Science suggests that Zach is dead on.
No, it really doesn't. But then again by linking TBC, you just made it blatantly clear you don't know much about science. Care to link me to more recent, extensive studies utilizing scientific advances not around when TBC was published that describes this "intelligence" gene?
Forty seven years of my own personal observations
that's good enough for me
You want find a recent study on the subject due to "academia's" reluctance to touch the subject,mostly out fear of their finding being perceived as racist or xenphobic.Your own reluctance to accept what's staring you in the eye makes you the succka ,SUCCKA !!!
But then again by linking TBC, you just made it blatantly clear you don't know much about science. Care to link me to more recent, extensive studies utilizing scientific advances not around when TBC was published that describes this "intelligence" gene?
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
by the American Psychological Association 2005, Vol. 11, No. 2, 235–294
THIRTY YEARS OF RESEARCH ON RACE DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY
J. Philippe Rushton The University of Western Ontario
Arthur R. Jensen University of California, Berkeley
The culture-only (0% genetic–100% environmental) and the hereditarian (50% genetic–50% environmental) models of the causes of mean Black–White differences in cognitive ability are compared and contrasted across 10 categories of evidence: the worldwide distribution of test scores, g factor of mental ability, heritability, brain size and cognitive ability, transracial adoption, racial admixture, regression, related life-history traits, human origins research, and hypothesized environmental vari- ables. The new evidence reviewed here points to some genetic component in Black–White differences in mean IQ. The implication for public policy is that the discrimination model (i.e., Black–White differences in socially valued outcomes will be equal barring discrimination) must be tempered by a distributional model (i.e., Black–White outcomes reflect underlying group characteristics).
Following publication of The Bell Curve, the American Psycho- logical Association (APA) established an 11-person Task Force (Neisser et al., 1996) to evaluate the book’s conclusions. Based on their review of twin and other kinship studies, the Task Force for the most part agreed with Jensen’s (1969) Harvard Educational Review article and The Bell Curve, that within the White population the heritability of IQ is “around .75” (p. 85).
Jensen (1973, pp. 107–119) tested the regression predictions with data from siblings (900 White sibling pairs and 500 Black sibling pairs). These provide an even better test than parent–offspring comparisons because siblings share very similar environments. Black and White children matched for IQ had siblings who had regressed approximately halfway to their respective population means rather than to the mean of the combined population. For example, when Black children and White children were matched with IQs of 120, the siblings of Black children averaged close to 100, whereas the siblings of White children averaged close to 110. A reverse effect was found with children matched at the lower end of the IQ scale. When Black children and White children are matched for IQs of 70, the siblings of the Black children averaged about 78, whereas the siblings of the White children averaged about 85. The regression line showed no significant departure from linearity throughout the range of IQ from 50 to 150, as predicted by genetic theory but not by culture-only theory.
We believe the burden of proof must shift to those who argue for a 100% culture-only position. For example, they need to address why, if important minority-specific developmental processes such as stereotype threat (Steele, 1997) and racial stigma (Loury, 2002) exert such a powerful influence on school achievement, the correlation matrices representing developmental processes can be so similar across ethnic and racial groups (Section 5). They need to explain why, if gene–environment interactions are as widespread and difficult to disen- tangle as often claimed (e.g., Block, 1995), identical twins reared apart grow to be so similar (Bouchard, 1996; Bouchard & Loehlin, 2001). Some culture-only hypotheses are too ambiguous to be tested.
A conundrum for theorists of all persuasions, however, is that there is too little evidence of any environmental effects. The hereditarian model of Black–White IQ differences proposed in Section 2 (50% genetic and 50% environmental), far from precluding environmental factors, requires they be found. Although evidence in Sections 3 to 11 provided strong support for the genetic component of the model, evidence from Section 12 was unable to identify the environmental component. On the basis of the present evidence, perhaps the genetic component must be given greater weight and the environmental component correspondingly re- duced. In fact, Jensen’s (1998b, p. 443) latest statement of the hereditarian model, termed the default hypothesis, is that genetic and cultural factors carry the exact same weight in causing the mean Black–White difference in IQ as they do in causing individual differences in IQ, about 80% genetic–20% environmental by adulthood.
The research supporting the role of heredity in human behavior implies that the distributional model is more correct than the discrimination model. It explains some of the mean Black–White group difference in IQ-related outcomes in terms of the differential distribution of the genes for general mental ability. For exam- ple, IQ is a significant predictor of such socially disadvantageous outcomes as dropping out of high school, being unemployed, being divorced within 5 years of marriage, having an illegitimate child, living in poverty, being on welfare, and incarceration. In today’s technological society, everyday life itself is a type of IQ test (see R. A. Gordon, 1997; Gottfredson, 1997; Herrnstein & Murray, 1994). On all of the above measures, the group means favor Whites over Blacks. Of course, this does not deny that many other attributes are also important for success in life.
Because the means for Blacks and Hispanics are lower on tests of academic and vocational achievement, such as the SAT, the General Aptitude Test Battery, and the ASVAB, than those for Whites and East Asians, some have claimed the tests are racially biased. Yet the evidence reviewed and the distributional model predict that such differences will occur worldwide (see Section 3). This is supported by the fact that these tests have about equal predictive validity for all groups who speak the same language and have been schooled in the culture of the test. Ethnic disparities in cognitive performance are not just “an American di- lemma” (Myrdal, 1944) but are found around the world.
Denial of any genetic component in human variation, including between groups, is not only poor science, it is likely to be injurious both to unique individuals and to the complex structure of societies.
quote:That's true, at least in part. Scientist's Study Of Brain Genes Sparks a Backlash.
You won't find a recent study on the subject due to "academia's" reluctance to touch the subject
In support of their genetic arguments, Rushton and Jensen (2005) cite re- search documenting results of twin and sibling studies, anatomical differences (e.g., brain size, brain metabolism), processing speed differences, as well as other factors that differentiate between racial groups. However, their either-or method of scoring the evidence between the genetic versus culture-only data implies a misleading dichotomy (Deary, 2000). There are clear interactions among genetic factors, anatomical structures, culture, and environment. The importance of par- ticular interactions may vary depending on an individual’s circumstances and not their racial group membership.
The genetic explanation for the racial/ethnic hierarchy of intelligence is also based largely on estimates of heritability. Heritability estimates are based on correlations of traits between biologically related individuals (Lewontin, Rose, & Kamin, 1984). Most often, correlations are derived from twin and adoption studies. These are limited given that relatives resemble one another because they share genetic traits and live in similar environments. In addition, research on heritability estimates for minority populations is limited, given small sample sizes and geographic regionalism (Suzuki & Valencia, 1997). Thus, the complexities of the culture and genetic interactions make teasing apart the individual contribu- tions of each difficult, if not impossible.
In conclusion, intelligence is, at this time, ill de?ned.
Although many investigators study “IQ” or “g” as an
operational de?nition of intelligence, these operationalizations are at best incomplete, even according to those who
accept the constructs as useful (e.g., Carroll, 1993). Research suggests that properties of intelligence beyond g
may be somewhat different from those of g (e.g., Gardner,
1983; Sternberg et al., 2000, 2001). Race is a social construction, not a biological construct, and studies currently
indicating alleged genetic bases of racial differences in
intelligence fail to make their point even for these socialde?ned groups.
Cognitive psychologist Howard Gardner questions the scientific underpinnings of The Bell Curve by noting that it ingores tha past 100 years of biological, psychological, and anthropological research that challenges the notion of a single, uniform, and innate human intelligence, or g. He argues instead for the concept of "multiple intelligences"--practical, social, musical, spatial, and so on--and for the enormously important but underrated role of training in the attainment of any kind of intelligence. The scientific assault is joined from yet another quarter by the eminent psychometrician Richard Nisbett. Based on his painstaking examination of all the existing serious scientific studies of intelligence, Nisbett finds that most point to zero genetic contribution to the black-white differential in IQ. He concludes that Murray and Hernstein's slipshod treatment of this and other vital statistical questions would prohibit their publication in any respectable peer-reviewed journal.
That's true, at least in part. Scientist's Study Of Brain Genes Sparks a Backlash.
What the data didn't say was how the mutations were advantageous.
My point is simple: the current scientific literature on the subject is far, far from conclusive and, genetically speaking, no intelligence factor has yet to be discovered that differs between ethnic groups.
The factor(s) being measured in a variety of intelligence tests have all clearly shown these racial/group relationships for over a century.
I can do this too.
The importance of particular interactions may vary depending on an individual’s circumstances and not their racial group membership.
quote:Speaks sadly to quality and motivations of the author(s). The whole point of isolated twin studies is environmental variance. Anyone with elemental exposure to psychology understands that. Presuming the author(s) possess any psychological background, they chose to misconstrue scientific information. No excuse.
correlations are derived from twin and adoption studies. These are limited given that relatives resemble one another because they share genetic traits and live in similar environments.
quote:You have GOT to be kidding. Race is not a biological construct? Seriously?
Race is a social construction, not a biological construct
A factoid. Did you know that race related IQ info in TBC makes up less than 10% of the book? I've got my copy right here in my office if you want any details.
You have GOT to be kidding. Race is not a biological construct? Seriously?
Honestly, I can't believe you'd quote that.
Race is not a biological construct?
Before I move on to anything else, explain to me why you think this is ludicrous?
genetic diversity =/= distinct biological species
if you had even a simple understanding of human history in the US and the world, you would understand that very few people of any race were born to privilege. Until rather recently in human history there were no sigificant groups of people born to privilege
Distinct species cannot reproduce fertile offspring. Are you saying that two humans of vastly different intellect would constitute different species??