Is the IQ Gap Between Races Genetic, Environmental, or Both?

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Still working on that project on Scientific Racism. All in all, I have come to a conclusion:

(Please state your thoughts)

The IQ gap between races is, in a sense, both genetic and environmental; however, the differences we perceive as genetic, according to evolutionary theory, may have arisen due to environmental circumstances. Through scientific examination, it has been concluded that the 15-point IQ gap between blacks and whites is partially environmental. Test bias, nutrition, and SES factors undeniably account for some of this gap. That is to say, in an equal environment amongst races, the IQ gap would be smaller. Most supporters of the primarily genetic hypothesis do not deny this truth.

Moving on, we can remove part of the 15 point gap. Still, a large percentage remains. Oppression towards blacks has occurred throughout history, and, due to environmental circumstances, it is likely that heredity would influence the IQ of the population, which, in this case, happened to be black. In conclusion, years of environmental circumstances have negatively influenced the IQ of certain black populations around the world. This could account for the vast IQ differences amongst certain black populations. While negative affects occurred for black populations, Ashkenazi Jews encountered positive environmental affects, and they have boosted that populations IQ over time.

The idea that the gene(s) associated with black skin color negatively correlate with IQ is a ludicrous insinuation. Scientists attempt to use the higher IQs amongst mulatto populations to justify this. However, oppression is highly linked the the darkness of ones skin color. Therefore, the idea that populations, over time, would lose intelligence in correlation with skin color/oppression is a reasonable conclusion.

When these truths are accepted, we can work towards creating an equal society. Affirmative action and other social programs, while having flaws, are necessary to counteract racism in today's society. The Flynn Effect shows that recently the white IQ is remaining steady in comparison to the black IQ, which is constantly moving closer to the white mean. In fact, the idea that individuals move towards an IQ mean is quite widely accepted; therefore, the idea that all populations, over a greater period of time, move toward and above a mean due to environemntal circumstances is, in reality, a conclusion that should be accepted.

The idea of "genetics" is subjective to most individuals. However, when arguing a genetic hypothesis, scientists should realize that these supposably genetic characters have arisen due to environmental factors which are steadily equating over time. Sure, IQ tests are subjective and have flaws, but attacking the science of IQ is only one method of eliminating racism. When an environmentalist criticizes an aspect of a test, that aspect can be fixed. In some cases, the IQ gap lowers, and the environmentalist is pleased. However, if we were, in theory, to achieve a test as objective as possible, and the IQ gap remained, where would the environmentalist be left? If we are to discuss this issue rationally, we must approach it scientifically, as done above, and introduce new and different ideas. Instead of arguing environmental or genetic, we should argue what a genetic difference is - a difference caused by the environment. By accepting that equality will not be achieved in a day, but in generations, we can better work towards achieving the society that we all want.

****

Unfortunately, I am not sure what to do. Will people would view my conclusion as racist while? My audience consists of high school seniors.

My conclusion is environmental. It just argues that the environment has caused generational affects which will take time to remove. In short, it might take more than a generation to fix things. In my seminar, I would also mention that some blacks may be ancestors of a population not negatively affected by the environment.

Question: What does the scientific community, overall, feel about this issue? To scientists praise IQ tests, dismiss them, or are they skeptical?

 

[blackmama]

?

i for one think IQ tests are monopolieid by raciest bigots or white washed blacks so i wouldn't pay any attion to them. yeah, they got those ''steadly increasing'' poles out there but really, what do they mean? they arent fair and every body should know this. this world has been treating people of african decent like sacks of potatos then all the sudden wants to appaligize and excpects us to know things we've been to stay away from. and even if a non-white person did learn, what could save that person from all those raceists in thise white run world? i generally am not a raciest either and have a very colorful family, but we can't close our eyes to the truths and injustice of this world. i to have high hopes for this world but the way there is not denial. and that thing about jews being smart and all, don't u think that's a bit steirotyed? plus they got nothing againtist them but religion and few other things. i understand its hard for non-white and non-chritian people in their prosuits for a better education. and IQ ests arent helping much. but that's just my point of view

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

The idea of a monopoly over IQ tests is certainly possible, but I haven't heard of anyone in the field suggesting this. I am certainly not a supporter of IQ tests, and I choose this topic as a project to try and illuminate my peers. Racism needs to be stopped, but I think it must be stopped in a realistic fashion, which may take time.

The Ashkenazi Jews are one standard deviation higher than whites in terms of IQ. This is data accumulated through IQ testing, not a rumor. I appreciate your feedback.

 

[GCT]

Through scientific examination, it has been concluded that the 15-point IQ gap between blacks and whites is partially environmental.

I remember a famous study where this supposed gap had been completely accounted for, that is of a study where the african americans compared with whites raised under almost identical, relevant, environmental conditions...their was hardly any discrepancy between.

The notion that asians have higher IQ than "whites" is probably bogus also. Most asians that I've met have very good study habits, are dilligent, and conscientious, though admittedly not any more "gifted" (in relevance to fluid intelligence) than whites, but somewhat more paranoid at times.

 

[swbluto]

Most asians that I've met have very good study habits, are dilligent, and conscientious, though admittedly not any more "gifted" (in relevance to fluid intelligence) than whites, but somewhat more paranoid at times.

I believe the studies regarding Asian's IQ is that the Fluid intelligence derived IQ(Synonymously, nonverbal IQ) is only 9 points above the White's average, which is less then 1 SD. A difference of that size wouldn't be observationally noticeable in daily interaction, however it might become more apparent in standardized testing where the finer details begain to surface.

Also, the verbal IQ, I believe, is comparable to White's verbal IQ; the most noticeable aspect of someone's "intelligence" or "giftedness".

 

[Mk]

and that thing about jews being smart and all, don't u think that's a bit steirotyed?

Stereotypes come from things that are real, I don't know if Jewish people have a higher IQ than not-Jewish people. Being smart is different from IQ.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Stereotypes come from things that are real, I don't know if Jewish people have a higher IQ than not-Jewish people. Being smart is different from IQ.

Depends on what you mean by smart. Studies have shown that "success in business" type smarts is heavily correlated with g. g tracks income from low values to just before the very highest, where inherited wealth comes into play.

 

[phusicist]

If you want to learn a bit about g and it's correlations/practicality then check out: http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/ She has published LOTS of articles on the topic; I didn't even know that there was a sub-score that measured creativity until I read some of her articles, apparently having an overall IQ of 180 doesn't mean you'd have a creativity sub-score of 180. IQ is a strong predictor of success, albeit at the top of the top, it may be a necessary condition but it may not be sufficient (self-discipline, temperament, interests and so on also play a big role).

ETA: I took a few screens. In the first screenshot, the first stratum or the most specific abilities include: reading decoding, listening ability, verbal language comprehension, visualization, visual memory, memory span, associative memory, maintaining and judging rhythm, quantitative memory and expressional fluency.