irreligionist wrote:At issue is not that different ethnic groups obtain different average scores on some psychological tests eg intelligence - this has been clearly established - but why these differences exist. Some argue the differences are environmental (i.e. ignorance), some argue differences are biological (i.e. stupidity). The strongest argument I've seen to explain these differences is that of environment.
Yes, I would agree. This still would not invalididate my point. And incidently, the differences in mathematical and analytical testing results (as opposed language-driven testing) tend to show more stability and less change. The are also far less ethnically biased (a triangle in a triange in every culture). I would agree that improvement in test results supports the claim that environment is largely responsible for the differences. But there is as yet insufficient data to prove that it accounts for 100% of the difference.
Just as lower average scores being recorded by minorities on some psychological tests is an established fact, so too is the phenomenon of improving IQ scores. Now if an IQ score truly represents intelligence, and intelligence is determined genetically, then IQ scores should remain relatively constant over time for each ethnic group. In fact, performance on intelligence tests has improved dramatically over the last 60 years and in recent years African Americans have gained more in IQ than whites (16 points compared to 10 points). [Source: Flynn, J.R. (1999)
[My bold]The bolded statement in the sense you are trying to to qualify my argument, is nonsense. Let me first begin by stating that intelligence is a very difficult thing to define much less test. So I would never claim that IQ scores = Intelligence or completely measure intelligence unless we define intelligence by IQ, which I never would. That aside, there are different types of intelligences and tests and probably the most objective type to test is mathematical/spatial. That is the only type I'm concentrating on in my arguments. The fact that scores change, whether they go up or down based on ethnicity, country, sex, or era (assuming the tests are normalized over all time) indicates that intelligence itself can and does change, not that the tests don't at least correlate with forms of intelligence. I'm also happy to agree that environment is the only explanation consistent with this change though it may be possible to make an epigenetic one that would still depend on environment. Genes don't govern precisely what your IQ or intelligence will be. They only govern their potential. Our potential is something we asymptotically can converge upon in the best environment suited to our individual development.
If I inverted your argument, you are essentially making the claim that if we could hypothetically equalize environmental factors over everybody from birth (or earlier) that over any statistically significantly tested group you could identify (ethnicity, sex, race, country, etc.), they would each have exactly the same bell-curve. Not only does your evidence not prove this but it would not be consistent with the plethora of other genetic differences in physicality that can consistently be observed between certain groups. It is not logical to expect that there would be no genetically-driven brain or intelligence differences between groups that would evolve due to prolonged differences in environmental selection pressures as was likely between what we call races (regardless of the exact nature and validity of that definition) due to prolonged environmental separation and minimal interbreeding until the recent era. American blacks were also subject to deleterious selection pressure as slaves for at least various forms of intelligence for over 400 years. I hope that was an insufficient time span to markedly depress their capacity for intelligence but do we know that. Should we expect it? Most of us have witnessed the amazing changes you can get in dog breeds in just a few generations in both conformation an intelligence. As a Border Collie and Australian Shepherd owner/lover I ardently resisted their inclusion in the American Kennel Club (AKC) that values conformation over intelligence (watch any dog show). Although it is admittedly rather anecdotal, there is a well-established consensus that when a breed is included its intelligence invariably goes down in a manner noticeable to those who train such animals for work (herding)or agility training. Fortunately, there remain many dedicated breeders of these dogs that concentrate on intelligence, and register them with clubs set up for that purpose.
As a result, any claims of inherent (i.e. genetic) superiority are disingenuous.
. I think I've just proven that you have not proven your conclusion. And as a scientist myself, I object to your word "disingenuous" which connotes that scientists who make such claims or supply evidence to support them really know otherwise (better in your view) and are essentially lying. We already know that historically, IQ tests have been devised and applied with evil bias. But the bias today is generally the opposite. Such attitudes as yours and political correctness are the reasons many scientists avoid this area of research. It also invites scientists biased to find your conclusions. Ironically, some of the best work is done by those wanting to support your objectives and finding otherwise. I was at Cornell when the researchers there published their findings on sexual differences in brain structure and possible correlations to aspects of intelligence. I remember the worldwide shitstorm. But all those researchers were staunch liberals and feminists whose scientific integrity overrode whatever bias they had. Good for them.
In this discussion I will be referring only to ethnic group, because I am not convinced 'race' is a meaningful concept.
I really don't care as long as their is some basis to expect there might be genetic difference. There are plenty of genetic studies that can localize your genetic heritage to some general region of the world scientifically fixed inthe past. This often boils down to something correlating more with race but I agree that some ethnicity can also be examined in this manner. It also depends on how you define "ethnicity". I know of no way of reliably genetically differentiating people of French and English ethnicity.
