The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study was methodologically flawed. “Children with two black parents were significantly older at adoption, had been in the adoptive home a shorter time, and had experienced a greater number of preadoption placements.”
Reframed, the study seemed to find (a) black kids are adopted less readily and (b) the longer a kid spends in the foster system, the lower their IQ at 17. (There is also limited controlling for epigenetic factors because we didn’t understand those well in the 1970s and 80s.)
Based on how new human cognition is, and genetically similar human races are, it would be somewhat groundbreaking to find an emergent complex trait like IQ to map to social constructs like race, particularly ones as broad as American white and black. (There is more genetic diversity in single African tribes than in some small European countries. And American whites and blacks are all complex hybridized social categories.)
I'm sorry, but that sort of thinking just doesn't pass the smell test.
We can easily identify the geographic locations of people's ancestors by looking at them. That means that we evolved quite a few exterior physical traits that are easily grouped and identifiable. Do you really think our brain, which is our most important survival trait, was immune to evolution? That people that moved to specific regions didn't have had selective pressures of some kind on the way we think?
Where this can go awry are the people that learn about this and then think that it's reason to discriminate against individuals or groups - of course it isn't. As you said, genetic diversity within groups is large. And even something like IQ certainly doesn't sum up the worth of someone, or even their brain.
The whole point of what I posted though was just to point out the fact that Wikipedia is, in fact, biased in what's put on there. It wasn't that long ago that it was perfectly OK as an academic to study the racial differences in IQ. Now? Good luck. Wikipedia reflects that.
And: it remains perfectly OK to study racial differences in IQ. It's an actively studied topic. In fact, it's studied by at least three major scientific fields (quantitative psychology, behavioral genetics, and molecular genetics). The idea that you can't is a cringe online racist canard borne out of the fact that the studies aren't coming out the way they want them to.
It seems like the root of your statement is with the existence of "race" as a purely biological classification. Wikipedia correctly notes the consensus position that race is a social construct [0] that's difficult to use accurately when discussing IQ. Grok makes the implicit and incorrect assumption that genetic factors = race, among other issues.
That's not what your previous post was talking about. But if you insist, at least make your point clear. "African Americans" and "Africans" are wildly different genetic populations that get subsumed under the same "Black" racial category in the US. Which one were you talking about?
The latter is more genetically diverse than any other human population by an incredible margin. Making generalized statements about them is impossible (including this one). As for African American populations, ancestry estimates of how closely related they are to African populations vary massively for each individual. Many people are much closer to "white" populations than any African population, due to the history of African Americans in North America. If you really mean race as a geographic proxy, the "black" label is simply confusing what you actually mean.
I asked ChatGPT on whether or not it was the "scientific consensus."
"Anonymous surveys of intelligence experts reveal division: a 2016 survey found that about 49% attributed 50% or more of the Black-White gap to genetics, while over 80% attributed at least 20%; an earlier 1980s survey showed similar splits. These views are more common in private or anonymous contexts, contrasting with public statements from bodies like the APA that find no support for genetic explanations."
Hm, sure seems like Wikipedia should probably have a more balanced, nuanced discussion considering the experts are split at least 50/50.
>As you can see, Wikipedia is very dismissive to the point of effectively lying.
Did I miss where you presented evidence that wikipedia is wrong? You seem to be taking an assumption you carry (race is related to IQ) and assuming everyone believes it's true as well, thus wikipedia is lying.
There have been many, many studies that show that "race" is related to IQ. A true, unbiased article would show that as well as any well-founded criticisms of it.
The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study was methodologically flawed. “Children with two black parents were significantly older at adoption, had been in the adoptive home a shorter time, and had experienced a greater number of preadoption placements.”
Reframed, the study seemed to find (a) black kids are adopted less readily and (b) the longer a kid spends in the foster system, the lower their IQ at 17. (There is also limited controlling for epigenetic factors because we didn’t understand those well in the 1970s and 80s.)
Based on how new human cognition is, and genetically similar human races are, it would be somewhat groundbreaking to find an emergent complex trait like IQ to map to social constructs like race, particularly ones as broad as American white and black. (There is more genetic diversity in single African tribes than in some small European countries. And American whites and blacks are all complex hybridized social categories.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption...
I'm sorry, but that sort of thinking just doesn't pass the smell test.
We can easily identify the geographic locations of people's ancestors by looking at them. That means that we evolved quite a few exterior physical traits that are easily grouped and identifiable. Do you really think our brain, which is our most important survival trait, was immune to evolution? That people that moved to specific regions didn't have had selective pressures of some kind on the way we think?
Where this can go awry are the people that learn about this and then think that it's reason to discriminate against individuals or groups - of course it isn't. As you said, genetic diversity within groups is large. And even something like IQ certainly doesn't sum up the worth of someone, or even their brain.
The whole point of what I posted though was just to point out the fact that Wikipedia is, in fact, biased in what's put on there. It wasn't that long ago that it was perfectly OK as an academic to study the racial differences in IQ. Now? Good luck. Wikipedia reflects that.
What? No you can't.
And: it remains perfectly OK to study racial differences in IQ. It's an actively studied topic. In fact, it's studied by at least three major scientific fields (quantitative psychology, behavioral genetics, and molecular genetics). The idea that you can't is a cringe online racist canard borne out of the fact that the studies aren't coming out the way they want them to.
3 replies →
It seems like the root of your statement is with the existence of "race" as a purely biological classification. Wikipedia correctly notes the consensus position that race is a social construct [0] that's difficult to use accurately when discussing IQ. Grok makes the implicit and incorrect assumption that genetic factors = race, among other issues.
[0] https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Race
I wonder how much longer that link will stay up with the current administration...
Ok, change it to "what we call race as a proxy for general geographic locations that people's ancestors come from."
Which is what we all mean by race, anyways.
That's not what your previous post was talking about. But if you insist, at least make your point clear. "African Americans" and "Africans" are wildly different genetic populations that get subsumed under the same "Black" racial category in the US. Which one were you talking about?
The latter is more genetically diverse than any other human population by an incredible margin. Making generalized statements about them is impossible (including this one). As for African American populations, ancestry estimates of how closely related they are to African populations vary massively for each individual. Many people are much closer to "white" populations than any African population, due to the history of African Americans in North America. If you really mean race as a geographic proxy, the "black" label is simply confusing what you actually mean.
1 reply →
But then what are you arguing? Geographic location determines IQ? (An inherently flawed measurement itself)
3 replies →
Have you considered the possibility that your opinion is just not representative of the scientific consensus?
I asked ChatGPT on whether or not it was the "scientific consensus."
"Anonymous surveys of intelligence experts reveal division: a 2016 survey found that about 49% attributed 50% or more of the Black-White gap to genetics, while over 80% attributed at least 20%; an earlier 1980s survey showed similar splits. These views are more common in private or anonymous contexts, contrasting with public statements from bodies like the APA that find no support for genetic explanations."
Hm, sure seems like Wikipedia should probably have a more balanced, nuanced discussion considering the experts are split at least 50/50.
Wikipedia does not care about scientific consensus. It just summarizes "reliable" secondary sources.
Wrong in two different ways:
- this tends to approximate consensus.
- Wikipedia does care, and has a policy on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Scientific_consensus
1 reply →
>As you can see, Wikipedia is very dismissive to the point of effectively lying.
Did I miss where you presented evidence that wikipedia is wrong? You seem to be taking an assumption you carry (race is related to IQ) and assuming everyone believes it's true as well, thus wikipedia is lying.
There have been many, many studies that show that "race" is related to IQ. A true, unbiased article would show that as well as any well-founded criticisms of it.
Can you cite them then?
1 reply →
[flagged]