Racial IQ Gap, Nature versus Nurture

[glennds]

any attempt to prove it on a large scale will not result in anything good coming of it, if you’d even be able to attempt it.

This is where I was going in my failed attempt to dissect Tech's logic. Even if you ignore the toxicity of the "rational racism" school of thinking, the idea that a group's inferiority could be proven because "facts matter" leads to a dead end anyway. What productive outcome could possibly be achieved by strengthening divisions and hierarchy through alleged proof that it is scientifically justified?
Hasn't the concept already been tried, and didn't the people who tried it end up in the infamous ash heap of history?

[stuper1]

Bret Weinstein, the evolutionary biologist mentioned in the original post, thinks that it is still an open question. He suspects that the answer is culture not genetics, but he says that he is not 100% sure and doesn't think anyone has actually answered the question.

Don't worry, in the current academic client, there is no way that an honest study of this question would ever get approved. The only ones who might do an honest study of this would be say the Chinese or the Russians, and then if they were to honestly conclude that genetics leads to a real IQ gap, their reasoning would get shot full of so many questions from doubters that couldn't handle the truth.

This whole post was just a hypothetical question basically of whether such an honest study is even a good idea. But there's no way that an honest study would happen these days anyway.

[glennds]

Another book, The Sports Gene, by David Epstein has a section on the 100 meters being dominated by athletes of West African descent and another about the Kalenjin distance runners from Kenya. The latter have a huge advantage in part because they tend to have slender lower legs which allows the "pendulum" to swing back and forth while requiring less energy.

There's an additional explanation. A much simpler one.
As someone who lived in Kenya as a child, I can speak from firsthand experience that most of the rural tribes run as a basic mode of transportation. Seriously, the idea of getting somewhere in a jeep or a car is not an option, so if you have to go somewhere 15 miles away you just run.
And you run, not walk because daylight is a factor so time is not always on your side. When you have been running routinely as a basic way of getting from point A to point B, and you've been doing so since childhood, you can imagine how very good and efficient at it one will become.
In the case of the Kalenjin, they have the added benefit of living at altitude above the escarpment, so they've lived and run all their lives in the conditions that Olympic athletes go to Colorado Springs to replicate.
So with all due respect to the author making the genetics argument, I'll lobby for at least one mark in the nurture column.

I won't deny some genetic predispositions and ethnic traits, but I happen to believe the much bigger factor is environment, opportunity and experience specific to the individual. I'd recommend The Talent Code by Daniel Coyle, or the 10,000 hours of work thesis by Malcolm Gladwell in Outliers. Coyle's book in particular is the only explanation I've ever found to explain the breathtaking achievements of the Renaissance that happened in a very condensed period of time concentrated in pretty much one compact place, Florence, Italy.

[Libertarian666]

Ah yes. And with the substantive backing of undeniable facts grounded in objective science and statistical proof, the "racism" could then become a rational basis for a societal hierarchy.
What they today call "systemic racism" could be appropriately named and actually expand once the restrictions of political correctness are demolished. At that point we can finally live in a more enlightened world where instead of resisting nature we embrace it for what it is.
Is that why these facts matter?

The only fair social policy is for everyone to have the opportunity to make the best use of whatever ability they have.

One political party is claiming that our present social policy doesn't provide that opportunity to certain groups, on the basis that those groups have worse results.

If all groups had the same inherent abilities, that might be true.

However, all groups do NOT have the same inherent abilities, and the disparity in results between groups reflects those different average group abilities. Thus, their reasoning is unsound.

That's why the facts matter.

I can't make it any clearer than that.

Okay, let's accept for the moment that the facts matter. The facts being that we have now empirically proven the inferiority of certain groups. Once we had them, how could/should these facts be used? Is there a specific social policy you are thinking of that these facts would abolish? Are there other applications for the facts?

Individuals should be free to seek and attain whatever goals they can achieve by voluntary action. If they wish to help people they perceive as unfairly treated, with their own resources (e.g., charitable donations), that is fine, and in fact anything else would be unfair.

However, government and publicly funded institutions should treat all people the same. That means no racial quotas or similar policies based on group membership.

No quarrel there, but you didn't answer my question as to how facts proving inferiority of certain groups would be helpful in the objective you state. If I'm reading your earlier comment correctly, you state your belief to this effect, and then you say facts supporting the same matter.

Because if they are inferior, then their results would be expected to be inferior even in the absence of "systemic racism" or other types of bias.

This removes the justification for "reverse racism" directed against other races or other groups deemed to have benefited from the nonexistent bias.

[drumminj]

There's an additional explanation. A much simpler one.
As someone who lived in Kenya as a child, I can speak from firsthand experience that most of the rural tribes run as a basic mode of transportation. Seriously, the idea of getting somewhere in a jeep or a car is not an option, so if you have to go somewhere 15 miles away you just run.
And you run, not walk because daylight is a factor so time is not always on your side. When you have been running routinely as a basic way of getting from point A to point B, and you've been doing so since childhood, you can imagine how very good and efficient at it one will become.
In the case of the Kalenjin, they have the added benefit of living at altitude above the escarpment, so they've lived and run all their lives in the conditions that Olympic athletes go to Colorado Springs to replicate.
So with all due respect to the author making the genetics argument, I'll lobby for at least one mark in the nurture column.

You don't think there's a force that selects for genetics better suited to such a behavior? Those who can't do these things well likely die, or are less likely to reproduce?

As I read it, you're describing a force which will select for specific traits, vs being "nurture".

[barrett]

Another book, The Sports Gene, by David Epstein has a section on the 100 meters being dominated by athletes of West African descent and another about the Kalenjin distance runners from Kenya. The latter have a huge advantage in part because they tend to have slender lower legs which allows the "pendulum" to swing back and forth while requiring less energy.

There's an additional explanation. A much simpler one.
As someone who lived in Kenya as a child, I can speak from firsthand experience that most of the rural tribes run as a basic mode of transportation. Seriously, the idea of getting somewhere in a jeep or a car is not an option, so if you have to go somewhere 15 miles away you just run.
And you run, not walk because daylight is a factor so time is not always on your side. When you have been running routinely as a basic way of getting from point A to point B, and you've been doing so since childhood, you can imagine how very good and efficient at it one will become.
In the case of the Kalenjin, they have the added benefit of living at altitude above the escarpment, so they've lived and run all their lives in the conditions that Olympic athletes go to Colorado Springs to replicate.
So with all due respect to the author making the genetics argument, I'll lobby for at least one mark in the nurture column.

I won't deny some genetic predispositions and ethnic traits, but I happen to believe the much bigger factor is environment, opportunity and experience specific to the individual. I'd recommend The Talent Code by Daniel Coyle, or the 10,000 hours of work thesis by Malcolm Gladwell in Outliers. Coyle's book in particular is the only explanation I've ever found to explain the breathtaking achievements of the Renaissance that happened in a very condensed period of time concentrated in pretty much one compact place, Florence, Italy.

Thanks for responding, glennds. I will definitely check out The Talent Code. I've read the 10,000 hours segment that Malcolm Gladwell wrote up and I have to say that from my own experience the 10,000-hour rule doesn't hold up, at least not entirely. Both my wife and I spent 20,000 to 30,000 hours attempting to master physical skills. She did become world-class whereas I merely became proficient. I have actually spent well over 10,000 hours in two areas that I didn't really master. It matters a great deal at what age those hours are invested and under what conditions. Good coaching, for example, makes a huge difference but aptitude plays a huge part as well.

It's fascinating that you saw the Kalenjin kids running. I have seen that in film but not in person. I am a big track & field fan and the only Kalenjin runner I have seen up close is Bernard Lagat (now Kenyan-American). I remember thinking that in addition to thousands of hours of intentional training, his body was just perfect for middle-distance running. Totally in agreement that nurture matters a great deal but you won't see anyone with bad eyesight hitting a baseball well.

[vnatale]

Another book, The Sports Gene, by David Epstein has a section on the 100 meters being dominated by athletes of West African descent and another about the Kalenjin distance runners from Kenya. The latter have a huge advantage in part because they tend to have slender lower legs which allows the "pendulum" to swing back and forth while requiring less energy.

There's an additional explanation. A much simpler one.
As someone who lived in Kenya as a child, I can speak from firsthand experience that most of the rural tribes run as a basic mode of transportation. Seriously, the idea of getting somewhere in a jeep or a car is not an option, so if you have to go somewhere 15 miles away you just run.
And you run, not walk because daylight is a factor so time is not always on your side. When you have been running routinely as a basic way of getting from point A to point B, and you've been doing so since childhood, you can imagine how very good and efficient at it one will become.
In the case of the Kalenjin, they have the added benefit of living at altitude above the escarpment, so they've lived and run all their lives in the conditions that Olympic athletes go to Colorado Springs to replicate.
So with all due respect to the author making the genetics argument, I'll lobby for at least one mark in the nurture column.

I won't deny some genetic predispositions and ethnic traits, but I happen to believe the much bigger factor is environment, opportunity and experience specific to the individual. I'd recommend The Talent Code by Daniel Coyle, or the 10,000 hours of work thesis by Malcolm Gladwell in Outliers. Coyle's book in particular is the only explanation I've ever found to explain the breathtaking achievements of the Renaissance that happened in a very condensed period of time concentrated in pretty much one compact place, Florence, Italy.

I'd read the "10,000 of work thesis" had been debunked? Sounded good when I first read it in the book but does not seem to have held up under more scrutiny?

Vinny

[glennds]

Another book, The Sports Gene, by David Epstein has a section on the 100 meters being dominated by athletes of West African descent and another about the Kalenjin distance runners from Kenya. The latter have a huge advantage in part because they tend to have slender lower legs which allows the "pendulum" to swing back and forth while requiring less energy.

There's an additional explanation. A much simpler one.
As someone who lived in Kenya as a child, I can speak from firsthand experience that most of the rural tribes run as a basic mode of transportation. Seriously, the idea of getting somewhere in a jeep or a car is not an option, so if you have to go somewhere 15 miles away you just run.
And you run, not walk because daylight is a factor so time is not always on your side. When you have been running routinely as a basic way of getting from point A to point B, and you've been doing so since childhood, you can imagine how very good and efficient at it one will become.
In the case of the Kalenjin, they have the added benefit of living at altitude above the escarpment, so they've lived and run all their lives in the conditions that Olympic athletes go to Colorado Springs to replicate.
So with all due respect to the author making the genetics argument, I'll lobby for at least one mark in the nurture column.

I won't deny some genetic predispositions and ethnic traits, but I happen to believe the much bigger factor is environment, opportunity and experience specific to the individual. I'd recommend The Talent Code by Daniel Coyle, or the 10,000 hours of work thesis by Malcolm Gladwell in Outliers. Coyle's book in particular is the only explanation I've ever found to explain the breathtaking achievements of the Renaissance that happened in a very condensed period of time concentrated in pretty much one compact place, Florence, Italy.

I'd read the "10,000 of work thesis" had been debunked? Sounded good when I first read it in the book but does not seem to have held up under more scrutiny?

Vinny

I hadn't heard it had been debunked. I don't think it's an either/or proposition. The genetic lottery is definitely a factor. I'm sure there's some validity to natural selection and evolution over time too.
The Talent Code definitely hypothesizes that starting at a young age is a big factor, relating to myleination of neural pathways and neural plasticity which sadly, we lose over time. The Renaissance section theorizes that the guild system practiced in Florence at the time took in boys at the age of 7 and apprenticed them in the house of the trade master until the age of 17 so there you had both the youth aspect and a 10 year duration of constant practice happening.

Regarding genetics, they say Michael Phelps has a distorted body shape, upper body in relation to lower, arm length, hand size, all of which suit him perfectly to swimming.

Regarding evolution - there are these indigenous people in Thailand called the Moken people. They live a nomadic village life highly connected to the sea, unchanged for as far back as history records. Their children learn to swim before they can walk. Well when the Tsunami hit, they all took cover in the hills and not one was killed in the disaster. Supposedly they "sensed" the Tsunami coming, just like a lot of the sea life and animals did. In fact, I think they took cues from the animals that were acting abnormally. So you wonder if a millenia of connection to the sea has developed senses and traits that the rest of us did not develop.

[vnatale]

Another book, The Sports Gene, by David Epstein has a section on the 100 meters being dominated by athletes of West African descent and another about the Kalenjin distance runners from Kenya. The latter have a huge advantage in part because they tend to have slender lower legs which allows the "pendulum" to swing back and forth while requiring less energy.

There's an additional explanation. A much simpler one.
As someone who lived in Kenya as a child, I can speak from firsthand experience that most of the rural tribes run as a basic mode of transportation. Seriously, the idea of getting somewhere in a jeep or a car is not an option, so if you have to go somewhere 15 miles away you just run.
And you run, not walk because daylight is a factor so time is not always on your side. When you have been running routinely as a basic way of getting from point A to point B, and you've been doing so since childhood, you can imagine how very good and efficient at it one will become.
In the case of the Kalenjin, they have the added benefit of living at altitude above the escarpment, so they've lived and run all their lives in the conditions that Olympic athletes go to Colorado Springs to replicate.
So with all due respect to the author making the genetics argument, I'll lobby for at least one mark in the nurture column.

I won't deny some genetic predispositions and ethnic traits, but I happen to believe the much bigger factor is environment, opportunity and experience specific to the individual. I'd recommend The Talent Code by Daniel Coyle, or the 10,000 hours of work thesis by Malcolm Gladwell in Outliers. Coyle's book in particular is the only explanation I've ever found to explain the breathtaking achievements of the Renaissance that happened in a very condensed period of time concentrated in pretty much one compact place, Florence, Italy.

I'd read the "10,000 of work thesis" had been debunked? Sounded good when I first read it in the book but does not seem to have held up under more scrutiny?

Vinny

I hadn't heard it had been debunked. I don't think it's an either/or proposition. The genetic lottery is definitely a factor. I'm sure there's some validity to natural selection and evolution over time too.
The Talent Code definitely hypothesizes that starting at a young age is a big factor, relating to myleination of neural pathways and neural plasticity which sadly, we lose over time. The Renaissance section theorizes that the guild system practiced in Florence at the time took in boys at the age of 7 and apprenticed them in the house of the trade master until the age of 17 so there you had both the youth aspect and a 10 year duration of constant practice happening.

Regarding genetics, they say Michael Phelps has a distorted body shape, upper body in relation to lower, arm length, hand size, all of which suit him perfectly to swimming.

Regarding evolution - there are these indigenous people in Thailand called the Moken people. They live a nomadic village life highly connected to the sea, unchanged for as far back as history records. Their children learn to swim before they can walk. Well when the Tsunami hit, they all took cover in the hills and not one was killed in the disaster. Supposedly they "sensed" the Tsunami coming, just like a lot of the sea life and animals did. In fact, I think they took cues from the animals that were acting abnormally. So you wonder if a millenia of connection to the sea has developed senses and traits that the rest of us did not develop.

A quick Bing search bring me here:

The 10,000 Hour Rule Is Not Real

The biggest meta-analysis of research to date indicates that practice does not make perfect

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne ... 180952410/

Vinny

[glennds]

I'd read the "10,000 of work thesis" had been debunked? Sounded good when I first read it in the book but does not seem to have held up under more scrutiny?

Vinny

I hadn't heard it had been debunked. I don't think it's an either/or proposition. The genetic lottery is definitely a factor. I'm sure there's some validity to natural selection and evolution over time too.
The Talent Code definitely hypothesizes that starting at a young age is a big factor, relating to myleination of neural pathways and neural plasticity which sadly, we lose over time. The Renaissance section theorizes that the guild system practiced in Florence at the time took in boys at the age of 7 and apprenticed them in the house of the trade master until the age of 17 so there you had both the youth aspect and a 10 year duration of constant practice happening.

Regarding genetics, they say Michael Phelps has a distorted body shape, upper body in relation to lower, arm length, hand size, all of which suit him perfectly to swimming.

Regarding evolution - there are these indigenous people in Thailand called the Moken people. They live a nomadic village life highly connected to the sea, unchanged for as far back as history records. Their children learn to swim before they can walk. Well when the Tsunami hit, they all took cover in the hills and not one was killed in the disaster. Supposedly they "sensed" the Tsunami coming, just like a lot of the sea life and animals did. In fact, I think they took cues from the animals that were acting abnormally. So you wonder if a millenia of connection to the sea has developed senses and traits that the rest of us did not develop.

A quick Bing search bring me here:

The 10,000 Hour Rule Is Not Real

The biggest meta-analysis of research to date indicates that practice does not make perfect

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne ... 180952410/

Vinny

Interesting read, but honestly Vinny, I think they're taking it a bit literally.

I believe it's a combination of factors some of surely must include a degree of natural aptitude and predisposition. Daniel Coyle says it's not Practice makes Perfect. It's Perfect Practice makes Perfect, meaning the practice and 10,000 hours makes a huge difference if the practitioner is doing so with passion, even obsession versus just moderately engaged.

Jimmy Page says he found a discarded old guitar in the attic of a home his family moved into when he was about 9 years old and became fascinated with it to the point of literal obsession, playing guitar almost every waking moment until his parents had to pry it out of his hands.
So I agree with the article insofar as simply doing 10,000 hours of something isn't a guarantee. But I do believe that if someone sticks with a pursuit for an extended period of years with what I'll call passionate obsession, odds are they will become very good, and maybe great at the craft.

Or putting the idea in reverse, I find it harder to accept the idea of a born prodigy who can do something at a world class, unprecedented level first time out.

Another interesting angle is when two or more people collaborate and in doing so they benefit from not only synergy, but also a kind of competition that raises each's game more than if they worked individually. I often wonder if that was the case with Lennon and McCartney. And maybe the same competitive/collaborative element might have been present in the Renaissance craft guilds.
Interesting subject.

[Cortopassi]

University agrees that black students should be graded differently

This was a petition by students in early June, and I cannot find one search result for anything other than that time frame. Doesn’t seem like it actually was implemented.