there’s little reason to think racism is the primary cause for the disparity given that it holds nearly everywhere
For starters, this is a very weak rebuttal. Racism also holds nearly everwhere.
But in general, what I mean by racism is both present racism and, perhaps more importantly, the legacy of past instutional racism. IQ is affected by nutrition, socieconomic status, prenatal environment, etc, all of which are disadvantaged in minority groups as a result of past and present racism.
As just one example, minority groups in the US are far more likely to be exposed to toxic waste and pollutants, and it’s been extensively proven that poor health has a detrimental effect on IQ scores.
To be fair, it’s very hard in sociological studies to attribute causation. But it’s hard to see what else would be causing the large environmentally caused differences in IQ. If I wanted to be as precise as possible, I would state “At least some differences in IQ between black and white people are due to past and present institutional racism, and I would personally guess that practically all of it is”.
To be fair, it’s very hard in sociological studies to attribute causation. But it’s hard to see what else would be causing the large environmentally caused differences in IQ.
But that seems to be begging the question? The empirical question is whether or not all/most differences are caused by environmental factors.
Environmental factors have been demonstrated to have huge effects on IQ. A poor person adopted into a rich family will have their IQ boosted by 15 points. The flynn effect shows a ~15 point gap between the average person now and the average person a mere 60 years ago. In other words, there is no gap between the average black person now and the average white person from the 1920′s or whatever.
There is zero evidence that the remaining 10 point IQ gap is not environmental in nature. Given how small the gap is, and the continued disparities in health and socioeconomic status between the races, I personally find it unlikely that genetics plays any significant part, although the claim is very difficult to conclusively disprove, because, again, sociology is hard.
There are, however, opinions on this matter which go in a very different direction than the pieces you have cited. For example, the various studies referenced in this thread of threads.
For instance, the author mentions researchers saying there is no evidence for the narrowing of the substantial 15-point IQ gap for people born after the 1960s, and that there was no gap-narrowing for other education-related tests (SAT, ACT, GRE) for the last three decades. (He also mantions similar finding about consistently higher IQ scores for northeast Asians compared to whites.) Or that in a survey more than 60% of intelligence researchers estimated that genetic differences account for half or more of the gap. He also cites evidence on twin and adoption studies supporting the large heritability of IQ. Adoption studies also support black-white-East Asian score-gaps. Additionally, admixture studies found that black-white mixed-race populations have, on average, IQs between the averages of white and black populations. There is also various other data supporting the heritability of the gap. Moreover, he references various studies and experts who point out that the Flynn effect is not evidence against IQ gaps being largely heritable, even if the Flynn effect itself is mainly caused by non-heritable factors. The reason is that the Flynn effect was not accompanied by a narrowing of those gaps.
To go back to the original topic: From the above and your referenced posts it is apparent that there are substantial disagreements between intelligence researchers in these matters. Non-experts should not be chastised for regarding this as an open empirical question. Nor is it acceptable that only defending one side of the debate is allowed, at pain of risking severe social repercussions.
I am merely stating some facts, and my own opinion on the matter, which remains unchanged.
That twitter thread you linked (from a self described “hereditarian”), is very obviously a biased gish-gallop of cherrypicked data. I’m not going to waste my time debunking it all, but to pick one example, he picks exactly one survey which supports his position, while other surveys exist that put the majority against his position. This is why I don’t derive my scientific positions from random twitter threads.
As an addendum, I’m frankly sick of people pretending that there is no reason for people to biased in favour of believing in genetic IQ gaps. Any defender of the status quo will be biased towards this position, because it allows them to argue that the status quo can’t be changed.
For starters, this is a very weak rebuttal. Racism also holds nearly everwhere.
But in general, what I mean by racism is both present racism and, perhaps more importantly, the legacy of past instutional racism. IQ is affected by nutrition, socieconomic status, prenatal environment, etc, all of which are disadvantaged in minority groups as a result of past and present racism.
As just one example, minority groups in the US are far more likely to be exposed to toxic waste and pollutants, and it’s been extensively proven that poor health has a detrimental effect on IQ scores.
To be fair, it’s very hard in sociological studies to attribute causation. But it’s hard to see what else would be causing the large environmentally caused differences in IQ. If I wanted to be as precise as possible, I would state “At least some differences in IQ between black and white people are due to past and present institutional racism, and I would personally guess that practically all of it is”.
But that seems to be begging the question? The empirical question is whether or not all/most differences are caused by environmental factors.
The IQ gap dropped 5 points in 30 years. That drop was undeniably caused by environmental factors.
Environmental factors have been demonstrated to have huge effects on IQ. A poor person adopted into a rich family will have their IQ boosted by 15 points. The flynn effect shows a ~15 point gap between the average person now and the average person a mere 60 years ago. In other words, there is no gap between the average black person now and the average white person from the 1920′s or whatever.
There is zero evidence that the remaining 10 point IQ gap is not environmental in nature. Given how small the gap is, and the continued disparities in health and socioeconomic status between the races, I personally find it unlikely that genetics plays any significant part, although the claim is very difficult to conclusively disprove, because, again, sociology is hard.
There are, however, opinions on this matter which go in a very different direction than the pieces you have cited. For example, the various studies referenced in this thread of threads.
For instance, the author mentions researchers saying there is no evidence for the narrowing of the substantial 15-point IQ gap for people born after the 1960s, and that there was no gap-narrowing for other education-related tests (SAT, ACT, GRE) for the last three decades. (He also mantions similar finding about consistently higher IQ scores for northeast Asians compared to whites.) Or that in a survey more than 60% of intelligence researchers estimated that genetic differences account for half or more of the gap. He also cites evidence on twin and adoption studies supporting the large heritability of IQ. Adoption studies also support black-white-East Asian score-gaps. Additionally, admixture studies found that black-white mixed-race populations have, on average, IQs between the averages of white and black populations. There is also various other data supporting the heritability of the gap. Moreover, he references various studies and experts who point out that the Flynn effect is not evidence against IQ gaps being largely heritable, even if the Flynn effect itself is mainly caused by non-heritable factors. The reason is that the Flynn effect was not accompanied by a narrowing of those gaps.
To go back to the original topic: From the above and your referenced posts it is apparent that there are substantial disagreements between intelligence researchers in these matters. Non-experts should not be chastised for regarding this as an open empirical question. Nor is it acceptable that only defending one side of the debate is allowed, at pain of risking severe social repercussions.
I am merely stating some facts, and my own opinion on the matter, which remains unchanged.
That twitter thread you linked (from a self described “hereditarian”), is very obviously a biased gish-gallop of cherrypicked data. I’m not going to waste my time debunking it all, but to pick one example, he picks exactly one survey which supports his position, while other surveys exist that put the majority against his position. This is why I don’t derive my scientific positions from random twitter threads.
As an addendum, I’m frankly sick of people pretending that there is no reason for people to biased in favour of believing in genetic IQ gaps. Any defender of the status quo will be biased towards this position, because it allows them to argue that the status quo can’t be changed.