Human evolution and differentiation of races

[bpesta22]

Another way to think of it:

IQ = 85 + race (15)

where race is coded 1 for white and 0 for black (85 is the black mean IQ). That just identifies that there's a 15 point gap, on average, in IQ scores (for whatever reason ranging from junk science biased tests to genetics) between blacks and whites.

The key is to keep entering variables into the equation until the "weight" for race is zero (gap completely explained by the other variables in the equation) or at least less than 15 (gap partly explained by other variables in the equation).

No one variable does it-- despite a century of looking for it. If there is an explanation, it will probably be many variables that "explain" the gap.

So, if you had something like:

IQ = SES (weight) + education (weight) + prenatal environment (weight) + nutrition (weight) + race (?).

If when solving for that, race(?) = zero, you've got it!

No one's got it yet.

I've got a paper showing that race is zero when the controlled variable is "speed of information processing". It might be reasonable now to conclude that it's not the IQ score gap that needs to be explained but the difference in processing speed, on average, across races.

 

[Perpetual Student]

It's not just "controlling" for alcohol intake. One would have to show statistical mediation or at least attenuation.

The only way alcohol can explain the gap (barring some unknown suppressor variable) is if: black moms drink more than white moms during pregnancy. That difference, when entered into a regression equation, results in the beta weight for race predicting IQ to be zero (or at least statistically less than 15-- the expected difference).

I suppose it's also possible that they drink the same, but perhaps it's worse for one race or another (though that would suggest something biological about race in and of itself).

I had a similar debate on this elsewhere recently. It seems hard to get across the point: there is a difference between a source of error (the effects of alcohol on IQ when one is interested in, say, race/iq differences) versus a confound (when alcohol systematically varies by race). The former is irrelevant to anything but statistical power. The latter I am calling a confound, but if that confound could be found, it would be the factor x in the environment that explains the black-white IQ gap. No one's found it.

I'm not sure where you are going with this. It would not be a huge surprise if various populations in the world had differing cognitive abilities any more than they have height, color, bone density and many other differences. On the other hand, there may be no measurable differences in mental abilities among human population groups (races -- if you prefer). Denying the simple truth that we do not know is intellectually dishonest. However, it is quite clear that all human populations have a wide distribution of any such characteristics with a great deal of overlap among the various groups. There is ample reason to believe the overlap in cognitive abilities, if there is any variation, is quite considerable so, in my view, there is no particular value in discovering what it may be. If anything, such information could be misused by the ignorant and bigoted to foster their self serving agenda. The social stigma associated with being part of a group that is known to have an average IQ a few points less than some other group could be quite harmful and could stifle young people with considerable potential.

 

[bpesta22]

PS; the group difference in question has an effect size of d=1.0. That's massive, whatever the cause (it's considerably / vastly more effective than taking viagra to achieve wood-- to put it in context).

Do we know the difference exists-- on paper for sure. It's been there for 100 years.

Do we know what causes it? No. That's my point. It can't be dismissed by simple "mismeasure" explanations, or factor x's. We should move beyond that to figure it out, that is if we want to correct race inequality.

 

[Prometheus]

PS; the group difference in question has an effect size of d=1.0. That's massive, whatever the cause (it's considerably / vastly more effective than taking viagra to achieve wood-- to put it in context).

Do we know the difference exists-- on paper for sure. It's been there for 100 years.

Do we know what causes it? No. That's my point. It can't be dismissed by simple "mismeasure" explanations, or factor x's. We should move beyond that to figure it out, that is if we want to correct race inequality.

How well does IQ correlate with various indicators of inequality? Is it really necessary to address IQ difference to correct them?

 

[bpesta22]

Prom:

I think it is; I could be wrong. I say take some of the money we waste on "new" education methods and throw it at the best scientists in the country (not us dumb psychologists). Let them be funded, study it and see if it can be fixed.

Got nothing to lose and much to gain, in my opinion.

Newer research shows that everything important co-varies strongly with everything else important. Education, income, iq, health, crime, religiosity, all strongly correlated with race too. I'm not claiming anything causes anything else, but the effects are large enough to merit further study.

 

[Prometheus]

Prom:

I think it is; I could be wrong. I say take some of the money we waste on "new" education methods and throw it at the best scientists in the country (not us dumb psychologists). Let them be funded, study it and see if it can be fixed.

Got nothing to lose and much to gain, in my opinion.

Newer research shows that everything important co-varies strongly with everything else important. Education, income, iq, health, crime, religiosity, all strongly correlated with race too. I'm not claiming anything causes anything else, but the effects are large enough to merit further study.

Thank you. If you could point me towards any particularly interesting research you've read on this topic, I'd be grateful. I'm peripherally interested due to my work, but I don't have a lot of time to review lot's of research.

 

[bpesta22]

Well, some of it's my own research, so I'm biased when I call it interesting!

Two recent trends in my area: (1) looking at aggregate level data (instead of correlating a person's IQ score with an outcome, let's look at geographical groupings of people-- like US states or nations). You get more power by aggregating variables and the correlations are huge:

State IQ correlates:
-.55 with fundamentalist religious belief,
-.76 (!) with crime,
.41 with state education (probably an underestimate as our measure of this factor sucked).
.75 (!) with health
.57 with income.

These correlations are pretty big effects for social science.

(2) Cognitive epidemiology. This is the idea that IQ might be a fundamental cause of health differences across people. The journal, intelligence, had a recent issue devoted just to this, showing the relationships between IQ and a host of health related outcomes from heart disease to sticking with one's meds.

Any current issue of intelligence might be worth taking a look at. If you have a specific topic in mind, I can probably find you a cite. Here's is my state well-being stuff. This paper doesn't report race correlations, but I have those if you're interested:

http://www.csuohio.edu/business/academics/mlr/documents/pesta_in_press_intell_well_being.pdf


p.s. for context, there exist state "personality" measures. These correlate very weakly to not at all with most important outcome measures. I think it shows that IQ is far more powerful than personality as a predictor (could be our measures of personality suck, relative to our measure of IQ).

 

[Perpetual Student]

PS; the group difference in question has an effect size of d=1.0.

Can you demonstrate that?

 

[Delvo]

The claim by who? Personally, I'm not claiming that at all. Maybe that's where the misunderstanding is occurring. I'm claiming it's a bell curve, or more aptly a sine curve, with people who look closest to "black" or "white" or "asian" (or whatever divisions you want) spaced apart with broad areas between where people are impossible to categorize.

Actually, those overlap/mix areas aren't even broad. They're so tiny they're nearly impossible to find in some cases.

A handful of distinct allele clusters have been identified which are found in the people of one global region but not another. An allele cluster is a set of alleles, in this case hundreds of them per cluster, that correlate to each other, such that a person usually has nearly all of them or nearly none of them. One cluster is found in the people of middle and southern Africa; one is found in the people of Europe, northern Africa, and western Asia; one is found in the people of eastern Asia, including a smaller allele cluster (consisting of fewer alleles) found in the people of North and South America; and one is found in the people of Australia and some nearby islands. The Khoi-San and African pygmies (two very small mid/southern African groups with the same kinds of physical differences from black Africans as are generally found between the above regional groups) have not been genetically studied to this extent as far as I know.

Each individual allele in a cluster isn't necessarily universally present in one regional population and universally absent in another. Some are, but it isn't necessary, in order for an allele or a set of them to be identified with a certain region. What is universal to a region is the group of alleles: given a cluster of 180 mutually correlated alleles, for example, even if relatively few people in a given region have all 180 of them, everybody has at least 165 or 170 or so of them. And while relatively few people in other regions have exactly none of them, nobody in any other region has more than five or ten or so. And this was done not by asking people which of a half-dozen broadly defined "races" they belonged to, but by recording a single dot on a map for the actual specific location of each village or valley or such, so it can't be an artifact of self-identification with these few groups. The regions just emerged from the pattern in where all the specific dots were.

One might ask where the threshold percentage is, but none needs to be set, because, among these particular allele clusters, none are anywhere near any kind of intermediate state. It's that almost-all-or-almost-nothing correlation, and the shortage of examples of these alleles NOT being so starkly distributed, that made geneticists notice that the allele clusters existed in the first place. They couldn't have seen them if anything like 60-40 or 50-50 splits were common, because there'd be nothing to see.

If human geographic distribution were a smooth continuum instead of a set of distinct subgroups, then no such allele clusters could exist. But they do. If they represented some kind of random or arbitrary thing instead of a real division between regional populations that had evolved separately for a while, then other allele clusters that aren't distributed to these regions in this way would also exist (such as an allele cluster that's just as likely to be found anywhere in the world, or is found only in all of the lands around the northern Atlantic Ocean). But they don't. If there were large areas of mixing between two regions, then the mutual correlations within allele clusters would break down along the borders, showing wide, blurry border zones in which people tended to have somewhere around half of the alleles in one cluster and half of another. But they don't. If these allele clusters had gotten to their associated regions by some means other than separated ancestry and subsequent independent natural selection, then the number of alleles in each cluster and their apparent ages based on accumulated variations would not correlate with the archeologically established chronological order in which migration to these regions happened. But they do.

In short, if any claim made by the race deniers were true, then the regional allele clusters wouldn't be the way they are, just as the physical traits that had already been measured before genetics came along would also not be the way they are. So all the deniers need to do to prove their case is very simple: just show that people don't have the physical and genetic traits that they are known to have. Mysteriously, they never get around to that part...

This is just so obvious, I can't understand how anyone can deny it.

Dishonesty.

 

[Dancing David]

No it's not; I readily admit that alcohol can seriously affect a developing fetus and his/her IQ.

The burden's still on you, because you are claiming alcohol is confounded with race. You need to show not just that alcohol affects iq but that alcohol intake varies systematically across whites and blacks, and when controlled for, explains the 15 point gap in IQ scores.

So, you should start digging up studies showing that pregnant black ladies are more likely to drink despite the risk to kids than are pregnant white ladies. That sounds like a racist thing, what you are asserting there, btw.

Wow, not only are you spinning but making accusations, you must be a piece of work, I hope you are proud of yourself and your faith in your obvious superiority.

Welcome to IGNORE.

 

[Dancing David]

How hard can it be to control for alcoholic intake? Of course, there are quite a few other potentially confounding factors which make studying two populations for all such factors very difficult.

I agree. The issue is not that there is a racial difference but that other factors associated with perceptions of race and sample bias can lead to a difference. But some people just wave their magic wand of poor sampling and claim correlations of less than significance.

Enviromental toxins and unemployeement are associated with perceived race.

 

[Dancing David]

How well does IQ correlate with various indicators of inequality? Is it really necessary to address IQ difference to correct them?

Bpesta has claimed in the past that SES matching should control for this.

 

[Jono]

How well does IQ correlate with various indicators of inequality? Is it really necessary to address IQ difference to correct them?

Well I wouldn't really know if it is or isn't. The general observation gathered would be that our IQ's are largely fixed genetically (and probably through hereditary content), where there is little room for improvement, for the person, upon the given value through enviromental/social efforts.
There is, simultanously, a lot of room that can encumber/decrease this value, again notably through enviromental variables. I.e, as a person you can't become all that 'smarter' than what your hereditary content allows for, yet you can get as daft as a braindead zombie with the 'proper' toxins, potentially harmful neglect at susceptible ages etc etc.

When it comes to the correlations between IQ and the levels of inequality in societies, it tends to correlate rather well, but in a general overview. This isn't the actual proplem though, between the dominative boasian approach of the past and the opposive determinists. Yet at the same time, in most discussions I've witnessed on this issue, both sides act as if this is the problem.

Curiosa: I have a friend in London who sends me a packet of books every now and then of literature from the, mainstreamly viewed, polar opposities of the spectrum.
Ironically, just this morning I got a batch of books on race and hereditary science, the ones below are for example of the deterministic end (some more than others, perhaps even deemable racist-literature by the center or other end):
Pearson, Roger; "Heredity and Humanity: Race, Eugenics and Modern Science" and also his "Shockley: On Eugenics and Race".
Putnam, Carleton; "Race and Reality: A search for solutions".
Mankind Quarterly, Monograph Series: "Race, Evolution, Creative Intelligence and Inter-Group Competition".

Is there anyone here familiar with the given authors, journal et al? I haven't begun looking at them myself yet.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I agree. The issue is not that there is a racial difference but that other factors associated with perceptions of race and sample bias can lead to a difference. But some people just wave their magic wand of poor sampling and claim correlations of less than significance.

Enviromental toxins and unemployeement are associated with perceived race.

"Environmental toxins" is a great description: Unemployment, alcohol, drugs, diet, neighborhood and home violence, sanitation, medical care, fragmented families, the list is quite formidable.
Add to the above stuff, a pervasive "anti-education" culture among the young, and the job of establishing comparable control groups appears to become impossible.

 

[Michael Redman]

This is just so obvious, I can't understand how anyone can deny it.

Dishonesty.

Indeed, but of the strawman type.

There has not been a single denial in this thread that populations vary in ways that are apparent, nor that these variations can group geographically. However, that is not the question that is being discussed. The OP asks how differentiated human races could have evolved in so short a time.

The concept of human races, that there are 3 to 6 groups into which all humans could be classified, based solely on which continent their ancestors lived in the 16th. Century, was formed at a time when it was assumed that there was vastly more difference between racial groups, and that there was vastly more similarity within them. In fact, there was consideration of whether some races might in fact be separate species.

Back when this thread was still on point, it was explained that much of current human diversity was already in existence when humanity left Africa, and much of the difference we see is explained by selective pressures on already possessed traits. There is no need to explain the apparent mystery of how people so quickly evolved from the time they left Africa into "differentiated races", because that did not need to happen in order to account for current diversity of characteristics.

No one is denying that different population groups can be identified that have tendencies to display certain common traits. No one is denying that these characteristics can group geographically. No one is denying that this can be a valid and useful means of differentiating and describing groups of humans.

Is anyone honestly arguing that a geographically specific allele cluster constitutes a "differentiated human race"?

 

[Jono]

Is anyone honestly arguing that a geographically specific allele cluster constitutes a "differentiated human race"?

Personally I prefer the term "ethnic group" since, while also definable in different ways, point to a sub or sub-sub group from a larger common source, which in turn has an even larger cluster and so forth. It certainly is a case of overlapping differences here and there, as it is with what haplotypes and haplogroups are specific to who and where. I.e a tree-structure, as opposed to absolute terms. For example, "black" and "white" hardly qualifies as good nor specific labels for race, because they are rather encompassive and there's a plethora of differential sub-groups within the two mega-groups. A typical north-african by ethnic heritage might very well be more genetically similar to a sicilian or southern-spanish specimen than he would be with a sub-saharan african, or with a french 'white' guy. The reasons why that is are not that mysterious though, still it does mean that the term "race" needs to be either less specific or we can simply go with "ethniticity" instead.
Undoubtedly, it quickly invites at least partially a battle of semantics, as opposed to a look at differences.

 

[lomiller]

Yes .
Unfortunately, people are not.
Which was the point of the post you responded to.

The post I was responding to claimed what qualifies as a sub-species is a matter of personal opinion, it’s not. Sub-species if a formally defined taxonomical ranking, you can’t suddenly say “IMO race is synonymous with sub-species” because this is not a matter of opinion.

If you were to incorrectly use race to mean sub-species, all humans would be the same race, because we all belong to a single sub-species.

 

[Dancing David]

"Environmental toxins" is a great description: Unemployment, alcohol, drugs, diet, neighborhood and home violence, sanitation, medical care, fragmented families, the list is quite formidable.
Add to the above stuff, a pervasive "anti-education" culture among the young, and the job of establishing comparable control groups appears to become impossible.

You extended the defintion condsiderably, maybe 'toxic environment' would be more applicable.

I am always wondering about the imapct of factors other than SES that do not reflect the 'racial' demographics.

For example here is Illinois there used to be aprograms of cash assistance to working families. If you are african american/low SES then you are more likely to live in a high population county, if you are ethnic caucasian/low SES there is a likelyhood you might be living in a lower population county, therefore teh avaiability of assistance is higher , and does not reflect just SES.

 

[lomiller]

Is anyone honestly arguing that a geographically specific allele cluster constitutes a "differentiated human race"?

IIRC in several of the people posting in this thread have previously claimed that was a valid basis for defining race, and even introduced the idea themselves.

I think the claim goes a bit further though. There is supposed to be some significance to allele clusters from specific regions. I.E. being able to identify English and German, or East African and West African allele clusters still doesn’t qualify them as distinct races. Only allele clusters that line up with predetermined races qualify.

The other implied claim is that these allele clusters are significant beyond the alleles themselves. Once you identify the allele cluster you can use it to study just about anything even if it doesn’t touch on that allele at all.

 

[Kotatsu]

The problem is that we've not been able to find any such distinctive differences among the various "races." If you think you can find an anatomical property that is shared by all and only "blacks," please name it (bearing in mind that "dark skin" won't work for reasons already outlined).

There is no reason to assume that a single character, rather than a unique combination of otherwise more or less widely distributed characters, can be found to differentiate a given group from all related groups.

Again, this is not to say that there are not valid and useful ways to differentiate human populations. But assigning all humans a "race" among white/black/yellow/red is neither valid nor useful.

Indeed; if this is what people are arguing, then I will agree with you and withdraw my arguments to the contrary, if any. These wide categories are insufficient to do a clear and useful taxonomy, if that is ever needed.

The post I was responding to claimed what qualifies as a sub-species is a matter of personal opinion, it’s not. Sub-species if a formally defined taxonomical ranking, you can’t suddenly say “IMO race is synonymous with sub-species” because this is not a matter of opinion.

If you were to incorrectly use race to mean sub-species, all humans would be the same race, because we all belong to a single sub-species.

But you could certainly say, "In my opinion, these groups commonly called 'races' are in fact sub-species" and describe them formally as such, and there would be nothing formally wrong with that, even though they would probably be made synonymous quite rapidly.

I will also note that outside humans, "race" is used as a synonym for "subspecies" in, for instance, Swedish, and also in older English. See, for instance, this:"The question of physiological species and subspecies is discussed, and on the basis of the differences described in this paper, it is proposed to rename the British race of starlings as Sturnus vulgaris britannicus."

IIRC in several of the people posting in this thread have previously claimed that was a valid basis for defining race, and even introduced the idea themselves.

And in theory it is, if two populations are genetically distinct but show no morphological differences. Whether or not it is a valid basis in reality is a different matter.

The other implied claim is that these allele clusters are significant beyond the alleles themselves. Once you identify the allele cluster you can use it to study just about anything even if it doesn’t touch on that allele at all.

I'm sorry, but how is that different from any other phylogenetic study? If I sequence COI, 12S, 16S, and CytB for a given group of organisms, and they give a certain pattern, can I then only draw conclusions from this pattern only as far as those conclusions are directly relevant to the gene regions in question?