Peer effects

Buried in: An empirical analysis of ‘acting white’

Our results are also robust to different notions of academic achievement. We include three additional measures of achievement: math and science grades, participation in academic clubs such as math club, book club, foreign language clubs and so on, and Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test scores. In all cases, the magnitude of the ‘acting white’ coefficient is less than our baseline specifications, though math and science grades and academic clubs are both negative and statistically significant.

Test scores, in lieu of grades, provide different results. The coefficient on the race-achievement interaction is −.003 (.023) for blacks and −.04 (.021) for Hispanics. This is surprising, but quite consistent with the intuition behind ‘acting white,’ assuming that test scores are less observable by one’s peer group than grades. In particular, grades are likely more observable to peers than test scores. In an environment where ‘acting white’ exists, one would expect to see a steeper (negative) relationship between grades and social status. The correlation between test scores and grades is .27.

Bee cause of Black subculture. Ya.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Peer effects

  1. Marlo says:

    Hello Chuck, I’ve been reading your blog regularly for some time. From what I can gather, your stance on “global” race realism is different than your stance on American “national” race realism(for lack of a better term). In particular you’ve suggested that you lean towards the American b/w IQ gap being genetic because “black Americans” descend from a population of 5 million slaves. Could you elaborate on this position?

    Also, given that you’ve studied test scores in the U.K. and the Netherlands, do you think it’s unreasonable to believe that the absence of a history of apartheid in these countries might be a factor in their fairly small b/w gaps? Does the fact that “black Americans” have 22x less wealth than white Americans play a role? Do studies showing that “black Americans” tend to sleep less than white Americans reflect anything other than attempts to make whites feel guilty? These are not sarcastic question, I’d really like to know why you so readily dismiss these findings.

    • Chuck says:

      Marlo,

      As for IQ race realism, I distinguish between local and global forms. While global race realism concerns itself with evolutionary differences between broad ancestral human groupings (e.g., Australoids and Euripids), local race realism concerns itself with genetic differences between local populations which are socially described as being races. These two forms of race realism are related but different. The reason for making the local/global distinction is that one can have local differences without global ones even when locally defined racial groups well track global genetic variation. This has always been recognized; it just has not always been articulated.

      Using the case of the “Blacks” “White” difference, for example, we could have following scenarios:

      (1) The default “race realist” position: 250-400 years ago.Black Africans in Africa were less additively genetically intelligent than White Europeans in Europe by approximately one standardized units. In terms of the difference in the genotypic IQ distribution between these populations, nothing has changed since then. The ancestors of the early African diaspora were representative, with respect to genotypic IQ, of the Black African population. And diasporic Europeans were likewise representative. As African Americans in the Americas are an admixed population, their genotypic IQ falls between that of representative samples of Black Africans and of representative samples of White Europeans. More recent African immigrants to Europe and to the Americas are not representative samples of Africans but are genetically selected (i.e., African Brain drain) and so tend to have IQs between those of Black Africans in African and those of non-immigrating White Europeans. And so on.

      Here we assume: (a) a simple additive model for genotypic IQ differences. (b) mean additive differences between geographically defined groups. (c) That our original migrant African and European populations were genetically representative with respect to IQ of their indigenous populations. (d) That contemporaneous migrant populations are not likewise representative. And (d) that there were trivial genetic changes in the last 12-20 generations (e.g., due to different rates of dysgenic fertility among one or more of our four groups: African Blacks, American Blacks, European Whites, American Whites).

      (2). Atypical “race realism”, and example:: 250-400 years ago.Black Africans in Africa were less additively genetically intelligent than White Europeans in Europe by approximately 0.5 standardized units.Since, the situation has changed as throughout the West, as has well been well documented, there has been, in the last couple of centuries, extensive dysgenic fertility (e.g., Lynn, 1996) and there has been a logarithmic increase in genetic load.(Lynch, 2009). Black Africans in Africa have, as a result, closed the genetic gap by 0.25 SD. The ancestors of the early African diaspora in the Americans were not representative, with respect to genotypic IQ, of the Black African population. On average, they were selected -.25 standardized units (which is only a couple of percent of the total variance within populations). As such, descendants of the early Black diaspora were and are still 0.75 SD additively genetically less intelligent that Europeans in the Americans and in Europe (since they were subject to similar dysgenic trends). In the Americans, this difference is amplified by social multiplies (i.e., covGE), producing the 1 SD difference commonly found by adulthood. More recent Black African immigrants to the Americas and to Europe are genetically selected, relative to contemporaneous Black African populations. As such, they are 0 SD less genotypically intelligent than Whites. But their IQ scores are depressed, nonetheless, due to unequal environments. And so on.

      We can contrast the above with the default “environmentalist” position: genetic equality between global populations, no differential selection in the last couple of centuries due to fertility rates etc. and equality between migrant and non migrant groups.

      Whatever the case, the facts that we have to fit to our various model are:

      (1) A low Black African phenotypic IQ (< 80) (as compared to the White IQ in and out of Africa).
      (2) The low Caribbean, US, and Brazilian Black IQs (~85, per my recent review).
      (3) The intermediate status of mulattoes in the Americans and in South Africa.
      (4) The consistent correlations between African genes and low SES in mixed populations throughout the Americans.
      (5) The low but not too low IQs of 2nd+ generation Black West Indian immigrants in the Netherlands (IQ ~89).
      (6) The low but not too low IQs of 2nd+ generation Black West Indian immigrants in the US and UK (IQ 92, per my review) and 2nd generation Black African immigrants to the US and to the UK (IQ 92, per my review).
      (7) The poor performance of 2nd+ generation immigrants from Black Africa in some countries (Israel (85-90) and Italy (85-90) but possibly not to others (review in progress…).

      The most — and perhaps only — problematic aspect for model (1) is point (6). And point (6) is only problematic if we demand that the additive genetic component of the global race difference, d (global), is 1 SD. I haven't been able to find any points that are inconsistent with the claim that, say, that d (global) = 0.5. As model (2) shows, adjustments to model (1) can be made by proposing mechanisms for genetic selection and for genetic unrepresentativeness. If you allow for CovGE which can both magnify and minimalism group differences (see: Flynn and Dickens 2001), the genetic models can be made even more flexible — almost to the point of unfalsifiability.

      You said: "Also, given that you’ve studied test scores in the U.K. and the Netherlands, do you think it’s unreasonable to believe that the absence of a history of apartheid in these countries might be a factor in their fairly small b/w gaps? Does the fact that “black Americans” have 22x less wealth than white Americans play a role? Do studies showing that “black Americans” tend to sleep less than white Americans reflect anything other than attempts to make whites feel guilty? These are not sarcastic question, I’d really like to know why you so readily dismiss these findings"

      The gaps in the Netherlands between Black Antilleans and Dutch Whites are not much smaller than those in the US, between Black and Whites, when individuals of the same age cohort are compared. What's notable is that the Surinamese-Dutch White gaps are smaller than what you would expect given Lynn's evolutionary genetic hypothesis. But a large portion of Surinamese are South Asian Indians. So, the better than expected performance of Surinamese can not be pointed to as evidence for the better than expected performance of immigrant Blacks. The UK is another story.

      As for the UK gaps, I'm not sure why a lack of a "history of apartheid" would work as an explanation, since the Caribbean Blacks, who are primarily of Jamaican origin, had such a history. Indeed, Jamaican Blacks in Jamaica seen to have average IQs no higher than US Blacks in the US. You could argue that Jamaican migrants escaped the cumulative effects of this history. But it's difficult, in this instance, to disentangle the possible effects of escaping deleterious environments from the possible effect of being genetically selected, since on average, the more genetically selected should be more able to have escaped the deleterious environments. That said, the "escaping the cumulative effects" model seems plausible to me.

      As for Wealth, I don't see how this could be an explanation since overall wealth, as opposed to income, has little association with IQ (at least in the US).
      http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/intlwlth.htm When positing environmental explanations, at very minimal you need factors that (a) differ between populations and (b) correlate with IQ within both populations. As for sleep less, I doubt it. What's the effect size of the difference and what's the causal correlation between sleep and IQ?

      .

  2. x says:

    Arthur Jensen is dead. Probably have caught the news but just putting it on here.

  3. Marlo says:

    “We can contrast the above with the default “environmentalist” position: genetic equality between global populations, no differential selection in the last couple of centuries due to fertility rates etc. and equality between migrant and non migrant groups.”

    Your outlines of the two models of race realism are appreciated. But you misrepresent the “default” environmentalist position. The “default” environmentalist position is premised on the likelihood that general intelligence is controlled by networks of genes that code for multiple traits necessary for survival. Hence, a hugely uneven distribution in general intelligence would correspond to a hugely uneven distribution in basic physiological functioning. This position allows for variation in general intelligence between races, just not at the degree to which race realist claim it varies.

    “Whatever the case, the facts that we have to fit to our various model are:

    (1) A low Black African phenotypic IQ (< 80) (as compared to the White IQ in and out of Africa).
    (2) The low Caribbean, US, and Brazilian Black IQs (~85, per my recent review).
    (3) The intermediate status of mulattoes in the Americans and in South Africa.
    (4) The consistent correlations between African genes and low SES in mixed populations throughout the Americans.
    (5) The low but not too low IQs of 2nd+ generation Black West Indian immigrants in the Netherlands (IQ ~89).
    (6) The low but not too low IQs of 2nd+ generation Black West Indian immigrants in the US and UK (IQ 92, per my review) and 2nd generation Black African immigrants to the US and to the UK (IQ 92, per my review).
    (7) The poor performance of 2nd+ generation immigrants from Black Africa in some countries (Israel (85-90) and Italy (85-90) but possibly not to others (review in progress…)."

    Are you familiar with the Israel study by Tzuriel & Kaufman? This study documents very significant gains among a group of Ethiopian immigrants following a certain teaching process. These subjects were given progressive matrices (which are touted as the most accurate measure of "g" in some circles).

    Now, I agree that all but no. 4 must be accounted for. The socioeconomic status of mixed-race people w/ african genes varies largely by country and region. For example, mixed-race people in Louisiana have historically been financially better off than the general population. By contrast, mixed-race people w/ african genes in South Africa are in many ways worse off than black South Africans. And Euro-looking Brazilians with a bit of African ancestry have more opportunity than Brazilians with clearly defined non-white features, regardless of intelligence.
    Those are just a few problems with no. 4, and let's not discount discrimination.

    "The most — and perhaps only — problematic aspect for model (1) is point (6)." And point (6) is only problematic if we demand that the additive genetic component of the global race difference, d (global), is 1 SD. I haven't been able to find any points that are inconsistent with the claim that, say, that d (global) = 0.5. As model (2) shows, adjustments to model (1) can be made by proposing mechanisms for genetic selection and for genetic unrepresentativeness. If you allow for CovGE which can both magnify and minimalism group differences (see: Flynn and Dickens 2001), the genetic models can be made even more flexible — almost to the point of unfalsifiability"

    I don't know what d(global) and CovGe mean. I'm not a "quant".

    Does what your wrote mean that it's possible to arrive at a race realist conclusion solely by manipulating statistical formulas? You don't have to actually identify genes responsible for giving whites and asians superior intelligence?

    "The gaps in the Netherlands between Black Antilleans and Dutch Whites are not much smaller than those in the US, between Black and Whites, when individuals of the same age cohort are compared. What's notable is that the Surinamese-Dutch White gaps are smaller than what you would expect given Lynn's evolutionary genetic hypothesis. But a large portion of Surinamese are South Asian Indians. So, the better than expected performance of Surinamese can not be pointed to as evidence for the better than expected performance of immigrant Blacks. The UK is another story."

    I understand

    "As for the UK gaps, I'm not sure why a lack of a "history of apartheid" would work as an explanation, since the Caribbean Blacks, who are primarily of Jamaican origin, had such a history. Indeed, Jamaican Blacks in Jamaica seen to have average IQs no higher than US Blacks in the US. "
    Jamaicans are descended from slaves, yes, but they never had "such a history". A century of Apartheid clearly has long-lasting psychological effects. And of course Jamaicans in Jamaica have IQ's no higher than US Blacks; they have limited educational resources.

    "You could argue that Jamaican migrants escaped the cumulative effects of this history. But it's difficult, in this instance, to disentangle the possible effects of escaping deleterious environments from the possible effect of being genetically selected, since on average, the more genetically selected should be more able to have escaped the deleterious environments."

    Evidence for genetic selection is scant. The crime rate among African Caribbean youth in London isn't consistent with selection. But I don't claim to know anything, just axin questions to expand the mind.

    "As for Wealth, I don't see how this could be an explanation since overall wealth, as opposed to income, has little association with IQ (at least in the US).
    http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/intlwlth.htm&quot;

    Wealth has a pretty big association with IQ in the U.S. If the accumulation of wealth requires income, and incomes is associated with IQ, then wealth must be associated with IQ. Certainly, there are wealthy people with low IQ's and not so wealthy people with high IQ's. That doesn't mean there's no association.

    Having less wealth can easily translate to problems. It means blacks are more likely to be stressed, more likely to eat unhealthy foods, more susceptible to mental health issues etc. Ultimately, those circumstances could lead to black parents not spending as much time interacting with their infant children in ways that stimulate brain development. You can't just dismiss these issues as "political correctness". Nor does reverse cause and effect debunk this argument.

    In a theoretical world, assuming all else equal, the idea that intelligence determines whether population A is better of than population B is perfectly reasonable. As a practical matter it simply doesn't hold up. You can't pick and choose which variables to ignore unless you've got solid evidence (from peer reviewed science journals) that susceptibility to stress, unhealthy diet, etc. has no impact on how blacks interact with their kids.

    And yes, I know poor white people score higher than blacks on IQ tests, but they might also have more coping mechanisms.

    When positing environmental explanations, at very minimal you need factors that (a) differ between populations and (b) correlate with IQ within both populations. As for sleep less, I doubt it. What's the effect size of the difference and what's the causal correlation between sleep and IQ?"

    I'll look up the studies and get back to you.

    • Bo Jangles says:

      I don’t know what d(global) and CovGe mean. I’m not a “quant”.

      Does what your wrote mean that it’s possible to arrive at a race realist conclusion solely by manipulating statistical formulas? You don’t have to actually identify genes responsible for giving whites and asians superior intelligence?

      Your first statement pretty much explains why you would be asking the follow-up questions. You just can’t have an intelligent conversation on this subject unless you either understand the “quant” or at least trust its methods. When you start blathering about ‘manipulating statistical formulas,’ you demonstrate that you don’t really understand quantitative methods because EVERYONE WHO WORKS WITH THEM KNOWS HOW THESE METHODS CAN BE MANIPULATED AND MAKES SURE TO AVOID SUCH MANIPULATION OR POINT OUT POSSIBLE SHORTCOMINGS OF THE METHODS.

      Do you really think that an entire field of study was just waiting for you to come along and point out flaws in its methodology? Believe me, whatever quantitative or methodological flaws you could point out, we’re well aware of, and we control for them.

      In terms of your silly one-to-one genetic correspondence question . . . Clearly, you’re out of your league if you think that’s even the right question to formulate.

    • Chuck says:

      Marlo,

      You said: “The “default” environmentalist position is premised on the likelihood that general intelligence is controlled by networks of genes that code for multiple traits necessary for survival. Hence, a hugely uneven distribution in general intelligence would correspond to a hugely uneven distribution in basic physiological functioning. This position allows for variation in general intelligence between races, just not at the degree to which race realist claim it varies.”

      I say: This argument is incoherent for two reasons: (1) the magnitude of the differences within races greatly exceeds that between. If there couldn’t be modest geneotypic differences (e,g., 1 SD) between races, then how could there be massive differences between sub populations within races (e.g., 6 SD at the extremes)? Obviously, nature allows for a great deal of variance in geneotypic IQ within the human species. (2) in some instances, the existence of the general intelligence differences has been established, along with their behavior correlates. In such instances it makes no sense to argue that these differences couldn’t exist.

      You said: “Now, I agree that all but no. 4 must be accounted for. The socioeconomic status of mixed-race people w/ african genes varies largely by country and region. ….Those are just a few problems with no. 4, and let’s not discount discrimination.”

      I say: Within any given mixed race population of a certain country or region, people with more African ancestry tend to have lower levels of SES — and lower IQs:

      http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/08/14/fascinating-discussion-at-west-hunter/

      This is a fact that needs to be accounted for. Discrimination is a possibility. And I’ve been looking into that:

      http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/10/13/correlation-between-skin-color-and-afqt-scores-within-and-between-african-american-families-in-the-nlsy-97-a-re-analysis/

      You said: “Are you familiar with the Israel study by Tzuriel & Kaufman? This study documents very significant gains among a group of Ethiopian immigrants following a certain teaching process. These subjects were given progressive matrices (which are touted as the most accurate measure of “g” in some circles).”

      Score gains themselves don’t mean much. Read section 17, here:

      http://dare2.ubvu.vu.nl/bitstream/handle/1871/17812/nijenhuis_Intelligence_35_2007_u.pdf?sequence=2

      “17. Discussion Skuy et al. (2002) hypothesized that the low-quality education of Blacks in South Africa would lead to an underestimate of their cognitive abilities by IQ tests. Groups of Black and White/Indian/Colored students took the Raven’s Progressive Matrices twice, and in between received Feuerstein’s Mediated Learning Experience. The test scores went up substantially in all groups. Evidence for an authentic change in the g factor requires broad transfer or generalizability across a wide variety of cognitive performance. However, Skuy et al. show that the gains did not generalize to scores on an other, highly similar test and to external criteria, and were therefore hollow. As the score gains were in some cases quite large–14 IQ points for the Black experimental group–the question becomes what is it that improved.”

      Generally, second generation Ethiopian Israelis under-perform non-Ethiopian Israelis by around 1 SD. You see a similar difference on international achievement tests:

      Google: “Report shows widening gap between Ethiopian pupils and other Israelis”. And then look up the report.

      You said: “I don’t know what d(global) and CovGe mean. I’m not a “quant”.

      I say: d, refers to standardized difference; covGE refers to gene-environment correlations. My point was that a small additive genetic standardized difference can amplify to become a large phenotypic difference if you allow for gene-environment correlations, such that groups of individual with higher levers of additive genetic IQ create environments that increase their phenotypic IQ. In this situation, the resultant phenotypic differences are additive genetic + covGE. To the extent they are CovGE, they are both “genetic” and “environmental.”

      You said: “Does what your wrote mean that it’s possible to arrive at a race realist conclusion solely by manipulating statistical formulas? You don’t have to actually identify genes responsible for giving whites and asians superior intelligence?”

      No, that’s not what I said. But you can, in fact, draw race realist conclusions by “manipulating statistical formulas.”

      See here: https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/rowe-and-cleveland-academic-achievement-in-blacks-and-whitesare-the.pdf

      The results are just not dispositive, as they are predicated on a few (reasonable) assumptions.

      You said: “A century of Apartheid clearly has long-lasting psychological effects”

      Do you have any empirical evidence to back up this statement? From what I have seen, such non-genetic “legacies” wash out in 2 generations”

      “Slavery and the Intergenerational Transmission of Human Capital

      How much do sins visited upon one generation harm that generation’s future sons, daughters, grandsons and granddaughters? I study this question by comparing outcomes for former slaves and their children and grandchildren to outcomes for free blacks (pre-1865), and their children and grandchildren. The outcome measures include literacy, whether a child attends school, whether a child lives in a female headed household, and two measures of adult occupation. Using a variety of different comparisons, (e.g. within versus across regions) I find that it took roughly two generations for the descendants of slaves to “catch up” to the descendants of free black men and women. This finding is consistent with modern estimates and interpretations of father-son correlations in income and socioeconomic status. The data used are from the 1880 and 1920 1 percent (IPUMS) samples, a 100 percent sample of the 1880 Census and a smaller data set in which I link families in the 1920 IPUMS back to the father’s family in a 100% sample of the 1880 Census. These latter data sets are derived from an electronic version of the 1880 Census recently compiled and released by the Mormon Church with assistance from the Minnesota Population Center”

      Anyways, a century of apartheid doesn’t explain why Blacks in South Africa don’t perform worse than Blacks in the neighboring countries (Botswana, aside) :

      http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/08/21/african-national-iqs-redux/

      But, I guess your argument would be that Black South Africans also benefit from the modernization produced by White South Africans — producing little net effect.

      You said: “Evidence for genetic selection is scant. The crime rate among African Caribbean youth in London isn’t consistent with selection. But I don’t claim to know anything, just axin questions to expand the mind.”

      Agreed. I think a more in depth analysis of the UK data is needed. If a hereditarian hypothesis can be falsified at present, that’s where one should be able to do it.

      You said: “Wealth has a pretty big association with IQ in the U.S. If the accumulation of wealth requires income, and incomes is associated with IQ, then wealth must be associated with IQ.”

      Correlations are not transitive:
      http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2685695?uid=3739776&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101222051273

      Cited paper: “Do you have to be smart to be rich? The impact of IQ on wealth, income and financial distress”

      How important is intelligence to financial success? Using the NLSY79, which tracks a large group of young U.S. baby boomers, this research shows that each point increase in IQ test scores raises income by between $234 and $616 per year after holding a variety of factors constant. Regression results suggest no statistically distinguishable relationship between IQ scores and wealth. Financial distress, such as problems paying bills, going bankrupt or reaching credit card limits, is related to IQ scores not linearly but instead in a quadratic relationship. This means higher IQ scores sometimes increase the probability of being in financial difficulty.”

      I guess you’re smarter than average, though. Here’s Mankiw
      ………
      “How to Become Rich
      What does it take to become wealthy? Before you answer, let’s review a few facts. The first one is no surprise:

      “It seems that the smarter you are, the more you tend to earn. For each IQ point you have above someone else’s IQ, you’ll earn between $200 and $600 more.”

      But this one is more surprising: People with high IQ do not end up with more wealth.

      “We who are smarter than the average bear (I’m including myself and you) would reasonably assume, then, that smarter people would end up wealthier. But that was not suggested by the study. Instead, people with higher IQs and incomes tended to spend more, maxing out credit cards and paying bills late.”

      …….

      Whatever the case, as noted above, causation requires correlation. So the wealth gap isn’t likely the cause.

      You said: “In a theoretical world, assuming all else equal, the idea that intelligence determines whether population A is better of than population B is perfectly reasonable. As a practical matter it simply doesn’t hold up.”

      I say: This doesn’t make sense to me. It’s an empirical fact that Blacks in the US are less intelligent than Whites. (Section B, here: http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/06/10/the-facts-that-need-to-be-explained/ “The Absence of psychometric bias”). The question is whether or not this gap is due to 100% environmental factors..

      “You can’t pick and choose which variables to ignore unless you’ve got solid evidence (from peer reviewed science journals) that susceptibility to stress, unhealthy diet, etc. has no impact on how blacks interact with their kids.”

      Well, you can ignore some variables, such as net wealth, because they don’t correlate with IQ within populations. And you can ignore others because there is no mean difference or because Blacks have a mean advantage (e.g., as in the case of motivation).
      This leaves you with a set of possible causal factors.
      .
      To deal with those you can group specific explanations into broad explanatory classes and then look at the plausibility of those classes as environmental explanations. I did this in the linked post above. I looked at causally biological factors, causally cultural factors, variable factors, population specific factors, and so on…

      For example:

      “F. Failure of Causal Biological explanations

      To explain the apparent biologicality of the difference, environmental-biological influences could be appealed to. Generally, we can classify potential causes of a mean difference according to the neuropsychological pathways by which they are proposed to work. The most general classes are cultural and biological causes, where the former refers to influences which act through sensory-informational pathways and the latter refers to influences which act through non-sensory physiological pathways. The say that the Black-White difference has an environmental-biological origin is to say that the cause lies in environmental influences which affect intelligence though the latter pathways. A near exhaustive list of such possible influences is given by Wiessen (2009); they include: Prenatal exposure to pollutants; Prenatal experiences leading to low birth weight; Fetal alcohol syndrome; Maternal Iron deficiency; Hunger; Organic disorders; Iron deficiency; Lead poisoning; Severe dehydration; Exposure to drugs; Postnatal exposure to pollutants; Postnatal exposure to heat; Poor health; Hypertension; Mercury exposure; Inequality in health and dental care; Inequality in immunizations, parasite infections, and rates of breast feeding. The commonality, again, is that the effects of these influences on mental ability are not mediated through sensation and perception.

      These influences can be decomposed into Prenatal and Postnatal ones. One theoretical consideration…”

  4. Marlo says:

    ” This argument is incoherent for two reasons: (1) the magnitude of the differences within races greatly exceeds that between. If there couldn’t be modest geneotypic differences (e,g., 1 SD) between races, then how could there be massive differences between sub populations within races (e.g., 6 SD at the extremes)? Obviously, nature allows for a great deal of variance in geneotypic IQ within the human species.”

    It’s true that there is more genetic variation within human races than between them. It may also be true that there are massive differences in IQ scores between sub populations within races. But your claim that these are “geneotypic differences” isn’t backed by any peer-reviewed research.
    See
    http://www.science20.com/adaptive_complexity/what_our_genes_tell_us_about_race

    for a better description of the environmental position. You can email him if you have further questions.

    ” (2) in some instances, the existence of the general intelligence differences has been established, along with their behavior correlates”

    There is some evidence for the existence of general intelligence differences among individuals of the same population, and that these differences probably correlate to behavior. Between races, not so much.

    “Within any given mixed race population of a certain country or region, people with more African ancestry tend to have lower levels of SES — and lower IQs:

    http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/08/14/fascinating-discussion-at-west-hunter/

    This is a fact that needs to be accounted for. Discrimination is a possibility. And I’ve been looking into that”

    Okay 🙂

    “Score gains themselves don’t mean much.”

    Score gains don’t mean much on a single test. But they provide evidence that, over time, entire populations can be acculturated to a type of education that results in higher scores on a wide variety of tests. Thus, we should expect growth in commerce and education in Africa and the Caribbean to correspond to gains in general intelligence.

    “Generally, second generation Ethiopian Israelis under-perform non-Ethiopian Israelis by around 1 SD.”

    This is not in dispute. Read previous comment.

    “d refers to standardized difference; covGE refers to gene-environment correlations. My point was that a small additive genetic standardized difference can amplify to become a large phenotypic difference if you allow for gene-environment correlations, such that groups of individual with higher levers of additive genetic IQ create environments that increase their phenotypic IQ. In this situation, the resultant phenotypic differences are additive genetic + covGE. To the extent they are CovGE, they are both “genetic” and “environmental.””

    Cool, I understand now.

    “No, that’s not what I said. But you can, in fact, draw race realist conclusions by “manipulating statistical formulas.”

    See here: https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/rowe-and-cleveland-academic-achievement-in-blacks-and-whitesare-the.pdf

    The results are just not dispositive, as they are predicated on a few (reasonable) assumptions.”

    Reasonable or not, the authors acknowledge the limitations of a paper based on assumptions.

    “Do you have any empirical evidence to back up this statement? From what I have seen, such non-genetic “legacies” wash out in 2 generations”

    I don’t have direct empirical evidence that American apartheid is the reason for African American performance on standardized tests. However, the countries have have clear differences in what some might call indicators of acceptance. The U.K., for example, has a relatively low interracial crime rate and a relatively high interracial marriage rate with respect to blacks and whites. It is OBVIOUS that the relationship between American whites and blacks is different than the relationship between British whites and blacks.

    We know that black Americans adopted by white families experience a drop in IQ during adolescence (see the studies by Elise Moore and Sandra Carr), which corresponds to the development of pessimistic attitudes about race (see CNN study for details). There could be a connection. I suspect that blacks in the UK don’t exhibit the amount of psychological baggage that blacks in America do.

    I don’t know why you posted something about slavery?

    “Anyways, a century of apartheid doesn’t explain why Blacks in South Africa don’t perform worse than Blacks in the neighboring countries (Botswana, aside) :

    http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/08/21/african-national-iqs-redux/

    But, I guess your argument would be that Black South Africans also benefit from the modernization produced by White South Africans — producing little net effect.”

    I don’t know. Most black South Africans live in extreme poverty with little access to educational resources, not unlike blacks in neighboring countries. Though I would be willing to bet that middle class black South Africans perform worse on standardized tests than middle class blacks in neighboring countries.

    Finally, your wealth studies do not refute the fact that there is a correlation between IQ and wealth as they relate to blacks and whites. On average, whites have greater wealth than blacks and higher IQ than blacks. I never claimed that higher IQ automatically leads to greater wealth.

    “I say: This doesn’t make sense to me. It’s an empirical fact that Blacks in the US are less intelligent than Whites. (Section B, here: http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/06/10/the-facts-that-need-to-be-explained/ “The Absence of psychometric bias”). The question is whether or not this gap is due to 100% environmental factors..”

    Indeed, that is the question. But Hbders frequently assert that whites are more wealthy because they have higher IQ’s. It’s the typical response one receives whenever wealth disparities are mentioned as a possible factor in shaping the gap.

    “Well, you can ignore some variables, such as net wealth, because they don’t correlate with IQ within populations.”

    But that doesn’t mean net wealth doesn’t correlate with IQ between populations.

    “And you can ignore others because there is no mean difference or because Blacks have a mean advantage (e.g., as in the case of motivation).”

    Personally, I don’t buy the studies about black confidence or motivation. The study participants could easily give dishonest answers about their confidence in their ability or the amount of time they spend on academics and so son.

    “This leaves you with a set of possible causal factors.
    .
    To deal with those you can group specific explanations into broad explanatory classes and then look at the plausibility of those classes as environmental explanations. I did this in the linked post above. I looked at causally biological factors, causally cultural factors, variable factors, population specific factors, and so on…”

    Okay..

    • Chuck says:

      Marlo,

      “But your claim that these are “geneotypic differences” isn’t backed by any peer-reviewed research”

      I would disagree with this statement. I would say, “Peer reviewed research doesn’t prove that there are such differences but it does support the claim. After all, this is why I’m able to cite evidence in support of the racial hereditarian hypothesis.

      “for a better description of the environmental position. You can email him if you have further questions.”

      The argument cited is gravely flawed

      “By examining enough genes, we can reliably use just DNA to correctly assign people to ancestral geographical populations. Researchers can do it blindly – they can look at DNA sequence for 1,000 people whose identities are hidden, and use DNA information to assign those people to geographical populations. Once the assignments are made, the researchers take a peek at the true identities of their sample group, and it turns out that their assignments are extremely accurate.

      But here is where it gets paradoxical: while there are enough genetic differences among human populations to make accurate classifications, those genetic differences make up only 5-15% of the total amount of genetic variation. Most of the genetic variation among humans has nothing to do with differences in populations. The genetic differences between ‘races’ are minor compared to the differences between people in general.”

      The amount of genetic diversity between individuals between races is substantially higher that Mike states — he fails to factor out intra-individual variance. When adjusted, this between race geneotypic variance is no less than the phenotypic variance under discussion.

      Refer here:

      http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/lewontin%E2%80%99s-other-fallacy-32-5-not-15/

      http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/more-on-lewontins-fallacy/

      https://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/where-are-all-the-anti-lewontins/

      A good example of how the magnitude of the genotypic variance between populations is commensurate the phenotypic variances is the height differences between various European populations. See here and here:

      http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v44/n9/abs/ng.2368.html

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height

      At the extremes, Europeans differ by more than 1 SD in height; and this difference is substantially conditioned by genes. .

      “Researchers have not identified a single genetic variant with an impact on intelligence that falls along population lines”

      This is false, too. For example, DTNBP1 (rs1018381 and rs2619522) have consistently been found to influence general cognitive ability (See: Zhang et al. (2010). Meta-analysis of genetic variation in DTNBP1 and general cognitive ability). And the frequencies of these alleles vary by regional ancestry.

      See also, as another example: https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/beaver-and-wright-2011-school-level-genetic-variation-predicts-school-level-verbal-iq-scores-results.pdf

      “But there is simply no genetic evidence (and I mean real genetics, not psychology) for genetic differences in intelligence between human population”

      This is silly. You can have “genetic” evidence without DNA evidence — and I pointed to this evidence. Generally, the concept of genes preceded that of DNA — e.g., Mendelian– so the two concepts are not identical. As such, the existence of genetic evidence is not contingent on the existence of DNA evidence. One wonders if Mike would argue that Mendal provided no evidence for the inheritance of traits because he failed to provided DNA based evidence?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_mendel

      “Physical differences which are determined not by one, but many different genetic variants, are unlikely to split neatly by population. Intelligence is probably one of the most complex traits humans possess”

      So, as example, the highly polymorphic height difference between northern and southern Europeans.

      Or the various neurological differences between populations. See:

      Mike makes a number of other elementary mistakes elsewhere. For example, he argues that one needs to genetically define populations in order to discuss genetic differences between them — a clear non sequitur. So, he really can’t be taken too seriously. What’s interesting to me is that he isn’t embarrassed about coming across as an ignominious when it comes to this topic. .

      “There is some evidence for the existence of general intelligence differences among individuals of the same population, and that these differences probably correlate to behavior. Between races, not so much.”

      Please read Jensen’s “The G-factor.”

      https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4NGOBcoYImfVmRWTWJIRzlsems/edit?pli=1

      You’ll see that you are incorrect on both accounts. There is a large body of evidence concerning the g-factor both within and between populations.

      “Score gains don’t mean much on a single test. But they provide evidence that, over time, entire populations can be acculturated to a type of education that results in higher scores on a wide variety of tests. Thus, we should expect growth in commerce and education in Africa and the Caribbean to correspond to gains in general intelligence.”

      Score gains are not the same as latent trait gains. Yes, whole populations can readily increase their scores (e.g., by test familiarity) — but to what extent they can increase their latent abilities is unclear. So, for example, the Flynn effect represents largely an increase in scores without an increase in latent abilities. And to the extent that there have been increases in latent abilities, the increase has not been largely on g. So, we should expect no gains for Africans or Caribbeans on the account of the secular gains alone — unless we know that the differences between Africans and Caribbeans and Whites is not largely on g or is largely not a latent ability difference. Whether it is or not is not clear. Very few statistical tests have been done on those populations — as opposed to the numerous ones done with regards to African Americans.

      “It is OBVIOUS that the relationship between American whites and blacks is different than the relationship between British whites and blacks.”

      This isn’t obvious to me. And you’re not providing mechanism by which the legacy effect would work. And I can think of clear examples where African Americans live in situations with little anti- discrimination. And in these situations there is little to no reduction in the gap, adjusting for genetic selection. See:

      http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/do-dodea-schools-in-germany-close-the-gap/

      Quote from the NYTimes:

      ” Nevin Joplin, a sergeant in the Air Force, has a son in the sixth grade at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama. Sergeant Joplin, who is black and a single father, said both he and his son, Quinn, had been given ample opportunities to succeed. Quinn has been placed in a gifted program, and Sergeant Joplin said he had been treated fairly in the military promotion system. “My records go to the board, my name is blacked out, anything that would identify me is blacked out; they only see what I’ve done and decide on the merits,” he said.

      Capt. Derrick Bennett Jr. of the Army is also black and has a 7-year-old son attending school at Fort Benning, Ga. He says race rarely, if ever, comes into play on the post. But when he visits family in Birmingham, it is not the same. There is still a tendency in Alabama to look at a black man differently, he said.”

      See also the geographic distribution of the difference, in the US:

      http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/09/28/mirror-mirror-on-the-wall-which-state-has-the-smallest-gap-of-them-all/

      “The U.K., for example, has a relatively low interracial crime rate and a relatively high interracial marriage rate with respect to blacks and whites”

      I’m guessing that the latter has something to do with the smaller gaps in the UK..

      See here:

      http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/10/18/black-and-white/

      Read the comments.

      “We know that black Americans adopted by white families experience a drop in IQ during adolescence (see the studies by Elise Moore and Sandra Carr), which corresponds to the development of pessimistic attitudes about race (see CNN study for details). There could be a connection. I suspect that blacks in the UK don’t exhibit the amount of psychological baggage that blacks in America do.”

      I see no evidence of “psychological baggage.” Blacks report higher aspirations than Whites and their non IQ psychological profile is not much different from that of Whites. See here: http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/ethnoracial-differences-in-personality/

      If Blacks were intellectually depressed due to “psychological baggage,” I would expect this depression to show up on measures of personality and motivations. But it doesn’t.

      “On average, whites have greater wealth than blacks and higher IQ than blacks. I never claimed that higher IQ automatically leads to greater wealth.”

      If factor X and IQ are not correlated within population, they will no be correlated between populations — unless, of course, there is no variation in factor X within. But this happens to not be the case when it comes to wealth. And minus this correlation — no causation (given within population variation).

      “Personally, I don’t buy the studies about black confidence or motivation. The study participants could easily give dishonest answers about their confidence in their ability or the amount of time they spend on academics and so son.”

      I just posted on that: http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/10/29/not-for-want-of-trying/

      Were you correct, Black motivation scores would predict outcomes to a degree less than they do for Whites. But they don’t. They actually are more predictive.

      So you are flatly refuted on this point.

      I’ll look into the wealth thing more when I get a chance.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s