I don’t really like discussing race and IQ stuff (and if you don’t like it either, I think it’s completely fine to stay away). Unfortunately, I have to step in and point out that this comment is inaccurate/misleading when it comes to the science and the descriptions of peoples beliefs.
Lead poisoning, the flynn effect, and malaria are all environmental factors, not genetic ones. nobody who has read up on the issue denies that average IQ test scores are different for different races, the argument is about how much of the difference is attributable to environmental factors. (I’m pretty sure that Bostrom did claim an opinion about whether “environmental factors influence cognitive development”, because the answer is an uncontroversial yes.
If the differences were near-entirely genetic in nature, then eliminating unequal access to resources, lead poisoning, different cultures, etc, wouldn’t have any effect on IQ differences, because it wouldn’t affect genes. Holding this position requires thinking that there aren’t any significant differences in environment between the races that could affect IQ significantly. I think this view is fairly extreme and unlikely, and I think it would be fair to call this position “discredited”. The IQ gap between black people and white people in america is only in the range of 9-15 points, and environmental factors can affect IQ test scores on that magnitude: one study found that adopting a poor kid could jump their IQ test scores by 12-18 points.
Bostrom didn’t take this position, he just said it is unknown how much the gap is genetic vs environmental, which is true. Social science is very difficult, the only way to truly know the answer is to end all environmental differences and to see what happens, which is impossible given that this includes things like cultural differences, or to find a measurable thing in biology that corresponds to IQ test scores (which I’ve seen biologists express skepticism about).
The real problem with these discussions is that full on KKK style racist people exist, have a loud voice on the internet, and are extremely keen to use the uncertainty above as a bludgeon against minorities. It’s a classic motte and bailey: you go from “the causes of the racial IQ test score gap are unknown” to “it’s mostly genetic”, to “black people are dumber than white people and you should discriminate against them”. I think one of the key mistakes Bostrom made was not being 100%, explicitly, forcefully anti-racist in his apology, because they absolutely have used it and the subsequent controversy as a recruiting ground for their ideas.
I realize I wasn’t clear enough that I was talking about genetic stuff the whole time in my comment. Sorry about that! I will edit my comment for clarity.
The first study I referenced was specifically referring to whether IQ differences between races have a genetic element. It found that far more experts in the field believe it has both a genetic element and a environmental element than just an environmental element.
I believe that environmental factors influence genetics enough that you don’t need to interpret genetic differences as innate racial differences. I explained my reasons for that the end of my middle paragraph , but spent so much time talking about the environmental factors that I believe contribute to genetic factors that your impression may have been reasonable.
The very racist people you’ve described will certainly try take these studies the wrong way, but they are very rare in the upper class western places EAs typically inhabit. I’ve found that a bigger risk in our communities is relatively left wing people trying to pursue professional retaliation against centrist people for believing things that make them uncomfortable, no matter how common the belief is among experts in the field or how much we oppose the extremists they associate us with.
Bostrom did not say it was unknown how much the gap is genetic vs environmental. He said he didn’t know. This apparently made some people mad, but I think what made people more mad was that they read things into the apology that Bostrom didn’t say, then got mad about it. (That’s why most people criticizing the apology avoid quoting the apology.)
The scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups.[9 citations]
I’ve also glanced at a couple of scientific papers that seem to imply otherwise (this one and this one). These papers basically say that most experts think the role of genetics is greater than zero. I don’t care to investigate with a ten-foot pole why Wikipedia is in tension with these papers, and I don’t blame Bostrom for feeling the same way.
I think this issue is a lot like the lab-leak hypothesis of Covid: it doesn’t really matter whether Covid escaped from a lab, because gain-of-function research is dangerous either way, so our policy will be the same either way (oppose GoF research). In the same way, it doesn’t seem very useful to study racial IQ differences; our policy decision should be the same regardless (reduce poverty in Africa—poverty is bad; prosperity and education both increase IQ). And I have no doubt Bostrom would agree.
That’s a fair point. The meta-analysis study is here. It find difference in d of 1.17 between IQ scores of adopted and non-adopted children. d means standard deviations, corresponding to 15 IQ points, giving a total of 18 IQ point change in the traditional sense. It was linked in the original article, the one i linked is a follow-up which I thought was pretty good.
I don’t really like discussing race and IQ stuff (and if you don’t like it either, I think it’s completely fine to stay away). Unfortunately, I have to step in and point out that this comment is inaccurate/misleading when it comes to the science and the descriptions of peoples beliefs.
Lead poisoning, the flynn effect, and malaria are all environmental factors, not genetic ones. nobody who has read up on the issue denies that average IQ test scores are different for different races, the argument is about how much of the difference is attributable to environmental factors. (I’m pretty sure that Bostrom did claim an opinion about whether “environmental factors influence cognitive development”, because the answer is an uncontroversial yes.
If the differences were near-entirely genetic in nature, then eliminating unequal access to resources, lead poisoning, different cultures, etc, wouldn’t have any effect on IQ differences, because it wouldn’t affect genes. Holding this position requires thinking that there aren’t any significant differences in environment between the races that could affect IQ significantly. I think this view is fairly extreme and unlikely, and I think it would be fair to call this position “discredited”. The IQ gap between black people and white people in america is only in the range of 9-15 points, and environmental factors can affect IQ test scores on that magnitude: one study found that adopting a poor kid could jump their IQ test scores by 12-18 points.
Bostrom didn’t take this position, he just said it is unknown how much the gap is genetic vs environmental, which is true. Social science is very difficult, the only way to truly know the answer is to end all environmental differences and to see what happens, which is impossible given that this includes things like cultural differences, or to find a measurable thing in biology that corresponds to IQ test scores (which I’ve seen biologists express skepticism about).
The real problem with these discussions is that full on KKK style racist people exist, have a loud voice on the internet, and are extremely keen to use the uncertainty above as a bludgeon against minorities. It’s a classic motte and bailey: you go from “the causes of the racial IQ test score gap are unknown” to “it’s mostly genetic”, to “black people are dumber than white people and you should discriminate against them”. I think one of the key mistakes Bostrom made was not being 100%, explicitly, forcefully anti-racist in his apology, because they absolutely have used it and the subsequent controversy as a recruiting ground for their ideas.
I realize I wasn’t clear enough that I was talking about genetic stuff the whole time in my comment. Sorry about that! I will edit my comment for clarity.
The first study I referenced was specifically referring to whether IQ differences between races have a genetic element. It found that far more experts in the field believe it has both a genetic element and a environmental element than just an environmental element.
I believe that environmental factors influence genetics enough that you don’t need to interpret genetic differences as innate racial differences. I explained my reasons for that the end of my middle paragraph , but spent so much time talking about the environmental factors that I believe contribute to genetic factors that your impression may have been reasonable.
The very racist people you’ve described will certainly try take these studies the wrong way, but they are very rare in the upper class western places EAs typically inhabit. I’ve found that a bigger risk in our communities is relatively left wing people trying to pursue professional retaliation against centrist people for believing things that make them uncomfortable, no matter how common the belief is among experts in the field or how much we oppose the extremists they associate us with.
Bostrom did not say it was unknown how much the gap is genetic vs environmental. He said he didn’t know. This apparently made some people mad, but I think what made people more mad was that they read things into the apology that Bostrom didn’t say, then got mad about it. (That’s why most people criticizing the apology avoid quoting the apology.)
There is a Wikipedia page that says
I’ve also glanced at a couple of scientific papers that seem to imply otherwise (this one and this one). These papers basically say that most experts think the role of genetics is greater than zero. I don’t care to investigate with a ten-foot pole why Wikipedia is in tension with these papers, and I don’t blame Bostrom for feeling the same way.
I think this issue is a lot like the lab-leak hypothesis of Covid: it doesn’t really matter whether Covid escaped from a lab, because gain-of-function research is dangerous either way, so our policy will be the same either way (oppose GoF research). In the same way, it doesn’t seem very useful to study racial IQ differences; our policy decision should be the same regardless (reduce poverty in Africa—poverty is bad; prosperity and education both increase IQ). And I have no doubt Bostrom would agree.
I expected this to link to the study, but it doesn’t?
That’s a fair point. The meta-analysis study is here. It find difference in d of 1.17 between IQ scores of adopted and non-adopted children. d means standard deviations, corresponding to 15 IQ points, giving a total of 18 IQ point change in the traditional sense. It was linked in the original article, the one i linked is a follow-up which I thought was pretty good.