LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksYup. That's what the research in those articles states.Originally Posted by Telemachus
Yup. That's what the research in those articles states.
Not true. Environmental factors or socioeconomic status does not explain the gaps. For instance, african american children in households earning above $70,000 perform below white households earning $20,000 or less. There is a lot of evidence on twin studies and transracial adoption studies also suggesting people perform as well as their biological peers, not their adoptive parents.Gadjodilo Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemachus
Do you think then that for individuals within a group, say Irish people, IQ differences can be attributed as you say to "wholly attributed to socioeconomic status or family situations".
If you read the articles I posted, you'll find that when they strip out the factors mentioned above, the remaining variance that could be attributed to other factors (one of which could be ethnicity) is within the bounds of error.
The issue is debated here.
June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 11, No. 2.
www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/ -
Summary of lead article. Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic
No they couldn't, differences between people is substantially due to genes.So from this you could say anybody could be an Isaac Newton or a Polymath of some description if they had the right socioeconomic support and a great encouraging family?
http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/22333/
And you agree with that conclusion?
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Not really in the case of Stalin and Pol Pot. But whats a few million between 'Party Comrades'.
Maybe you could look at the pictures of the people on page 17 of this thread and tell us which racial group they belong to.
Back on this thread? Good. Couple of questions for you here.Not really in the case of Stalin and Pol Pot. But whats a few million between 'Party Comrades'.
http://www.politics.ie/current-affai...ficant-17.html
I think my use of the word "yup" (which incidentally means "yes") has already answered this question.
Silence from the self-appointed experts on the connections between race and IQ.
Only to be expected really.
What's your point? Self identified ancestry corresponds almost perfectly to identifiable clusters.Originally Posted by Chi019
Not true. Environmental factors or socioeconomic status does not explain the gaps. For instance, african american children in households earning above $70,000 perform below white households earning $20,000 or less. There is a lot of evidence on twin studies and transracial adoption studies also suggesting people perform as well as their biological peers, not their adoptive parents.
The issue is debated here.
June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 11, No. 2.
www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/ -
Summary of lead article. Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic
No they couldn't, differences between people is substantially due to genes.
Technology Review: Brain Images Reveal the Secret to Higher IQ
sondagefaux wrote:
Maybe you could look at the pictures of the people on page 17 of this thread and tell us which racial group they belong to.
As Hsu explains, every allele probably occurs in each ethnic group, but with varying frequency. Two groups that form distinct clusters are likely to exhibit different frequency distributions over various genes, leading to group differences.A recent study (Rosenberg et al. 2002) examined 377 autosomal micro-satellite markers in 1,056 individuals from a global sample of 52 populations and found significant evidence of genetic clustering, largely along geographic (continental) lines. Consistent with prior studies, the major genetic clusters consisted of Europeans/West Asians (whites), sub-Saharan Africans, East Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans. ethnic groups living in the United States, with a discrepancy rate of only 0.14%.
Information Processing: Metric on the space of genomes and the scientific basis for race
Information Processing: Genetic clustering: 40 years of progressRepresent each individual human by their DNA sequence. When aggregated, they cluster into readily identifiable groups. This has been known for 40 years now, although the technology and methods of analysis continue to improve. Below are results from 1966, 1978 and 2008.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/sc...gewanted=printIt had been widely assumed until recently that human evolution more or less stopped 50,000 years ago.
The new finding, reported in today's issue of Science by Bruce T. Lahn of the University of Chicago, and colleagues, could raise controversy because of the genes' role in determining brain size. New versions of the genes, or alleles as geneticists call them, appear to have spread because they enhanced brain function in some way, the report suggests, and they are more common in some populations than others...
They report that with microcephalin, a new allele arose about 37,000 years ago, although it could have appeared as early as 60,000 or as late as 14,000 years ago. About 70 percent of people in most European and East Asian populations carry this allele of the gene, but it is much rarer in most sub-Saharan Africans.
With the other gene, ASPM, a new allele emerged 14,100 to 500 years ago, the researchers favoring a midway date of 5,800 years. The allele has attained a frequency of about 50 percent in populations of the Middle East and Europe, is less common in East Asia, and is found at low frequency in some sub-Saharan Africa peoples.
Also, there are new versions of SLC6A4, a serotonin transporter, in Europeans and Asians. There’s a new version of a gene (DAB1) that shapes the development of the layers of the cerebral cortex in east Asia. Note that they've only just identified about 7% which has undergone recent selection so more will be identified in the future.
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/...1/journal.pgen.
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/i...l.pbio.0040072
Last edited by Chi019; 11th March 2010 at 12:30 AM.
The figures you posted for Mao and Pol Pot were inflated. End of. Now, if you want to continue being petulant in this thread, please do so on an issue that's on-topic.Not really in the case of Stalin and Pol Pot. But whats a few million between 'Party Comrades'.
Reply With Quote