Human Genetics

[TexRex]

Why?

Why what? Or are you just playing games?

 

[HenrySwanson]

Yes, quite why given the standard of papers and the lack of critical evaluation you give them I don't know why I bother, but I do. And technically this one is an article rather than a paper.

Hee hee.

From the "article":

The present paper argues that the widespread practice of ignoring or rejecting research on intelligence differences can have unintended negative consequences.

The present paper argues that utilitarian arguments in favor of restricting research on group differences in intelligence have generally given short shrift to the potential and actual serious harms that have resulted from the current practice of stigmatizing and dismissing controversial work, and they have also ignored the potential benefits that might follow from openly confronting evidence about group differences.

This paper suggests that there are also at least two compelling non-utilitarian reasons to allow free inquiry (compelling, that is, to those who are not utilitarians). First, truth is (to some degree) valuable independent of its felicific consequences.

Wikipedia:

In December 2019 Cofnas published a paper defending the study of group differences in intelligence in the journal Philosophical Psychology.

Why what? Or are you just playing games?

Is there an observable difference in the IQ of gingers?

 

[Scaff]

Hee hee.

From the "article":

Wikipedia:

And I disagree, it's not of a standard that would be accepted for a research paper, however, this is a semantic aside, feel free to call it what you like, as it still doesn't support your claims.

 

[TexRex]

Is there an observable difference in the IQ of gingers?

No statistically significant evidence has been provided to support the claim that there is, which was the thrust of the text you quoted.

 

[HenrySwanson]

No statistically significant evidence has been provided to support the claim that there is, which was the thrust of the text you quoted.

I don't follow.

There's evidence of a gap between ethnic groups, with East Asians generally regarded as scoring higher on IQ tests which may be due in part to genetic differences.

If there was evidence of differences between groups according to hair colour then this could similarly be due in part to genetic factors, but I'm not sure there is (a difference).

 

[TexRex]

There's evidence of a gap between ethnic groups, with East Asians generally regarded as scoring higher on IQ tests which may be due in part to genetic differences.

Seems to me the takeaway here is that no link between genes and IQ scores has been established and, as a result, no link between genes that affect test scores and genes that affect other characteristics that may be observed has been established.

 

[Scaff]

I don't follow.

There's evidence of a gap between ethnic groups, with East Asians generally regarded as scoring higher on IQ tests which may be due in part to genetic differences.

Correlation not causality once again. Now it could indicate a causal link, but no (and that a definitive to date no) link has been proven to exist, and the more evidence that geneticists and anthropologists uncover and prove in this field, the less likely that that 'could' becomes. Which is why the pretty much the only people beating this drum are racists and those outside the fields (and I suspect a significant venn overlap exists between these two) presenting deeply flawed data and analysis.

If there was evidence of differences between groups according to hair colour then this could similarly be due in part to genetic factors, but I'm not sure there is (a difference).

Hair colour can be objectively measured, intelligence (as has been point out repeatedly) is a subjective measure. Apples and oranges comparison.

 

[Danoff]

There's evidence of a gap between ethnic groups, with East Asians generally regarded as scoring higher on IQ tests which may be due in part to genetic differences.

I highlighted the "may be" in the quote. It used to be when talking to you that you were saying something to the effect of "proves" in place of "may be", so I'll take that as progress. But I think you're missing just how tenuous that "may be" is. It also "may be" that East Asians are all exposed to the same IQ enhancing spider species. There are simpler explanations than either of those.

The part that you're struggling with the most, everywhere, is that you see correlation and somehow you think causation immediately. And that's something that everyone struggles with, it's fundamentally human to do so. If we didn't automatically link correlation with causation, we wouldn't have survived this long (Richard Dawkins goes on a jag about this subject). But the bottom line is that you cannot bring that bias into statistics. Especially these kinds of statistics.

 

[TenEightyOne]

There's evidence of a gap between ethnic groups, with East Asians generally regarded as scoring higher on IQ tests which may be due in part to genetic differences.

Pfft.

I'd say that the biggest influencing factor on the educational, intellectual progress of every student I've ever known is the support of their family. Ethnic origins of student or family have never been part of that. Approaches to education in families couldn't be more cultural.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I highlighted the "may be" in the quote. It used to be when talking to you that you were saying something to the effect of "proves" in place of "may be", so I'll take that as progress. But I think you're missing just how tenuous that "may be" is. It also "may be" that East Asians are all exposed to the same IQ enhancing spider species. There are simpler explanations than either of those.

The part that you're struggling with the most, everywhere, is that you see correlation and somehow you think causation immediately. And that's something that everyone struggles with, it's fundamentally human to do so. If we didn't automatically link correlation with causation, we wouldn't have survived this long (Richard Dawkins goes on a jag about this subject). But the bottom line is that you cannot bring that bias into statistics. Especially these kinds of statistics.

The thing is we can accept that genes play a role in sprinting (or at least, I hope that's what we concluded), but then baulk at the suggestion that it plays a role in what is subjectively measured in IQ tests (among other metrics of intelligence).

We can also probably agree that there is heritability of IQ, so that leaves us in an interesting position. To believe the counter argument to mine, it would be that either one or both of these statements are true:

1) This heritability is negligible
2) Every ethnic group on the planet expresses the same variability of genes in relation to IQ

I find that highly unlikely.

The problem is to prove causality you're going to have to initially study group differences and go from there - and look at what happened to the paper I cited above. This guy's fellowship at Cambridge was rescinded after over 500 academics objected to his prior research.

So who's going to do it?

 

[Danoff]

The thing is we can accept that genes play a role in sprinting (or at least, I hope that's what we concluded),

Maybe, I'm not sure we established that. Maybe genes, that's not the same as race.

but then baulk at the suggestion that it plays a role in what is subjectively measured in IQ tests (among other metrics of intelligence).

Genes might play some role in IQ testing results. I'm not sure we've established that. Maybe genes, that's not the same as race.

We can also probably agree that there is heritability of IQ, so that leaves us in an interesting position.

Not the same as race.

To believe the counter argument to mine, it would be that either one or both of these statements are true:

1) This heritability is negligible
2) Every ethnic group on the planet expresses the same variability of genes in relation to IQ

No. As I've explained to you before, you'd need to show a statistically significant variation between races (ethnic group is even more difficult to understand than race), and then you'd have to have an underlying theory as to why genes that you've linked with race are linked with IQ test results.

Until you have that, you can't draw the conclusion you seem to want to draw (for some reason).

I find that highly unlikely.

The problem is to prove causality you're going to have to initially study group differences and go from there - and look at what happened to the paper I cited above. This guy's fellowship at Cambridge was rescinded after over 500 academics objected to his prior research.

So who's going to do it?

You don't need any of that for a theory. You'd just need some kind of biological mechanism for how genes associated with a race were also associated with some portion of the brain that was linked to IQ. No need for data, just biological theory. Then if you had that, it should tell you where to look in the data.