us with a rigorous definition from which to proceed.);

(3) Next point is astute, there are ways to design a study to limit confounding sociological factors to get at the biological differences between gender (have these studies been done? surely a literature search would yield something useful);

(4) Lastly, I am entirely in agreement, we should do more research and not less. However, I don't think anyone is doing themselves a favor by stirring up a hornet's nest by couching their research program under the guise of discovering the biological underpinnings of race, especially if the stated purpose of a given study is to discover biological underpinnings of human intelligence. Why introduce a confounding variable?

You guys might want to consider the fact it was the relatively high IQ politicians as well as the very high IQ mavens of Wall Street that created the current economic mess that we are in. The masters of the universe are not so masterful these days.

High IQ people are as susceptible to delusion (socialism, religion, social engineering schemes) as people of average IQ.

High IQ people are as susceptible to delusion (socialism, religion, social engineering schemes) as people of average IQ.

i think probably not. but, they have greater impact factor with their delusions.

Researchers (Jensen, Gottfredson, Brand) have shown strong correlations between “race” and “intelligence” and “intelligence” and various desirable characteristics (e.g., mortality, wealth) using the same methods, review and analysis of observational data, that led to the first associations of smoking with lung cancer (which is true) and that vitamin C and cures cancer (which is probably false). If scientist can’t follow these observations up with definitive results then they are extra lametarded.

iqn00b,

1. Here are some nice sources on the predictive validity of IQ:
* http://michna.com/intelligence.htm
* http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfre...ints/ index.html

2. As I said in the article, 'race' is a historically and socially loaded word. It's used differently by different people. When I say it i'm using it as a synonym of 'population.' Populations/races are not fixed.. it's all relative to the level of detail we're looking at E.g. we might want to discuss the entire human population. Or we might want to discuss the population of people of European ancestry. Or the population of people with East African ancestry.

3. All of the mentioned types of studies have been done. The general pattern of their findings is that men and women are greatly similar, but that there are significant genetic psychological differences between them.

4. Most IQ research does not concern race. Race and IQ is a field of research because researchers are interest in the group differences in IQ. As you correctly surmise, race is a confounding variable. This is why the race-IQ debate hasn't been settled yet.

Mustiphino Eric Holder, of course, has his own perspective:

Black history is extremely important because it is American history. Given this, it is in some ways sad that there is a need for a black history month. Though we are all enlarged by our study and knowledge of the roles played by blacks in American history, and though there is a crying need for all of us to know and acknowledge the contributions of black America, a black history month is a testament to the problem that has afflicted blacks throughout our stay in this country. Black history is given a separate, and clearly not equal, treatment by our society in general and by our educational institutions in particular. As a former American history major I am struck by the fact that such a major part of our national story has been divorced from the whole. In law, culture, science, athletics, industry and other fields, knowledge of the roles played by blacks is critical to an understanding of the American experiment. For too long we have been too willing to segregate the study of black history. There is clearly a need at present for a device that focuses the attention of the country on the study of the history of its black citizens. But we must endeavor to integrate black history into our culture and into our curriculums in ways in which it has never occurred before so that the study of black history, and a recognition of the contributions of black Americans, become commonplace. Until that time, Black History Month must remain an important, vital concept. But we have to recognize that until black history is included in the standard curriculum in our schools and becomes a regular part of all our lives, it will be viewed as a novelty, relatively unimportant and not as weighty as so called "real" American history.

Indeed. And there is also this gem:

And today the link between the black experience and this country is still evident. While the problems that continue to afflict the black community may be more severe, they are an indication of where the rest of the nation may be if corrective measures are not taken. Our inner cities are still too conversant with crime but the level of fear generated by that crime, now found in once quiet, and now electronically padlocked suburbs is alarming and further demonstrates that our past, present and future are linked. It is not safe for this nation to assume that the unaddressed social problems in the poorest parts of our country can be isolated and will not ultimately affect the larger society.

Which of us can disagree with Attorney General Holder's razor-sharp analysis? Surely, this tiny but spectacular display of cognitive acuity must throw its own small, anecdotal weight on the scales of the African IQ debate. Or at least, the Mustiphino IQ debate...

The per-capita GDP is 30 times higher in the USA than in most African countries. We do not know the reasons for the “great divergence” that created these inequalities, and without this knowledge we will never be able to reverse them. Genetics is one hypothesis.

The per capita GDP of the US is also several times greater than that of china and india. Genetics maybe?
60 years ago, many african countries were on par with many asian countries with regards to GDP. Now they are not. Did genes change over that time period?
Africa is currently going through a mini -renaissance. Nigeria has pretty much doubled it's per capita income in the last 5 years alone. Did their genes change? No but the dictator died, democracy is in place, oil revenue is up and debt has been paid off. The banks have been liberalized and they are some of the fastest growing in the world. (GS, JPM, ML and many other wall street insitutions have initiated coverage on them after they became hedge fund darlings)

Why the obsession with IQ? It clearly doesn't tell much of the story...

Cue the white guys who are going to start reminding me that in the US there is a high correlation between IQ scores and criminality etc blah blah blah.

Whatever! I just visited Elmina castle in Cape coast Ghana and was appalled and disgusted by the conditions there. Just so you know, we treat cows and pigs better than these people were treated. I always thought the african american community harped too much on slavery, but my god! If my ancestors had gone through that, it would f*** me up too...In fact, I left with an elevated level of respect for black americans. Considering their background, they are quite civil! Maybe that's where the correlation is. You treat people like crap and they will attack you! Same with Europe's gypies who also happen to be the criminals of the continent even though they are indians by ancestry.
In the US, it is common for someone to be in therapy and not be able to function because they were raped once, or abused by their parents or mugged or in a car crash.
Well, these men, women and children suffered ALL OF THE ABOVE in one lifetime...repeatedly. So how do you expect them to not have major psychological issues or raise dysfunctional kids. Slavery could have ended 200 yrs ago, but the change in legislation didn't change the culture. Parents pass their culture on to their kids and the negative aspects of black american culture were created in Elmina and on the plantation. It isnt going anywhere. Sure you white guys may need to excuse your ancestors by pointing to IQ etc, but it doesnt change a thing. PEople like sailer even spend time reaching for silly arguments like "african american culture is from africa - look at the Nuer (a tiny nomadic tribe most africans have never heard of)" Sailer, have you ever been to Africa? Maybe you need to take an excursion..it may help you sound more credible.

May I just mention the important point that a test may have predictive validity within group A, and predictive validity within group B, yet still be 'biased' as between the two groups. (As a simple proof of this, just arbitrarily add 20 points to the score of everyone in group A. The correlations within the group, and therefore the predictive validity of the test within the group, will be unaffected, but it is obviously a form of bias between groups.) I'm not saying this is the case with race and IQ, just that the predictive validity of the tests within groups doesn't guarantee absence of bias.

The per capita GDP of the US is also several times greater than that of china and india. Genetics maybe?

It's possible, but I think it's less likely than it is in regard to Africa, given that South Asians and East Asians perform, on average, much better than Africans on IQ tests, and average national IQ scores have been shown to correlate significantly with economic development.

60 years ago, many african countries were on par with many asian countries with regards to GDP. Now they are not. Did genes change over that time period?

Of course not. Culture and goverment matter as well. But this begs the question, why have so many East Asian countries developed over the past 50 years, whereas there are no truly developed countries south of the Sahara - with the possible exception of South Africa, built by white settlers - despite millions in aid?

No one argues that genetic differences are sufficient to explain these differences, but they may be necessary to do so.

Africa is currently going through a mini -renaissance. Nigeria has pretty much doubled it's per capita income in the last 5 years alone. Did their genes change? No but the dictator died, democracy is in place, oil revenue is up and debt has been paid off. The banks have been liberalized and they are some of the fastest growing in the world.

Oh, really? A continent-wide mini-renaissance? I hadn't heard. I heard that in the last year alone millions more were pushed into poverty because of rising food costs.

As for Nigeria, look, if you're starting from a very low point in regard to any measure - like per capita income - it's easy to post impressive growth. The question is not whether Africa can develop to some degree - of course it can. The question is whether its failure, thus far, to match the West and East Asia is due partially to the genetics of the people involved.

Keep in mind that, as has been stated on this blog before, no one gave the West the Industrial Revolution, just as no one gave the Chinese thousands of years of continuous civilization. These things were products of the native peoples. Looking at history, it is clear that while there have been organized societies and kingdoms south of the Sahara, nothing has arisen there that matches, in cultural complexity or technological innovation, what has arisen independently Europe or East Asia. Now, why is that?

In response to your rant about slavery, I must ask why you think an institution that ended 200 years ago has had such a terrible effect on present-day African-American culture, given that the Holocaust, which occurred much more recently, was surely as horrible, and capped centuries of terrible mistreatment of Jews, doesn't seem to have had any negative effects on present-day Jewish culture.

In other words, if past mistreatment is the cause of present-day black underperformance, why is it that a similar history of mistreatment hasn't led to similar rates of underperformance among Jews - who actually overperform, relative to gentiles, in a lot of areas?

Salut!
ben g
"I agree with you that it would be great if the scientists studying intelligence were more multiracial and multicultural. There are a plethora of asian scientists researching IQ/race, but not so many black ones."
Most likely because they do not like what they find in those researches!?
Afro-Americans have mostly 20%-25% European blood.
In general, such studies will soon become redundant, we are not so far from unus-racial and unus(artificial)-cultural world!

David B,

Good point. I haven't read in depth on what the researchers have to say about this. If only the editorials in nature were argued over truly scientific issues in this area like the one you're raising..

Dionne,

I think you'll find that almost everyone arguing for genetics are arguing its a MIX between genetics and environment. No fair-minded person would deny that African IQ would rise if democracy were put in place and proper nutrition was available.

Speaking for myself, I don't feel I've read enough to be sure over what role (if any) and how (if at all) genetics plays in racial inequality. I have read enough to know that it should be discussed as a plausible factor.

It's possible, but I think it's less likely than it is in regard to Africa, given that South Asians and East Asians perform, on average, much better than Africans on IQ tests, and average national IQ scores have been shown to correlate significantly with economic development.

On the bright side, African IQ has been rising due to the Flynn effect. Over the course of a single generation, Kenya's average national IQ went up 7 points.

In response to your rant about slavery, I must ask why you think an institution that ended 200 years ago has had such a terrible effect on present-day African-American culture, given that the Holocaust, which occurred much more recently, was surely as horrible, and capped centuries of terrible mistreatment of Jews, doesn't seem to have had any negative effects on present-day Jewish culture.

I think that slavery had much stronger negative cultural, economic, political affects on Africans than the Holocaust did on Jews. The Holocaust was a 3 or 4 year mass slaughter. Slavery, on the other hand, forced Africans into a crippled economic and social mode of of subservience for hundreds of years. Regardless of whichever one was more "horrible", I think slavery has had longer lasting negative effects on Africa and the African diaspora.

I think that slavery had much stronger negative cultural, economic, political affects on Africans than the Holocaust did on Jews. The Holocaust was a 3 or 4 year mass slaughter. Slavery, on the other hand, forced Africans into a crippled economic and social mode of of subservience for hundreds of years. Regardless of whichever one was more "horrible", I think slavery has had longer lasting negative effects on Africa and the African diaspora.

As I noted, the Holocaust did not occur in isolation but was the capstone of hundreds of years of gentile mistreatment of the Jews, which included consigning them to ghettos, subjecting them to semi-regular pogroms, systematically driving them from one country to another, and barring them from institutions of higher learning. And yet... as soon as things quieted down a bit and the restrictions on their participation in institutions of higher learning were lifted, Jews flooded into universities throughout Europe and achieved at rates far surpassing those of gentiles. Why was this? Why did Jews seemingly "shake off" their history of persecution to become an overachieving minority in one generation, whereas blacks continue to struggle relative to other groups everywhere generations after slavery has been abolished?

The touchy buzzwords Euro-centric or American-centric are fitting in these discussions of slavery which often seem to forget the Arab sub-saharan slave trade, which went on for far longer and enslaved many more sub-Saharan Africans than did the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

gentile mistreatment of the Jews, which included consigning them to ghettos, subjecting them to semi-regular pogroms, systematically driving them from one country to another

Ironically enough, these restrictions/opression placed Ashkenazi Jews into a proto-capitalist role as highly educated and efficient middle-men (bankers, merchants, and other middle-class occupations) as opposed to the agriculture of the gentile peasants.

"Why did Jews seemingly "shake off" their history of persecution to become an overachieving minority in one generation, whereas blacks continue to struggle relative to other groups everywhere generations after slavery has been abolished?"

G. Cochran, J. Hardy, H. Harpending, Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence, Journal of Biosocial Science 38 (5), pp. 659–693 (2006).

"This high IQ and corresponding high academic ability have been long known. In 1900 in
London Jews took a disproportionate number of academic prizes and scholarships in spite
of their poverty (Russell and Lewis, 1900). In the 1920s a survey of IQ scores in three
London schools (Hughes, 1928) with mixed Jewish and non-Jewish student bodies
showed that Jewish students had higher IQs than their schoolmates in each of three
school, one prosperous, one poor, and one very poor.

The differences between Jews and
non-Jews were all slightly less than one standard deviation. The students at the poorest
Jewish school in London had IQ scores equal to the overall city mean of non-Jewish
children.

The Hughes study is important because it contradicts a widely cited misrepresentation by
Kamin (Kamin, 1974) of a paper by Henry Goddard (Goddard, 1917). Goddard gave IQ
tests to people suspected of being retarded, and he found that the tests identified retarded
Jews as well as retarded people of other groups. Kamin reported, instead, that Jews had
low IQs, and this erroneous report was picked up by many authors including Stephen Jay
Gould, who used it as evidence of the unreliability of the tests (Seligman, 1992).

Ashkenazi Jews have an unusual ability profile as well as higher than average IQ. They
have high verbal and mathematical scores, while their visuospatial abilities are typically
somewhat lower, by about one half a standard deviation, than the European average
(Levinson, 1977; Levinson and Block, 1977). Han Eysenck (Eysenck, 1995) noted “The
correlation between verbal and performance tests is about 0.77 in the general population,
but only 0.31 among Jewish children.

Differences of 10-20 points have been found in
samples of Jewish children; there is no other group that shows anything like this size
difference.” The Ashkenazi pattern of success is what one would expect from this ability
distribution-great success in mathematics and literature, more typical results in
representational painting, sculpture, and architecture.

http://homepage.mac.com/harpend/ ....jbiosocsci.pdf

Why the obsession with IQ?

Devoted interest to the structural causes of racial inequality is a progressive research agenda. Devoted interest to IQ is a psychological hang up.

Ironically enough, these restrictions/opression placed Ashkenazi Jews into a proto-capitalist role as highly educated and efficient middle-men (bankers, merchants, and other middle-class occupations) as opposed to the agriculture of the gentile peasants.

Ok, so you seem to be hinting that Jewish culture, as shaped by their history of oppression, is at least partially responsible for Jewish overachievement relative to white gentiles, whereas African-American culture, as shaped by their history of oppression, is at least partially responsible for black underachievement relative to white Americans. And that this is only counterintuitive if you don't recognize the different forms that oppression took in each instance.

Can I ask you for figures? What percentage of the Jew-gentile achievement gap would you say is due solely to cultural differences? What percentage of the white-black achievement gap do you believe is due solely to cultural differences? I'm just curious as to what you think in your gut; I'm really not trying to make a larger point here.

FWIW, I'd say the gaps are around 20% - 40% culture in both instances.

Mark

"years ago has had such a terrible effect on present-day African-American culture, given that the Holocaust, which occurred much more recently, was surely as horrible, and capped centuries of terrible mistreatment of Jews, doesn't seem to have had any negative effects on present-day Jewish culture.

In other words, if past mistreatment is the cause of present-day black underperformance, why is it that a similar history of mistreatment hasn't led to similar rates of underperformance among Jews - who actually overperform, relative to gentiles, in a lot of areas?"


Jews always knew who they were.

If I took 100 Jews to Central Africa, raped their women repeatedly, refused to allow them to speak whatever language they speak, refused to allow them to have any religion but Islam and taught that Islam says Jews are not trustworthy and that is why Muhammad had to execute Jewish tribes (true story in the Qur'an), and that where they come from his barbaric and they should be lucky to be here and raised them like that for at least 8-10 generations. Make it illegal for them to learn to read and write and do math, other than maybe being allowed to read some passages of the Qur'an.

Then one day I tell them...oh you are free and I was wrong, sorry about that chap. Today you are equal.

Then I come to them 10 years later and say..."oh why aren't you like me...what's wrong with you, didn't you hear me 10 years ago, get over it. In fact you are lazy and ignorant and need to "take personal responsibility".

Uhm...how well do would these "Jews" be doing?

You think they will be Einsteins or even close on average?

This is your answer.

Jews, despite all they went through over 2,000+ years in Europe never forgot who they were. They had strong families, they had their traditions, culture, language (at least written), stories that teach where they have been and where they were supposed to be going, group cohesion, and allowed to do various forms of work that were actually lucrative, even if a dependent merchant/artisan class who often could not own property.


What if I took all that way and taught them how to be a good slave and a good "breeder" for 10 generations, you think they would just snap out of it in 1.5 generations.

It has been only about 1.5 generations since the civil rights movement, I'm about 30, that means there are plenty of African Americans walking around right now who were born in Jim Crow, defacto serfdom...legally approved of by all branches of government, that lasted 100 YEARS AFTER SLAVERY. Jim Crow was not about not letting black men piss on the same toilets as whites, it was about the suppression of economic competition, it was about wealth transfer. It was serfdom without the protection from the Lord.

1.5 generations...considering black American performance, please name a VISIBLE minority who went through the same type of thing for as long as African Americans, in another nation that has moved out of poverty, increased educational achievement, home ownership, etc. faster.

I can wait, I want to here this, please show me one group that fits this criteria.

As far as East Asian development.

Uhm...please remind me how much money Japan got in investment after WWII, to build it up as an alley against communism, and how much money did South Korea get from America and Japan after the Korean War. How much infrastructure did the British build in HOng Kong, how much money did the KMT (Guo MIng Dong) get for Taiwan from America to "defend against Communism".

Then think about that overseas Chinese money from Hong Kong and Taiwan went into early investment along the "bamboo network" in the 1970's and 1980's into Guangdong and Fujian in China.

Then compare that to how much money Africa got from America, the UK, and Britian after indepedence or even the USSR.

Are you kidding me?? Please tell me the difference? Did Liberia ever get the same money from the U.S. that the U.S. and various other nations gave Israel and continue to give Israel??? Please "show me the money".

You are comparing apples and oranges and equating it to IQ because you don't know anything about global political-economy of the last 200 years. Nothing. If you are going to make these arguments, fine, at least have some concept of what you are speaking of. Compare apples to apples and get back to me.

mark,

you've summarized what i'm saying perfectly.

i honestly don't know how much of a role culture/history play. it seems to me like there's a strong argument for it being a major factor in Africa.

Almost forgot to comment on this race and IQ stuff. I was taught that science is a process, not a body of knowledge. It is a recipe for examining the world around you in a way that yields better results than any other method. It is not the collected wisdom of scientists, because scientists are often wrong. It is not what is written in textbooks, because they too are often wrong. Science is simply a step-by-step way of looking at nature, a way that works. If you follow the steps you can consider yourself a scientist, no matter your formal schooling. Conversely, anyone who dons a cloak of wisdom to make an untestable claim is not acting as a scientist, regardless of academic credentials. The following four steps are inherent to the methodology.


Define the Question Objectively

Explain How to Falsify Your Claim

Replicate Your Findings

Base Your Conclusion on Your Findings

some widely-quoted studies, published in peer-reviewed journals, present conclusions that are flatly contradicted by their own findings. And yet, people cite such studies because they support a desired conclusion, no matter how illogical. For example, the most widely-cited study supporting the biological reality of the "race" notion presents peer-reviewed, replicated findings that the "racial" self-identity of USAmericans predicts the diseases to which they are prone. Specifically, that the correlation between "racial" self-identity and certain illnesses is greater than between actual sub-Saharan genetic admixture and those same diseases. A U.S. patient who considers herself Black in the color-line sense, is more likely to suffer from "racially" prevalent disease than someone who actually has more sub-Saharan ancestry but who does not self-identify as "African American." This is a medically important finding, of which physicians should be aware. The study then concludes that this finding proves the biological reality of genetically determined "races." It should be evident to anyone that the study's conclusion is slain by its own finding, and that the only reason that its conclusion is widely cited is because it reinforces the "race" notion. Again, if you are presenting a conclusion, base it upon your findings in a logical progression that the reader can share. If you are examining someone else's conclusion, consider whether it follows logically from their findings.

I see this type of thing and people violating these rules far too much when it comes to anything having to do with "genetics and race"...this is the most problematic thing to me. In effect, they are too often passing off bias observations as science.

There was a review on the ethics of studying race, genetics, and IQ that was reviewed on GNXP in 2004, I found it again here:

http://www.loni.ucla.edu/ ~thomps...NRN2004_IQ.html

Part of the proposal there is that people from all groups whose IQ is being compared should be involved in the process of designing and doing the research. It might not be all that hard to achieve, if there was funding involved as an incentive. As ben g said above, this might avoid some of the trouble surrounding this work.

"For example, the most widely-cited study supporting the biological reality of the "race" notion presents peer-reviewed, replicated findings that the "racial" self-identity of USAmericans predicts the diseases to which they are prone."

There's an interesting comment regarding the Risch study in 2005 here:

"Metric on the space of genomes and the scientific basis for race"

Suppose that the human genome has 30,000 distinct genes, which we will label as i = 1,2, ... N, where N = 30k. Next, suppose that there are n_i variants or alleles (mutations) of the i-th gene. Then, each human's genetic information can be described as a point on a lattice of size n_1 x n_2 x n_3 ... n_N, or equivalently an N-tuple of integers, each of whose values range from 1 to n_i. For the simplified case where there are exactly 10 variants of each gene, the number of points in this N dimensional space is 10^N or 10^{30k}, one for each distinct 30k digit number. It's a space of very high dimension, but this doesn't stop us from defining a metric, or measure of distance between any two points in the space. (For simplicity we ignore restrictions on this space which might result from incompatibility of certain combinations, etc.)

Note that the genomes of all of the humans who have ever lived occupy only a small subset of this space -- most possible variations have never been realized. For this reason, the surprise expressed by biologists that humans have so few genes (not many more than a worm, and far less than the 100k of earlier estimates) is no cause for concern -- the number of possible organisms that might result from 30k genes is enormous -- far more than the number of molecules in the visible universe.

To define a metric, we need a notion of how far apart two different alleles are. We can do this by counting base pair differences -- most mutations only alter a few base pairs in the genetic code. We can define the distance between two alleles in terms of the number of base pair changes between them (this is always a positive number). Then, we can define the distance between two genomes as the sum of each of the i=1,2,..,N individual gene distances. It is natural, although perhaps not always possible, to choose the n_i labeling of alleles to reflect relative distances, so variants n_1 and n_2 are close together, and both very far from n_10.

The exact definition of the metric and the allele labeling are somewhat arbitrary, but you can see it is easy to define a meaningful measure of how far apart any two individuals are in genome space.


From the conclusions of the Risch paper (Am. J. Hum. Genet. 76:268–275, 2005):

Attention has recently focused on genetic structure in the human population. Some have argued that the amount of genetic variation within populations dwarfs the variation between populations, suggesting that discrete genetic categories are not useful (Lewontin 1972; Cooper et al. 2003; Haga and Venter 2003). On the other hand, several studies have shown that individuals tend to cluster genetically with others of the same ancestral geographic origins (Mountain and Cavalli-Sforza 1997; Stephens et al. 2001; Bamshad et al. 2003). Prior studies have generally been performed on a relatively small number of individuals and/or markers. A recent study (Rosenberg et al. 2002) examined 377 autosomal micro-satellite markers in 1,056 individuals from a global sample of 52 populations and found significant evidence of genetic clustering, largely along geographic (continental) lines. Consistent with prior studies, the major genetic clusters consisted of Europeans/West Asians (whites), sub-Saharan Africans, East Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans. ethnic groups living in the United States, with a discrepancy rate of only 0.14%.


This clustering is a natural consequence of geographical isolation, inheritance and natural selection operating over the last 50k years since humans left Africa.

Every allele probably occurs in each ethnic group, but with varying frequency. Suppose that for a particular gene there are 3 common variants (v1, v2, v3) all the rest being very rare. Then, for example, one might find that in ethnic group A the distribution is v1 75%, v2 15%, v3 10%, while for ethnic group B the distribution is v1 2% v2 6% v3 92%. Suppose this pattern is repeated for several genes, with the common variants in population A being rare in population B, and vice versa. Then, one might find a very dramatic difference in expressed phenotype between the two populations. For example, if skin color is determined by (say) 10 genes, and those genes have the distribution pattern given above, nearly all of population A might be fair skinned while all of population B is dark, even though there is complete overlap in the set of common alleles. Perhaps having the third type of variant v3 in 7 out of 10 pigmentation genes makes you dark. This is highly likely for an individual in population B with the given probabilities, but highly unlikely in population A.

We see that there can be dramatic group differences in phenotypes even if there is complete allele overlap between two groups - as long as the frequency or probability distributions are distinct. But it is these distributions that are measured by the metric we defined earlier. Two groups that form distinct clusters are likely to exhibit different frequency distributions over various genes, leading to group differences.

This leads us to two very distinct possibilities in human genetic variation:

Hypothesis 1: (the PC mantra) The only group differences that exist between the clusters (races) are innocuous and superficial, for example related to skin color, hair color, body type, etc.

Hypothesis 2: (the dangerous one) Group differences exist which might affect important (let us say, deep rather than superficial) and measurable characteristics, such as cognitive abilities, personality, athletic prowess, etc.

Note H1 is under constant revision, as new genetically driven group differences (e.g., particularly in disease resistance) are being discovered. According to the mantra of H1 these must all (by definition) be superficial differences.

A standard argument against H2 is that the 50k years during which groups have been separated is not long enough for differential natural selection to cause any group differences in deep characteristics. I find this argument quite naive, given what we know about animal breeding and how evolution has affected the (ever expanding list of) "superficial" characteristics. Many genes are now suspected of having been subject to strong selection over timescales of order 5k years or less. For further discussion of H2 by Steve Pinker, see here.

The predominant view among social scientists is that H1 is obviously correct and H2 obviously false. However, this is mainly wishful thinking. Official statements by the American Sociological Association and the American Anthropological Association even endorse the view that race is not a valid biological concept, which is clearly incorrect.

As scientists, we don't know whether H1 or H2 is correct, but given the revolution in biotechnology, we will eventually. Let me reiterate, before someone labels me a racist: we don't know with high confidence whether H1 or H2 is correct.

Finally, it is important to note that any group differences are statistical in nature and do not imply anything about particular individuals. Rather than rely on the scientifically unsupported claim that we are all equal, it would be better to emphasize that we all have inalienable human rights regardless of our abilities or genetic make up."

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/200...enomes- and.html

"Jews, despite all they went through over 2,000+ years in Europe never forgot who they were. They had strong families, they had their traditions, culture, language (at least written), stories that teach where they have been and where they were supposed to be going, group cohesion, and allowed to do various forms of work that were actually lucrative, even if a dependent merchant/artisan class who often could not own property."

Yeah, but there was also strong selection for IQ.

"This means that in a reproductively isolated population (m < 1%) subject to strong selection for IQ like the Ashkenazim, mutations increasing IQ or other locally favored traits could well have
increased to polymorphic frequencies. Naturally, these would be mutations that increase
IQ with costs attached–mutations that produced a ‘free’ increase in IQ, with no associated
costs at all would probably have already occurred and reached fixation in all human
populations.

Since strong selection for IQ seems to be unusual in humans (few populations have had
most members performing high-complexity jobs) and since near-total reproductive
isolation is also unusual, the Ashkenazim may be the only extant human population with
polymorphic frequencies of IQ-boosting disease mutations, although another place to
look for a similar phenomenon is in India."

http://homepage.mac.com/harpend/....jbiosocsci.pdf

Mark,
whereas there are no truly developed countries south of the Sahara - with the possible exception of South Africa, built by white settlers - despite millions in aid?

Not true. Botswana has maintained an 8% growth rate for the past 3 decades which according to the world bank, is unparalleled in modern economic history. What's interesting about Bot is that it is one of the only countries that didnt fall prey to the divide and conquer strategies of the colonists. It retained the traditional mode of political organization.


Oh, really? A continent-wide mini-renaissance? I hadn't heard. I heard that in the last year alone millions more were pushed into poverty because of rising food costs.

You are ignorant and seem glad to wallow in it. The African renaissance story is so old, that it's not even news anymore. It is however CNN unfriendly given that you and your ilk like the death and destruction stories better. According to the IMF, Africa has been outpacing world growth since 2001. The IMF's report on Sub-Sahara last year didn't even spend time explaining what's been happening as it is assumed all who matter know. It instead discusses the impact of world events on african growth - not much

"The economic expansion in sub-Saharan Africa is expected to continue, but risks are tilted to the
downside. Growth in sub-Saharan Africa should again average about 6½ percent this year" - Regional Economic Outlook - Sub Saharan Africa Apr 2008

That's 6 1/2 compared to 1 or 2 for the rest of the world.

It amazes me how this type of information is completely invisible to most people in the west. Could it be a situation of people seeing what they want to see?

I currently live in Nigeria and the expat community is growing everyday. In the last year in particular, westerners, many of them white, have begun to move down here in large numbers. Why? Cos Nigerian banks still make money and still pay 6 digit dollar salaries with car and driver.

Here's some further reading for you Mark as you clearly seem to need the education...

Citibank - Sub Saharan Africa: How long will the boom last? 18 September 2007
Merrill Lynch - Africa: the Final Frontier 23 July 2007
Merrill Lynch - Nigerian Banks: A Story of Potential December 10 2008
Renaissance Capital - Africa: Unlocking Investment Potential - July 2007

nothing has arisen there that matches, in cultural complexity or technological innovation, what has arisen independently Europe or East Asia. Now, why is that?

This is just silly. Sure europe is full of ruins of once great castles etc, but are you really proud of such things? These are all products of kleptocracies; one man stole from the masses and forced other citizens to build him great works of architecture and art. Not hard. The colloseum was built at the threat of death and with the blood of jewish slaves. Same with Asia in most cases. I am willing to postulate that there are no such things in Africa due to democracy. However, the Africans are catching up though. Over the last two decades, several european style dictators and kleptocracts have lived in Africa and have built themselves wonderful palaces which in 2000 years will qualify as the great works of complex culture you so admire.

And on Jews...

Lt's not forget that the people who suffered the most during the holocaust are dead. That sounds obvious, but it is an important point. There was no cultural change or distruction or prolonged suffering here. They were killed and hence removed from the equation. However, what if all that suffering that happened at auschwitz ended differently? What if 6 million jews weren't killed, just tortured and raped? Then these 6 million people are left free, no psychiatric care, no assistance, just freedom. Then told to go get a job. Even if it was only for 2 years relative to slavery's hundreds of years, i am willing to bet that the progeny of these 6 million jews would not be where today's jews are. Why? a quarter would have some form of Post traumatic stress disorder, another large chunk would have major depression from which they'd probably never recover. Suicides would result and some of the men would turn to violence due to their inability to hold a job. And you know what, we'd all understand.

LongMa

If I took 100 Jews to Central Africa, raped their women repeatedly, refused to allow them to speak whatever language they speak, refused to allow them to have any religion but Islam and taught that Islam says Jews are not trustworthy and that is why Muhammad had to execute Jewish tribes (true story in the Qur'an), and that where they come from his barbaric and they should be lucky to be here and raised them like that for at least 8-10 generations. Make it illegal for them to learn to read and write and do math, other than maybe being allowed to read some passages of the Qur'an.

Then one day I tell them...oh you are free and I was wrong, sorry about that chap. Today you are equal.

Then I come to them 10 years later and say..."oh why aren't you like me...what's wrong with you, didn't you hear me 10 years ago, get over it. In fact you are lazy and ignorant and need to "take personal responsibility".

Uhm...how well do would these "Jews" be doing?

You think they will be Einsteins or even close on average?

This is your answer.

Are Africans in Africa more intelligent, more energetic, better informed, and more responsible than Africans in America?

As far as East Asian development.

Uhm...please remind me how much money Japan got in investment after WWII, to build it up as an alley against communism, and how much money did South Korea get from America and Japan after the Korean War. How much infrastructure did the British build in HOng Kong, how much money did the KMT (Guo MIng Dong) get for Taiwan from America to "defend against Communism".

How would you compare African development with Japanese, Korean, and Chinese development in 1931? 1700? 1200? 800?

LongMa,

I relate black underperformance to IQ because IQ correlates quite strongly with socioeconomic performance and blacks have, on average, lower IQs than whites, not because I'm ignorant of politics or world history.

Now, there's a chicken or the egg element to this. You would probably argue that black underperformance on IQ tests, like black underperformance elsewhere, is primarily a result of their history of oppression. In other words, that it is due to environment, not genes.

I don't think the black-white gap in IQ is mostly environmental for several reasons. One, it doesn't change substantially as you climb the socioeconomic scale. In other words, the children of upper-class African-Americans still score about 15 points lower than the children of upper-class white people.

If it were the case that the black community as a whole suffers from a history of slavery, and that that suffering manifests itself in lower IQ scores, then one would expect the people who have climbed out of this trap - who have made good lives for themselves and proven successful - to have children who are at least somewhat insulated from the IQ-depressing environmental variables of mainstream black culture. Yet the black-white IQ gap is as robust among the upper classes as it is among the middle and lower classes. This is what one would predict if the basis of the gap were genetic - given regression to the mean - and the opposite of what one would predict if the basis of the gap were environmental.

There's also the Minnesota Scarr transracial adoption study which found that, as young adults (aged 17) blacks adopted in early childhood by middle-class white parents scored, on avereage, just shy of 90 on IQ tests, whereas whites adopted by middle-class white parents scored around 106. This 15 point gap (give or take) in average scores is exactly what you find between blacks and whites on average. Again, if there were something in black culture depressing black IQ scores, then you would expect black children raised by whites from very early childhood to be at least somewhat insulated from these cultural influences. But the IQ gaps remains, as robust here as elsewhere.

They say the best explanation for a phenomenon is one that is as simple as possible, but no simpler. The best explanation for black underperformance, both in the present day and throughout history, relative to whites and Asians is that they are, on average, less intelligent. I don't like this. I wish very much that it weren't the case. But I'm not going to deny the consistent findings of 100 years of psychometric testing because it makes me sad.

DionneinAfrica said :

... Africa is currently going through a mini -renaissance. Nigeria has pretty much doubled it's per capita income in the last 5 years alone. Did their genes change? No but the dictator died, democracy is in place, oil revenue is up and debt has been paid off. The banks have been liberalized and they are some of the fastest growing in the world ... Why the obsession with IQ? It clearly doesn't tell much of the story ...
___

ogunsiron :
What I'm getting is that high IQ nigerians finally have the oportunity to do something in their own country instead of in England, the USA, etc .. After all, China was a complete mess for years, until the conditions impoved enough for intelligent people to be able to do what they do best.
It doesn't say much about the everage IQ of the population.
___
... Cue the white guys who are going to start reminding me that in the US there is a high correlation between IQ scores and criminality etc blah blah blah...
____

ogunsiron :
Why do you think it's blah blah ? I wouldnt be susprised in the same crime-IQ correlation were found also in the nigerian population. Dont know but it wouldn't surprise me.
___
...Well, these men, women and children suffered ALL OF THE ABOVE in one lifetime...repeatedly. So how do you expect them to not have major psychological issues or raise dysfunctional kids...
___

ogunsiron :
Jews had almost half of their population exterminated less than 60 years ago. That's pretty traumatic you'll agree with me. They seem to have mostly recovered.
Slavery was a while ago and neither myself, nor my parents, nor their parents lived through it. The ancestors of the barbadians went through what you describe and they're doing relatively fine.
__

... PEople like sailer even spend time reaching for silly arguments like "african american culture is from africa - look at the Nuer (a tiny nomadic tribe most africans have never heard of)" Sailer, have you ever been to Africa? Maybe you need to take an excursion..it may help you sound more credible...
___

ogunsiron :
You really think one needs to have lived in African to say anything smart about it ? I've met quite a few people who were native africans and who were grossly ignorant about their own country (like a kenyan girl who was busy explaining to classmates that swahili was an arabic language with a few african words in it *rolls eyes*) . The most you can say is that , ceteris paribus , a smart person who has lived in Africa can say smarter and more accurate things about Africa than the same person having never lived there.
In any case, I've lived there and a lot of what Steve says matches my anecdotal evidence. Especially the stuff about childraising and absent fathers. It makes sense for Africa (in my experience), the carribbean (with which I'm also personally acquainted) and for black america (which i also know about!). What do you say ?
___

Not true. Botswana has maintained an 8% growth rate for the past 3 decades which according to the world bank, is unparalleled in modern economic history. What's interesting about Bot is that it is one of the only countries that didnt fall prey to the divide and conquer strategies of the colonists. It retained the traditional mode of political organization.
___
ogunsiron :
Swaziland is an extremely traditional country and it's also mono-ethnic. It's also a hellhole. Botswana has retained a lot of traditions (traditional chiefs, etc) but it's basically a modern ( european patterned )democracy .
___

...This is just silly. Sure europe is full of ruins of once great castles etc, but are you really proud of such things? These are all products of kleptocracies; one man stole from the masses and forced other citizens to build him great works of architecture and art. Not hard. The colloseum was built at the threat of death and with the blood of jewish slaves...
___

ogunsiron :
You praise an african renaissance which will supposedly make Africa more like Europe (and the rest of the modern world) in its workings and even in appearance (modern cities , modern urban lifestyle, etc) and then you ridiculously dismiss european/western civilization as a bunch of castles and jewish slave built palaces ? You're the one who's silly. Just calm down Dionne and read this site and some others with an open mind for a few months. You don't have to agree with everything but you will learn something, guaranteed. And you need to hit the history books right now .
___

And on Jews...
What if 6 million jews weren't killed, just tortured and raped? Then these 6 million people are left free, no psychiatric care, no assistance, just freedom. Then told to go get a job ...
___
ogunsiron :
half of european jews died. Many more were in the camps and saw the others die, were tortured and starved. Many spent years in filthy ghettos. They recovered quickly. Not only because american jews were spared and thus were able to preserve a lot of the culture, but more simply because there's just a hell lot of high quality human capital among jews and they're born that way.

Doesn't the level of disagreement and its intensity here, enough proof that the results of such a study will be twisted to suit whichever axe you are trying to grind? And this is from the fairly better informed (purportedly higher IQ) group which reads GNXP. I hate to think how it will play out in the hands of Fox news or for that matter Al Jazzera.
BTW this post is listed in aldaily now.

BTW this post is listed in aldaily now.

gene expression is on dutton's blogroll. why would the link be surprising? (he's linked to us before anyhow)

Sri,

controversy is not proof that something shouldn't be studied. e.g. evolution

"...This is just silly. Sure europe is full of ruins of once great castles etc, but are you really proud of such things? These are all products of kleptocracies; one man stole from the masses and forced other citizens to build him great works of architecture and art. Not hard"

Dionneinafrica says it wasn't hard to build cathedrals in 1300 AD! Thanks for the information Dionneinafrica.


The computer you're typing on is a direct descendant of the technology that went into building the great cathedrals, which are still functioning buildings and not ruins, if they surived WWII. There are stained glass windows 600 years old in those buildings. GLASS sonny. 600 years old and never vandalized. That shows discipline. The guildsmen/craftsmen, evolving from the middle ages, engineered the construction and it was during the building, taking decades that the math, science and architecture that we still use today, developed. It's a fascinating story. These cathedrals were cultural batteries. All awareness of the times centered on them. We would not have the modern world without them.

So yeah, sonny (sorry-you sound about 14). I'm proud. If you insist that whites feel guilty about non-whites (whose numbers are ever increasing largely due to advances brought by modern technology) then we will indeed feel quite proud for having built Chartres at a time when Tamerlane swept out of the steppes and laid waste to an area one-tenth the size of the moon. He did some constructing too. Made a tower some hundred feet high or more, composed of the skulls of those he'd massacred. Now that's genocide at its most unapologetic. No reparations and guilt trips going on there.

Somehow I think the people of Chartres were more gainfully employed.

The Romans may have used Jewish slaves; they also used German slaves and anybody else they could find, as have conquering empires all through history on every continent. The Europeans only did what everybody else did. To paraphrase a line from Casablanca where Bogart is describing the smarmy French collaborator, "Oh, he's like any other man, only more so."

On the gypsies point: they are nomads. Elementary game theory would suggest somewhat problematic interactions with members of other groups.

If there can be selection processes for IQ among Ashkenazi Jews, there can with any group. So, which came first. The average IQ or the selection process?

Mass slavery has debilitating effects on both slaves and slave owners. As Peter Turchin points out, areas of mass slavery have depressed social capital (asabiyya), even centuries later. Robert Putnam (from memory) found that the American South had lower levels of social capital than other parts of the US.

Regarding sub-Saharan Africa, to have an advanced civlisation you need cities. Cities typically need concentrated fertile land and drinkable liquids/a disease environment that is not too debilitating. (Cities typically had higher death rates than birth rates until relatively recently, but the death rates cannot be too much higher than the birth rates.) The geography and disease environment of Sub-Saharan Africa plus the effect of the Arab-Muslim slave trade all worked against development of more complex societies.

Colonialism saddled Africa with "national' boundaries that make no sense and establish thoroughly artificial "identities". It took centuries for large, stable polities to evolve in Europe after the end of the Western Roman Empire. We expect Africa to "work it all out" in a few decades and point to IQ when they do not? Folks, a little more sense of history would be helpful.

This is just silly. Sure europe is full of ruins of once great castles etc, but are you really proud of such things? These are all products of kleptocracies; one man stole from the masses and forced other citizens to build him great works of architecture and art. Not hard. The colloseum was built at the threat of death and with the blood of jewish slaves. Same with Asia in most cases. I am willing to postulate that there are no such things in Africa due to democracy. However, the Africans are catching up though. Over the last two decades, several european style dictators and kleptocracts have lived in Africa and have built themselves wonderful palaces which in 2000 years will qualify as the great works of complex culture you so admire.

Dionne,

I was referring to the history of European and Asian civilization and all its products, not just a bunch of castles. There is no sub-Saharan African civilization that can match what has risen in Europe and Asia in regard to art, technology, philosophy, math and science. As others have succinctly put it, mankind has lived in Africa the longest and has the least to show for it.

The industrial revolution and the scientific method both come from England. The world's first great novel, the Tale of Genji, was written in Japan. Artistic realism and linear perspective come from Greece and Italy, respectively. Drama arose independently in Greece and India. Chinese, Indian and Greek philosophies all developed a code of ethics independently. The Egyptians developed the world's first number system. Arabic numerals, including zero, come from India and were spread west by the Arabs.

If you look at a history of the great innovations of humankind, they all arose north of the Sahara. That black Africans, who have underperformed relative to other groups throughout human history, continue to underperform should not be surprising. And explanations for their current underperformance that rely on a recent history of slavery and oppression can't explain their underperformance throughout human history.

"Regarding sub-Saharan Africa, to have an advanced civlisation you need cities. Cities typically need concentrated fertile land and drinkable liquids/a disease environment that is not too debilitating. (Cities typically had higher death rates than birth rates until relatively recently, but the death rates cannot be too much higher than the birth rates.) The geography and disease environment of Sub-Saharan Africa plus the effect of the Arab-Muslim slave trade all worked against development of more complex societies."

That's true, but what if cultural changes also lead to genetic changes?

"2B: Is part of what enables us to think of culture affecting evolution the fact that we now know that evolution is proceeding rapidly?

GC: Yes. And because different cultures result in different selective pressures, sometimes quite strong ones....

2B: How controversial would the thesis that culture influences evolution be among the general run of scientists? What kinds of scientists would try to take issue with you? On what grounds?

GC: On some points I think I'd get very little argument -- lactase persistence for example. On anything that influences personality or cognition, I think they'd hate it, but that kind of evolutionary change is bound to happen. The social world changed and we changed too. There's genetic evidence for it, and of course lots of evidence of psychometric differences.

2B: The main example you use to illustrate how cultural developments can influence evolution is agriculture. Why was the development of agriculture such a major event where human evolution was concerned?

GC: It increased human density by tens of times, which made a big difference in disease risks. It radically changed diet, and it dramatically furthered hierarchy and social complexity.

2B: You and Henry assert that populations that adopted agriculture were much influenced by the development, and in non-insignificant, deep-in-the-biochemistry sorts of ways. What would your favorite examples of those adaptations be?

GC: Metabolic/diet changes like lactose tolerance, many changes in genes involved with defense against infectious disease, many changes in genes that affect hearing and smell, changes in neurotransmitters and related genes that most likely influence personality, changes in genes involved with the regulation of nerve connections and brain growth.

2B: One implication would seem to be that there are striking differences between populations that developed agriculture long ago and ones that encountered it only recently. Fair?

GC: Yes. Peoples with short histories of agriculture have trouble with alcoholism, diabetes, and generally have a lot of trouble fitting into complex hierarchical societies.

2B: Can you tell us a bit more about all this? And can you explain why should we think of these differences as more significant than, say, hair or eye color?

GC: Eye and hair color are somehow involved with genetic changes that gave advantage -- Vitamin D looks to have been important, but I don't think we know the whole story on that. I tend to think things like vulnerability to diabetes or TB are important because they cripple and kill people: generally I'm against that."

http://www.2blowhards.com/ archiv...e_1.html#005818

"2B: Are all population groups evolving at the same rate? Is it possible that some population groups are evolving lickety-split, where others are fairly static evolution-wise?

GC: If we're right about big populations under agriculture changing rapidly, hunter-gatherers must have changed less. It would seem that Chinese probably changed a good deal faster than Australian Aborigines."

http://www.2blowhards.com/ archiv...e_3.html#005819

DionneInAfrica,

Not true. Botswana has maintained an 8% growth rate for the past 3 decades which according to the world bank, is unparalleled in modern economic history. What's interesting about Bot is that it is one of the only countries that didnt fall prey to the divide and conquer strategies of the colonists. It retained the traditional mode of political organization.

Botswana would be nothing without Diamonds - all its wealth is based on them alone. Recently however, with the spreading global financial crisis, diamond exports plunged by 90%

More tired and untrue commentary from Mark

Dionne,

I was referring to the history of European and Asian civilization and all its products, not just a bunch of castles. There is no sub-Saharan African civilization that can match what has risen in Europe and Asia in regard to art, technology, philosophy, math and science. As others have succinctly put it, mankind has lived in Africa the longest and has the least to show for it.

The industrial revolution and the scientific method both come from England. The world's first great novel, the Tale of Genji, was written in Japan. Artistic realism and linear perspective come from Greece and Italy, respectively. Drama arose independently in Greece and India. Chinese, Indian and Greek philosophies all developed a code of ethics independently. The Egyptians developed the world's first number system. Arabic numerals, including zero, come from India and were spread west by the Arabs.

If you look at a history of the great innovations of humankind, they all arose north of the Sahara. That black Africans, who have underperformed relative to other groups throughout human history, continue to underperform should not be surprising. And explanations for their current underperformance that rely on a recent history of slavery and oppression can't explain their underperformance throughout human history.

And yet, it has been shown that the Iron Age existed in sub-Saharan Africa simultaneously with those thought to be the oldest of previous note. In fact, the dating puts development and use of Iron at 1500BC in sub-Saharan Africa, which would be the oldest on record. These Iron technologies were not imported to Africa from other continents but were arrived at by the indigenous groups. Tell me, Great Mark, how that fits in with your theories? Or do you now discount the development of Iron as, what did you call it "the great innovations of mankind"? And lets not forget the Benin Bronzes, currently housed at the British Musuem, the dicovery (and looting) of which lead to much furrowing of brows by the West as they (like Mark today) had erroneously thought African cultures to be too primitive to bring forth such work.

From Roderick J. McIntosh, Professor Anthropology

For too long, many scholars dismissed Africa as a cultural backwater unworthy of serious study. But 50 years of archaeology have shown that the continent has pottery thousands of years older than that of the Near East and Europe, true steel two and a half millennia before its nineteenth-century European "invention," and urban civilizations without despots and wars. These are more than just African insights; they are fundamental revelations about how humans have interacted with each other and their environment and how societies have changed in the past.

Oops.

As for talking about drama, and a code of ethics; am I supposed to take it that you think sub-Saharan Africa was without artform or community-agreed upon standards until the intervention of the West? Is this for real? Or perhaps it can only be conferred greatness when presented in the formats of 'drama' and written 'ethics.' All others, are sadly too primitive to warrant merit.

Hilarious.

Ike, yes, I would include iron working as a significant innovation. And where did I say that Black Africans were incapable of producing art like the Benin bronzes? Please don't put thoughts in my head that I don't have. I'm aware of what art has arisen in Africa as well as what art people of black African descent have pioneered in their diasporas. I said they never developed "art, technology, philosophy, math and science" to match what Europeans and Asians developed, which they have not.

Dionne, regarding Africa's "mini-Renaissance," I'm familiar with the trends in Africa's economic growth. Don't throw around loaded phrases like "mini-Renaissance" to describe it, then mock people for allegedly not knowing what you're talking about. Regarding the growth itself, it's easy to post impressive figures when you're starting from a very low number. And as I think I've stated, I'm not saying that Africans can't or aren't going to develop to a significant degree. There isn't a human population group alive that is incapable of adopting modern technology to suit its own purposes. I'm saying we shouldn't expect black Africans to achieve parity with Europeans and Asians in the long term given the correlation between national IQ and national development and the long-standing finding that people of African descent score lower on IQ tests than whites and Asians on average even when socioeconomic conditions are corrected for. If you want to argue with me, then go after the foundations of my argument, preferably with some degree of dispassion. So, do you agree or disagree that there is a significant correlation between national IQ and economic development? Do you agree or disagree that the results of one hundred years of psychometric testing have found a stable gap of about one standard deviation between black and white adults even after controlling for socioeconomic variables?

"Nigeria has pretty much doubled it's per capita income in the last 5 years alone. Did their genes change?"

When the bum with a penny finds another penny, he's also doubled in income. Doubling tiny amounts isn't impressive. Zimbabwe also experienced economic growth 20 years ago. It then plummeted backward. This is essentially statistical noise.

"60 years ago, many african countries were on par with many asian countries with regards to GDP. Now they are not. Did genes change over that time period?"

60 years would just about coincide with the decolonisation of the area. In a manner of speaking, yes, the genes changed. How interesting that you would notice how poorly these nations did once they attained independence and Europeans were no longer running the show.