http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=culture-speeds-up-human-evolution

While this may be a piece of the puzzle, I agree with Soapbox Diva we need a lot more advances in science to be able in come up with generalized conclusion.

Race is a very broadly defined concept, especially when talking about the gigantic grouping of black versus white, or even the groupings of African, European, Asian, and Latino. At some point artificial lines have to be drawn between groups. Race is usually perceived at the phenotype level, not the genetic level. If one were to make the argument that this one very particular and specific genetic family had an IQ difference that deviated from the norm, I could accept that at some level. But for every level of generalization from that point, the more error I will suspect in any conclusion, no matter who does the generalization. Also, IQ is far too broad of a category as well. If one were to make the argument that that a specific genetic family scored higher on speed of processing multiplication questions, that is specific enough that I could believe the results. I don’t expect specifics to correlate exactly to other specifics.

For this argument of race and IQ, I find race on its own to be a vague and fuzzy concept. Genetic research on genes and ethnic groups are amazing, but still very incomplete. Even for me, I am classified officially as white or Caucasian. However, I also have several tribes of Native American heritage as well, if the family stories passed along to me are true. Proving it at a genetic level is still inconclusive at this point. There is not enough of a sample of many smaller Native American tribes at this point to validate results. I have to settle for potentially and probable at this point. Maybe, in the near future I will know whether or not science backs up what my family has believed about our heritage, but at this point, the sample selection is really too small. If I can’t even define my own ethnic makeup at the genetic level accurately, why should I conclude anything about race and intelligence?

I can accept intelligence differences between races, if one is being very specific. However with all of the generalizations, cultural differences toward the value of education, phenotypes that contain a multitude of genetic variations, etc., I am no where near the point of being willing to conclude anything at this point. Yes, I am aware of the numerous studies that seem to conclude there are differences, still circumstantial evidence at best. I think both sides have such a long way to go in terms of science that I don’t think science truly backs any particular generalized conclusion at this point, and I believe that science is at its best when kept to the details.

Also, a one standard deviation difference between two populations is a large differential. The mean of the low group performs at about the 17th percentile of the higher group. This is much closer to the back end than it is to the middle of the curve.

More and more work comes out showing that the intellect and character of individuals are profoundly shaped by their genes: personality traits, intelligence, tendency to schizophrenia, cheerfulness. The notion that these things come out – for individuals – of an absolutely level pool in each group, however defined, doesn’t have any basis obvious to me. There’s research being reported right now suggesting that human evolution has been very fast, in the last 20000 years, in terms of gene changes – and the last 20000 years is the period when the groups of humans which most folks call races have been separate, and exposed to different influences.

It’s worth looking at the controversy in terms of similarity to the defense of the Ptolemaic universe, to Agassiz’ rear guard fight against Darwinism, to Lysenkoism – and also to the folks who have been claiming that AIDS didn’t come from HIV virus, to the cold fusion people. There’s trouble right now between people who say climate change is settled ‘consensus’ science and anyone who doubts that we must lessen greenhouse gas emissions to avoid catastrophe is beyond the pale, and people who think it’s not settled science. Sometimes scientific consensus is right, and folks who think not are barking at the moon. Sometimes, not so much. Watson is clearly right that wanting something to be true is not a good reason for thinking that it is true.

If what you say were true, we would not have black children from $70,000 and greater households scoring lower on the SAT than whites in households of incomes below $20,000.

And the SAT has a larger testing population.

The IQ gap is one of the longest replicatable studies with consistent results on ALL OF SCIENCE. It has been done and challenged over and over again. When a “study” comes up that supposedly refutes the long standing evidence, the new study is politically motivated or it doesn’t really address the group difference.

The ‘put a black in a white family’ studies do not address the group difference at all. Actually go and read the methodology of some of those studies. You will see the methodology is rigged or just plain pure garbage. The outcomes are predetermined.

Again, just because there are group differences cause by evolution does not mean anyone has the right to treat members of a group badly. The resistance to the facts may be that very fear that the difference may be used for that reason.

Treat people well as individuals and remove all group rights from the public arena and all will be well.

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/12/17/071217crbo_books_gladwell?currentPage=1

You can have a high IQ kid who’s lazy, has poor work habits, and doesn’t care.

You can have an average kid who is hard-working, motivated and organized.

Kid #2 will be more successful, given the same environment.

Once someone hits a certain minimum IQ, they can do pretty well in life PROVIDED THAT THEY HAVE A DECENT EDUCATION AND CULTURE to back them up.

Slackers slack and fail. Hard workers do well.

That being said, I also know a couple of people who are Geniuses AND hardworking (at least in their chosen field) and they blow everyone else out of the water.

But in terms of a decent adult life, the difference between 100 and 113, or even the difference between 135 and 146, is not really that important.

(Sort of like the whole “first three years” movement…. in reality, once you reach a certain minimum of stimulation and parental interest, more intensive prep(like baby flashcards) doesn’t really make a difference.)

When I was young, IQ mattered intensely to me because it was something I could “win” at. But the older I get, and the more people I meet, the more I realize that it’s not the sole source of people’s success…..

“Education:
A.B., 1962, Tufts University, Psychology major.
Ph.D., 1966, Columbia University, Department of Social Psychology.
“

A sociologist! Any math in his background? Any biology? Any science? Unless I see some hard science I’m going to be sceptical of what he says.

I really do not understand how you can say: “bringing a group up 13 points on average for a curve that is on the backend to begin with still puts the curve on the back end of the bell curve.”
What you said is not true if the increase is greater than or equal to the differential.

For this group, there is NO DIFFERENCE in IQ… that is the whole point… that 13 point increase erases the whole black-white IQ differential. Black children adopted and raised by white families have the SAME IQ ON AVERAGE than white children raised by white families.

This is consistent with the finding in the article that half-German/half black-American children raised by German parents have the same IQ as half-German/half white-American children raised by German parents after WWII.

Unless I am misunderstanding your point in that your saying the increase for this very small subgroup of black children adopted by white families does not bring up the average of all blacks… if that’s your point, well, that is quite obvious and silly.

The difference is real.

As for genes, they are subject to natural selection. Differences in groups arise from the environment’s effect on gene selection. I can’t take a tree and make it a doctor. Genes are THE controlling factor to environmental influence.

Genetics is the Necessary Condition for anything to happen.

As to why anyone would treat individuals bases on group traits is a mystery to me. Judge people by their actual expressed traits and what they do, not the group.

The danger is how social policy is set. If we say that all professions must have a proportionate amount by race, then we are producing folly. Can you imagine a legal requirement that basketball teams reflect the population at large? Silly, no?