This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Neothlithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. The Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neothlithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa (Brace et al., 2006).

The Ancient Egyptians have been described as having a “Negroid” body plan (Robins, 1983). In Zakrzewski (2003) the nature of their body plan was investigated by comparing the intermembral, brachial, and crural indices for these samples with the values obtained from the literature. Her findings suggest that Egyptians had the “super-Negroid” body plan described in Robins (1983)

Early southern pre-dynastic Egyptian crania show tropical African affinities, displaying chronometric trends that differ notably from the coastal northern African pattern. The various craniofacial patterns discernible in northern Africa are attributable to the agents of microevolution and migration.

Brace, L.C., Seguchi, N., Quintyn, C.B., Fox, S.C., Nelson, A.R., Manolis. S.K., Qifend P. (2006). The Questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European Craniofacial form.

Robins G, Shute (1983). Natural and Canonical Proportions in Ancient Egyptians, Gottinger Miszellen 61:17-25

Studies of Ancient Crania from Northern Africa. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 83:35-48 (1990)

Zakrzewski, S.R. (2003). Variation in Ancient Egyptian Stature and Body Proportions. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 121:219-229 (2003)

African American Information:

Black students face a number of educational disadvantages in their schools and classrooms when compared to white students. For example, Black students are typically taught by less qualified teachers than their white counterparts (e.g. non-certified teachers and teachers with limited experience) (Uhlenberg and Brown 2004). They are also concentrated in lower educational tracks, which have less qualified teachers, provide students with less challenging course work, and result in less learning (Hallinan 1994; Oakes 1990). Not only are black students given fewer opportunities to learn, teachers also hold lower expectations for them than for other students (Roscigno 1998; Ferguson 1998, 2004).

Moving beyond the classroom, the schools that black students attend are often less conducive to their educational success. For example, in Chicago, the vast majority of schools placed on academic probation as part of the district accountability efforts were majority African-American and low-income (Bryk 2003; Diamond and Spillane 2004). Moreover, while the mechanisms are complicated to sort out, school segregation (in particular the concentration of low-income African American students in certain schools) leads to lower outcomes for students attending these schools even after controlling for students’ prior achievement (Bankston, and Caldas 1996).

There are also differences that extend beyond schools and classrooms. Black children are more likely to live in poor households than white children. In addition, because of a history of social policy which limited African Americans’ access to the major avenues toward wealth accumulation (e.g. purchasing suburban homes), black families have far fewer assets than their white counterparts who earn the same incomes (Oliver and Shapiro, 1995).

Sociologist Dalton Conley reports that among people earning less than $15,000 per year, White families have median assets of $10,000 while black families have no assets. Among those earning $75,000 or more per year the median assets for White families are $308, 000 white the median Blacks is $114,600 (Conley, 1999). Parents with greater assets are free to use them to pay for tutors, purchase educational materials (e.g. computers), and pay for private schools and more expensive colleges. This means that even when looking at Black and White parents within the same social class we miss and important dynamic that contributes to material and educational inequality.

These differences in access to wealth are compounded by the fact that blacks regardless of social class, are likely to live in segregated neighborhoods (Pattillo, 2005). The result of this segregation is that blacks often pay more for poorer housing, receive less appreciation on their property, live further from employment opportunities, and attend more segregated schools (Bonilla-Silva 2001). Sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva has documented the racial cost of being African American by detailing its negative consequences for income and earning, occupational mobility, labor market participation, home loan approvals, various interacts with legal system (including exploding rates of incarceration), and every day forms of racial discrimination (Ibid). Finally, moving beyond the family, African Americans must navigate more difficult neighborhoods, even when they are middles-class (Pattillo-McCoy 1999; Pattillo 2005), and are far more likely to live in or near areas with high poverty rates which often have higher crime rates, poorer city services, and less effective schools.

There are also differences in parental education levels, as shown by the tabulation of “mother’s years of Schooling, while 77 percent of whites report that their mothers have either a 4-year college degree (41percent) or a graduate degree (36 percent). Black mothers have more years of schooling then Hispanics, but less than Asian, while Asians have less than Whites. Parental education levels for black and Hispanics in these districts are quite high compared even to the national average for whites. Still, there are gaps inside the district because the education levels among white and Asian residents are so very high.

In addition, black and Hispanic students have more siblings. Half of blacks, but 19 percent of whites, 32 percent of Asians, 40 percent of Hispanics and 41 percent mixed-race students have 3 or more siblings. Assuming that most siblings live in the same household, more siblings mean more sharing of scarce resources such as the family computer(s) and parental attention. White households have the fewest children and the most computers, while Hispanic have more children and the fewest computers. Similarly, white youth report more books in their homes than other groups. Hispanic students report the fewest books, but black, Asian and mixed students report substantially fewer than whites.

The data for this study lack financial status measures such as wealth, income or free-and reduced lunch status. The analysis here uses four standardized SES categories. Only two percent of blacks have SES characteristics in the highest SES category, while only three percent of whites have characteristics in the lowest category. Seventy-nine percent of blacks, seventy-eight percent of Hispanics, fifty-six percent of mixed students, forty-six percent of Asians and only twenty-eight percent of whites are in the lowest and lower-middle class categories combined.

The “prototypical student” defined by a given SES profile has a different predicted achievement level, depending on race/ethnicity. This is true for each of our three achievement variables (GPA, comprehension of lessons and understanding of reading). The lowest SES level shows the least race/ethnic achievement disparity 21. For this profile, the predicted black-white gap in GPA is only 0.14 GPA points and the predicted GPA and the predicted GPA for Hispanics is actually 0.09 points higher than for whites. Similarly, the other two achievements measures do not show any clear tendency for whites to rank higher than other groups. Generally, these findings show only small race/ethnic achievement gaps in MSAN districts among students with the lowest SES profile.

However, at the highest SES level, the disparity among groups is much greater. Whites rank highest and blacks lowest, with sizable gaps between them. The predicted GPA gap at the highest SES level is a fifth of a GPA point between whites and mixed-race students, one-third of a point between whites and Hispanics and a full half point between whites and blacks. The rank order or predicted achievement among groups is the same for the two skill measures.

Pattillo, Mary 2005. “Black Middle-Class Neighborhoods.” Annual Review of Sociology.

Pattillo-McCoy, Mary (1999). Black Picket Fences: Privilege and Peril Among Black Middle Class. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo (2001). White Supremacy and Racism in the Post-Civil Rights Era. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Conley, Dalton. 1999. Being Black, Living in Red: Race Wealth and Social Policy in America. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Oliver, Melvin and Thomas Shapiro. 1995. Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality. New York: Routledge

Diamond, John B. & James P. Spillane (2004). High Stakes Accountability in Urban Elementary Schools: Challenging or Reproducing Inequality?” Teachers College Record, Special Issue on Testing, Teaching, and Learning. 106 (6):1140-1171.

Bankston, Carl. And Stephen J. Caldas (1996). “Majority African American Schools and Social Injustice: the Influence of De facto Segregation on Academic Achievement”. Social Forces. 75:535-555.

Roscigno, Vincent, J. 1998. “Race and the Production of Educational Disadvantage.” Social Forces. 76:1033-60.

Ferguson, F.F. (2002). What Doesn’t Meet the Eye: Understanding and Addressing Racial Disparities in High-Achieving Suburban Schools. Wiener Center for Social Policy John F. Kennedy of Government, Harvard University. Oct 21, 2002

${\displaystyle Insertformulahere}$

A traditionalist may start with the following type of syllogism (Herrnstein, 1973, pp. 197-198; Herrnstein & Murray, 1994, p. 105): – If differences in mental abilities are inherited, and – If success requires those abilities, and – If earning and prestige depend on success, – Then social standing (which reflects earning and prestige) will be based to some extent on inherited differences among people.

African Immigrants:

In an analysis of Census Bureau data by the Journal of Blacks in higher education (and several other sources using similar data), African immigrants to the United States were found more likely to be college educated than any other immigrant group. African immigrants to the U.S. are also more highly educated than any other native-born ethnic group including white Americans (Logan & Deane, 2003; Dixon, 2006; Journal of Blacks in higher education, 1999-2000; Onwudiwe, 2006; Otiso and Smith, 2005; The Economist, 1996: Dodoo, 1997). Some 48.9 percent of all African immigrants hold a college diploma. This is slightly more than the percentage of Asian immigrants to the U.S., nearly double the rate of native-born white Americans, and nearly four times the rate of native-born African Americans (The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 26 (Winter, 1999-2000), pp. 60-61).

In 1997, 19.4 percent of all adult African immigrants in the United States held a graduate degree, compared to 8.1 percent of adult whites and 3.8 percent of adult blacks in the United States, respectively (The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 26 (Winter, 1999-2000), pp. 60-61). This information suggests that America has an equally large achievement gap between whites and African/Asian immigrants as they do between white and black Americans.

The Canadian sociological literature on immigrants also paints a similar picture, however, less stark. All visible-minority immigrant groups whether from the Caribbean or India do better academically than their native born (non-visible) cohorts, on average. Both foreign-born and Canadian-born blacks have graduation rates that exceed those of other Canadians. Similar patters of educational over-achievements are reached with years of schooling and with data from the 1994 Statistics Canada survey. (Guppy and Davies, 1998; Boyd, 2002).

In the UK, 1988, the Commission for Racial Equality conducted an investigation on the admissions practices of St. George's, and other medical colleges, who set aside a certain number of places for minority students. This informal quota system reflected the percentage of minorities in the general population. However, minority students with Chinese, Indian, or black African heritage had higher academic qualifications for university admission than did whites (Blacks in Britain from the West Indies had far lower academic credentials than did whites). In fact, blacks with African origins over the age of 30 had the highest educational qualifications of any ethnic group in the British Isles. Thus, the evidence pointed to the fact that minority quotas for University admissions were actually working against students from these ethnic groups who were on average more qualified for higher education than their white peers (Cross, 1994).

According to the report The State of Working Britain, published by the Centre for Economic Performance at the highly regarded London School of Economics, 21 % of adult blacks in Britain with African origins have a university degree. Only 14 percent of adult white Britons are college educated.

Of the African-born population in the United States age 25 and older 86.4% reported having a high school degree or higher, compared with 78. 9% of Asian born immigrants and 76.5% of European born immigrants, respectively. These figures contrast with 61.8% percent of the total foreign-born population. Immigrants groups in general tend to have higher high school graduation rates than the native-born general American population.

Those Africans born from Zimbabwe (96.7 percent), Botswana (95.5 percent), and Malawi (95 percent) were the most likely to report having a high school degree or higher. Those born in Cape Verde (44.8 percent), Mauritania (60.8 percent), and Somalia (63.3 percent) were the least likely to report having completed a high school education (Dixon, D., 2006)..

Of the European born those born in Bulgaria (92.6 percent), Switzerland (90.5 percent), and Ireland (90.4 percent) were the most likely to report having a high school degree or higher. Those born in Portugal (42.9 percent), Italy (53.7 percent), and Greece (59.9 percent) were the least likely to report having completed a high school education (Dixon, D., 2006).

Of the Asian born Mongolia (94.8 percent), Kuwait (94.7 percent), the United Arab Emirates (94.5 percent), and Qatar (94.3 percent) were most likely to report having a high school degree or higher. Those born in Laos (48.1 percent), Cambodia (48.4 percent), and Yemen (49.9 percent) were the least likely to report having completed a high school education (Dixon, D., 2006).. (Most people think the Asian group includes Orientals exclusively, this is not true)

Dodoo (1997) finds that while African immigrants are indeed the most educated of black groups in the U.S., he finds a negative return on African immigrants’ education attainment for diplomas obtained outside the United States. However, the same does not hold true for Caribbean immigrants. Although he finds that among blacks – native and immigrants – Africans earn the most, when earning-related endowments such as educational attainments are included in the analysis, this expected African advantage disappears (Dodoo, 1997).

Distortion and Group Differences:

In the United States researchers often muddle group difference data by aggregating divergent geographical, historical, cultural and ethic groups into crude and arbitrary categories with whom they then compare with the general population. This in practice misleads unwary readers into the false belief that those aggregated group mean scores objectively characterize the individual groups who have contributed to the overall figures. Take for example: Only 5.3 percent of Central American immigrants have earned a bachelor’s degree, and only 19.5% percent have graduated from high school (Davy, M. 2006). This difference is often coupled with data relating to South American immigrants who, according to the Migration Policy Institute (Dixon, D., and Gelatt J., 2006) 23.4 percent had a bachelor’s degree or higher and 74.3 percent reported having a high school degree. These skewed grouping methods; the Hispanic category in this case, creates the false impression in the minds of readers that South American immigrants are poor students based on the fact that they speak Spanish or Portuguese, alone.

The African born and Employment:

The African born are concentrated in management or professional and sales or office-related occupations. Of the employed population age 16 and older in the civilian labor force, the African born were much more likely than the foreign born in general to work in management and professional occupations as well as sales and office occupations. Additionally, the African born were less likely to work in service, production, transportation, material moving, construction, and maintenance occupations than the foreign born in general.

Ethiopians, Sudanese and Somalis, who mostly immigrate as refugees, do not do as well as their counterparts from English speaking African countries such as Nigeria, Egypt and Kenya. The reason was because most people from the three countries immigrate to the United States as refugees and asylum seekers, following crises in their home countries (Otiso and Smith, 2005).

Source Materials:

African Immigrants in the United States are the Nation's Most Highly Educated Group. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 26 (Winter, 1999-2000), pp. 60-61doi:10.2307/2999156

African-Born Blacks in the United Kingdom Are Far More Likely than Whites to Hold a College Degree. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 34 (Winter, 2001-2002), pp. 29-31 doi:10.2307/3134095

African-Born U.S. Residents are the Most Highly Educated Group in American Society The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 13 (Autumn, 1996), pp. 33-34 doi:10.2307/2963153

Boyd, M. (2002). Educational Attainments of Immigrant Offspring: Success or Segmented Assimlation?

Cross, T. (1994). Black Africans Now the Most Educated Group in British Society. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 3 (spring, 1994), pp.92-93

Davy, M. (2006). The Central American Foreign Born in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. April 2006

Dixon, D. (2006). Characteristics of the European Born in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. February, 2005

Dixon, D. (2006). Characteristics of the African Born in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. January, 2006

Dixon, D. (2006). Characteristics of the Asian Born in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. April 2006 Dodoo, F. N-A (1997). Assimilation differences among Africans in America. Social Forces 76: 527-46

Dodoo, F. N-A (1997). Assimilation differences among Africans in America. Social Forces 76: 527-46

Gelatt, J. and Dixon, D. (2006). Detailed Characteristics of the Caribbean Born in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. July 2006.

Gelatt, J. and Dixon, D. (2006). Detailed Characteristics of the South American Born in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. May 2006.

Guppy, Neil and Scott Davies (1998). Education in Canada: Recent Trends and Future Challenges. Ottawa: Statistics Canada and the Minister of Industry.

Kefa M. Otiso and Bruce W. Smith, (2005). “Immigration and Economic Restructuring in Ohio’s Cities, 1940-2000”, Ohio Journal of Science, 105 (5): 133-137 December 2005

Logan, J.R, Deane, G (2003). “Black Diversity in Metropolitan America.” Lewis Mumford Center for Comparative Urban Regional Research University Albany

Onwudiwe, E. (2006). “Reflections on African Brain Gain Movement.”

The Economist (1996). 339 (7965): 27-28

In Educational Attainment, Black Immigrants to the United States Outperform Native-Born White and Black Americans. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education © 2003 CH II Publishers

EVANSTON, Ill. -- Contrary to "The Bell Curve" findings, a new study by researchers at Columbia and Northwestern Universities suggests that poverty and early learning opportunities -- not race -- account for the gap in IQ scores between blacks and whites.

Adjustments for socioeconomic conditions almost completely eliminate differences in IQ scores between black and white children, according to the study's co-investigators. They include Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Pamela Klebanov of Columbia's Teachers College, and Greg Duncan of the Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research at Northwestern University.

As in many other studies, the black children in the study had IQ scores a full 15 points lower than their white counterparts. Poverty alone, the researchers found, accounted for 52 percent of that difference, cutting it to 7 points. Controlling for the children's home environment reduced the difference by another 28 percent, to a statistically insignificant 3 points -- in essence, eliminating the gap altogether.

I do not see why Poverty should be the whole reason for the gap. First of all, can you name any evidence that suggests that other factors DO NOT effect the gap? Fusion7 21:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You're requiring proof of absence, which is next to impossible to give. The results above seem to indicate that poverty is the prime factor driving the gap. However, a full reference would be nice.-- Ramdrake 21:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There are a myriad of statistical tests that can confirm omitted variable bias. Asking for proof of absence is a perfectly valid request.--DrOlmifon 21:16 27 September 2007 (CST)

Can you name a few of those tests? They will make my life easier :) Brusegadi 03:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Inuits are poorer than African-Americans but they have higher IQ scores. MoritzB 02:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

By what definition of poverty. Muntuwandi 03:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

According too a more recent study performed by the esteemed geneticist Dr. Watson, there are indeed differences in races and cognitive ability. This makes you stupid poverty argument null and void. Also, Sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, and Asia all had even playing fields in the beginnings of humanity. Only SUb-Sahan Africa lacked any great civilizations, creating of written language etc..... As the great Dr. Watson says, we treat Africans as if they are as intelligent collectively and mayby thats why all of our efforts to help them fail terribly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.101.142 ( talk) 00:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Where skin color is concerned, all the northern populations of the Old World are lighter than the long-term inhabitants near the equator. Although Europeans and Chinese are obviously different, in skin color they are closer to each other than either is to equatorial Africans. But if we test the distribution of the widely known ABO blood-group system, then Europeans and Africans are closer to each other than either is to Chinese.

Then if we take that scourge sickle-cell anemia, so often thought of as an African disease, we discover that, while it does reach high frequencies in some parts of sub-Saharan Africa, it did not originate there. Its distribution includes southern Italy, the eastern Mediterranean, parts of the Middle East, and over into India. In fact, it represents a kind of adaptation that aids survival in the face of a particular kind of malaria, and wherever that malaria is a prominent threat, sickle-cell anemia tends to occur in higher frequencies. It would appear that the gene that controls that trait was introduced to sub-Saharan Africa by traders from those parts of the Middle East where it had arisen in conjunction with the conditions created by the early development of agriculture. Every time we plot the distribution of a trait possessing a survival value that is greater under some circumstances than under others, it will have a different pattern of geographical variation, and no two such patterns will coincide. Nose form, tooth size, relative arm and leg length, and a whole series of other traits are distributed each in accordance with its particular controlling selective force. The gradient of the distribution of each is called a "cline" and those clines are completely independent of one another. This is what lies behind the aphorism, "There are no races, there are only clines." Yes, we can recognize people from a given area. What we are seeing, however, is a pattern of features derived from common ancestry in the area in question, and these are largely without different survival value. To the extent that the people in a given region look more like one another than they look like people from other regions, this can be regarded as "family resemblance writ large." And as we have seen, each region grades without break into the one next door. There is nothing wrong with using geographic labels to designate people. Major continental terms are just fine, and sub-regional refinements such as Western European, Eastern African, Southeast Asian, and so forth carry no unintentional baggage. In contrast, terms such as "Negroid," "Caucasoid," and "Mongoloid" create more problems than they solve. Those very terms reflect a mix of narrow regional, specific ethnic, and descriptive physical components with an assumption that such separate dimensions have some kind of common tie. Biologically, such terms are worse than useless. Their continued use, then, is in social situations where people think they have some meaning. America and the race concept ________________________________________ The role played by America is particularly important in generating and perpetuating the concept of "race." The human inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere largely derive from three very separate regions of the world—Northeast Asia, Northwest Europe, and Western Africa—and none of them has been in the New World long enough to have been shaped by their experiences in the manner of those long-term residents in the various separate regions of the Old World.

It was the American experience of those three separate population components facing one another on a daily basis under conditions of manifest and enforced inequality that created the concept in the first place and endowed it with the assumption that those perceived "races" had very different sets of capabilities. Those thoughts are very influential and have become enshrined in laws and regulations. This is why I can conclude that, while the word "race" has no coherent biological meaning, its continued grip on the public mind is in fact a manifestation of the power of the historical continuity of the American social structure, which is assumed by all to be essentially "correct."

Finally, because of America's enormous influence on the international scene, ideas generated by the idiosyncrasies of American history have gained currency in ways that transcend American intent or control. One of those ideas is the concept of "race," which we have exported to the rest of the world without any realization that this is what we were doing. The adoption of the biologically indefensible American concept of "race" by an admiring world has to be the ultimate manifestation of political correctness.

Dr. C. Loring Brace is professor anthropology and curator of biological anthropology at the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Virtually none of the sources from the page have been subject to peer-review.

I have moved here the entire IQ and evolutionary history for discussion (both MoritzB's and Muntuwandi's contributions), as I feel it has significant problems which need to be addressed first:

date

According to the Out of Africa theory, one or more subgroups of early modern humans left Africa between 60,000 and 50,000 years ago to become the ancestors of the non-African populations. Population-level differences in climate-selected traits such as skin color evolved in this time period. A similar time scale applies to the evolution of possible cognitive differences between human populations.[67]

That's not so bad

Muntuwandi vandalized that sentence. According to Meisenberg's article the ancestors of non-African populations left Africa 100 000 - 120 0000 years ago.

MoritzB 17:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That is but one of many, many possible references. They don't all agree, and we shouldn't mislead the reader in thinking all estimates of this migration agree.-- Ramdrake 19:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem was that Muntuwandi replaced the time Meisenberg provided with his own, unsourced opinion but the original reference stayed. Thus, he misled the readers of Meisenberg's views. The multiregional hypothesis is the other viewpoint which could be included. It would give more support to the genetic hypothesis as Negroids and Caucasids would have a longer separate evolutionary history. A lengthier discussion of human evolution is hardly in the scope of this article.

MoritzB 21:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Another issue is that estimates of when the first populations of humans left Africa do vary. Meisenstein's estimate is but one, and isn't backed by the most recent evidence (which suggests that the first human populations out of Africa are considerably more recent than what was thought).-- Ramdrake 21:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Alternative viewpoints of the time can be presented but they do not challenge Meisenberg's point that there has been sufficient time for the creation of large genotypic differences in intelligence between human populations. Ashkenazi Intelligence has an evolutionary history of barely a millennium.

MoritzB 22:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The dates you are proposing are way off the consensus, if this is out of Africa, currently the genetic data converges on 56,000 2006 study. the latest study, from last week suggests 55,000 years ago. Meisenberg is out of the loop hence his dates and all informations that is connected with those dates are obsolete. Muntuwandi 22:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

IQ and evolutionary history, selection for intelligence

Human populations may have equal genotypic intelligence only if high intelligence has been equally favored by natural selection in all populations. Before the advent of modern contraception, usually the wealthy had higher fertility and lower mortality than the poor. In modern societies people with low intelligence usually have more children. In the late 20th century United States, unequal reproductive rates favoring the less intelligent would have lowered the IQ of the population by anywhere between 0.35 and 0.8 points per generation had the environment remained unchanged over time. To create an IQ difference of, say, 15 points between two populations in 100,000 years, natural selection would have to drive their IQs apart by only 0.004 points every generation – about 1% of the selective pressure in late 20th-century America.[68]

Here, the racialist POV is presented as mainstream, and either needs to be much more tightly attributed, or be removed as OR.

All information in the paragraph is properly sourced. (See the reference to Meisenberg's article.)

MoritzB 17:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It is 1)sourced to a single POV; there are many others 2)The main text should at least say something like "According to Meisenberg", and then present alternate viewpoints.-- Ramdrake 19:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. And Meisenberg's POV is not "racialist", it is population genetical.

MoritzB 21:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You're still not addressing the issue. Many researchers disagree with this particular viewpoint.-- Ramdrake 21:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Who? What objections do they make?

MoritzB 22:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

MoritzB judging by your edits you are over reliant on information from the bell curve. I hope you do not sleep with the book under your pillow. The biggest problem with this analysis is the flynn effect . Everywhere IQ is rising, regardless of income status of ones ancestors or their intelligence. Muntuwandi 22:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Flynn effect only makes it more difficult to observe the evolutionary trends in intelligence in modern societies but does not challenge the basic premise that parents with high genotypic intelligence have intelligent children compared to average people.

MoritzB 00:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, very few researchers agree with that (well the hereditarians, of course, and possibly not even all of them but few others). Please understand that, however you may think, the hereditarian position is demonstrably the minority position in this debate (as per, for example, the APA statement on The Bell Curve: Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns by Ulric Neisser), and should be presented as such.-- Ramdrake 00:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. You are confusing the hereditarian position on racial differences with the hereditarian position on individual differences. According to the APA consensus statement

Across the ordinary range of environments in modern Western societies, a sizable part of the variation in intelligence test scores is associated with genetic differences among individuals.

The effect of genetics has been conclusively proven and there is no relevant controversy about this in the academic community. The hereditarian hypothesis has been accepted as an explanation to individual differences in IQ.

MoritzB 02:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph we're discussing above talks about IQ differences between populations. You're talking about IQ differences between individuals. Evidence so far shows a genetic contribution to IQ differences between individuals (the jury's still out as to exactly how much). The APA statement is clear about that. The APA statement is also clear about the fact that a genetic contribution to IQ differences between populations (in this case the B-W IQ gap) is not supported by the evidence. Please don't conflate the two.-- Ramdrake 02:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Was there some misunderstanding? I was very clearly talking about individual differences when I said that "parents with high genotypic intelligence have intelligent children compared to average people". Meisenberg simply says that if there are IQ-based differences in fertility the average IQ of a population changes and this view is backed by the APA consensus statement.

MoritzB 02:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with Meisenberg's analysis is once again the dates. He uses 100,000 years as a reference to drive IQ by 15pts when consensus for out of Africa is 55,000 years ago. He misuses Cavalli Sforza's study. To state that the IQ difference between two of the most divergent populations should be 12 points in line with the black white gap. But that is overly simplistic

Not relevant. Meisenberg writes: "to create an IQ difference of 15 points between two populations in 100,000 years, natural selection would have to drive their IQs apart by only 0.004 points every generation – about 1% of the selective pressure in late 20th-century America." If the migration happened 55 000 years ago different evolutionary pressures should drive the IQs of the populations apart only about 0.008 points per generation - about 2% of the selective pressure in late 20th-century America. The point is that the amount is very small.

MoritzB 02:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

According to Cavalli-Sforza'a study on classic polymorphisms the most genetically divergent populations are Africans and Oceanians at 24.7%. He argues that if evolution was independent between all the races then the genetic distance between Africans and all other races should be the same. However the shortest genetic distance from Africa is to Europe at 16.6%. This could not have occurred if evolution was independent. In short Europeans have more recent African admixture than any other population. Consequently if genes control IQ. By random drift we would expect the largest gap between Africa and Oceania, and all other gaps to be intermediate. Muntuwandi 02:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You simply do not understand the concept of genetic drift. It does not mean that the populations which are genetically most different should necessarily have the largest differences in a single trait.

MoritzB 02:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Jensen’s value of 14% for the influence of race is close to the value for racial + ethnic ariation in Cavalli-Sforza’s calculation. If IQ genes float as randomly in the gene pool as Cavalli-Sforza’s DNA variations, then the difference in "genotypic" intelligence between the most divergent human populations should be about as great as the measured difference between black and white children in California: about 12 IQ points.

He is implying that the most divergent human populations are blacks and whites which is not the case. It is blacks and Oceanians Muntuwandi 03:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the racial + ethnic variation in Cavalli-Sforza's calcution refers to the expected difference between the most divergent human populations in a given attribute (such as IQ). His measurements of the genetical distance between different human populations are an unrelated issue.

MoritzB 03:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

that is the flaw in meisenberg's argument. We already know the most genetically divergent population from africa is australasia. All other populations are intermediate in gene frequencies. Furthermore we know that intelligence is under the influence of several genes because IQ scores are continuous with no gaps or jumps. Meisenberg's argument is entirely speculative because those genes for intelligence have not been identified.

Heritability is controversial subject because it does not conclusively prove the presence of genes. Heritability can even be influenced by the environment. fruit flies grown at a temperature 20 degrees live longer than Genetically identical flies grown at 25 degrees. This longevity can be passed down to the third generation even if the future generations are grown at different temperatures. Longevity is increased without any change in the genotype. The author of the The Gene Illusion believes that genes for major psychological traits will never be found. Current consensus is that genes play a role in behavioural traits but they need input from the environment to be expressed and the environment may trigger different effects in the same gene. This is most likely why the search for the intelligence gene has turned up zilch. Muntuwandi 04:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The question is whether some populations may have genetic traits which cause them to have higher average IQs in typical Western societies. Contrary to your claims, genes affecting IQ have been identified and it is expected that more of them will be known in the future.

MoritzB 05:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

IQ and evolutionary history, ice age theory

According to Richard Lynn the exposure to one recent ice around 28,000-10,000 years ago, created evolutionary pressures which increased the intelligence of Europeans and East Asians significantly above other world populations. [69][70]Others also question that if ice ages created evolutionary pressures, then all peoples living in the arctic should exhibit high IQs such as Native Americans or the the Inuit. Furthermore it should be noted that Europeans were hunter gatherers just like the rest of the world until farmers from the middle east brought agriculture 11,000 years ago. According to Diamond, this is the one single event that led to the future industrialization of Europe. [71]. In addition Cavalli sforza indicates that Europeans have been miscegenating with Africans at several points in the last 30,000 years to the extent that European skeletal structure is closest to Africans than any other group[72]. The is because the genetic distance between Europe and Africa is the least divergent when any other population is compaired to Africa[73].

Here, both viewpoints should be presented, even though they might need to be slightly rephrased. Some of the phrases are a bit too far reaching and seem out of scope ("According to Diamond...").

Muntuwandi vandalized this paragraph, too.

MoritzB 17:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You're not addressing my point. Your version presents only one viewpoint, thus is inappropriate.-- Ramdrake 19:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I will add Loring Brace's viewpoint.

MoritzB 21:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with including Cavalli-Sforza's viewpoint?-- Ramdrake 21:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Because that "viewpoint" was just false information by Muntuwandi. Cavalli-Sforza wasn't even mentioned in the reference he dishonestly provided.

MoritzB 22:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Cavalli-Sforza shows that the European population is the most genetically mixed-up on earth, being a mix of genes from Asia and Africa. He uses this to poke fun at Arthur de Gobineau, the 19th-century French author of the An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races, which helped inspire German racism. De Gobineau, he says, "would die of rage and shame at this suggestion since he believed that Europeans . . . were the most genetically pure race, the most intellectually gifted and the least weakened by racial mixing." [1] Muntuwandi 22:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The reference you cited was this: http://www.nerc.ac.uk/publications/planetearth/2006/summer/sum06-skeleton.pdf

Don't mislead readers with false citations.

Also, according to WP:RSEX peer-reviewed scientific studies are appropriate sources, not newspaper articles.

MoritzB 22:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

this is a peer reviewed study

LOL, don't you even know what is a peer-reviewed study? That is just an article published in a magazine and its content lends no support to your claims.

MoritzB 23:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a reference from the Science Daily based on an article published in Nature, or are you disputing the fact that Nature is a properly peer-reviewed journal?-- Ramdrake 00:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No, Muntuwandi just used "Science Daily" as an example saying that "this is a peer-reviewed journal". Obviously, he doesn't know what a peer-reviewed journal is. I found that funny.

MoritzB 00:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

if you want to dot the i's and cross the T's, I said peer reviewed "study" not "journal". In any case that is inconsequential. The fact is it is a reliable source. And even if not there are hundreds of other studies that converge at the same dates. Muntuwandi 00:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it is an article in a science magazine, not a peer-reviewed study. It may be a reliable source, though. The problem is that you choose to lie. You claim that "when the first modern humans migrated to Europe over 40,000 years ago they had long limbs and narrow bodies like most East African populations today." Maybe but the Science Daily article doesn't say so. Why do you provide false sources?

MoritzB 00:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

When the first modern humans migrated to Europe over 40,000 years ago they had long limbs and narrow bodies like most East African populations today. http://www.nerc.ac.uk/publications/planetearth/2006/summer/sum06-skeleton.pdf

MoritzB, why are you so angry? lighten up, Muntuwandi 03:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

MoritzB, please be aware that you're now seriously in breach of: WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Please rectify, or risk being blocked.-- Ramdrake 01:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this the old Sticks&Stones strategy?

"If you're being wiped out with evidence and reasoning you cannot refute, you can always take refuge in complaining about the language being used by your adversaries. For example, if they say, "I've already explained that it takes less gas to kill people than lice, and therefore there are fewer cyanide residues remaining on the gas chamber walls than on the delousing chamber walls, you moron," you can respond by complaining about their use of the word "moron."

You can actually evade quite a bit of serious discussion by spending a lot of time condescendingly lecturing the newsgroup about their use of trashy language. But this approach doesn't work very well in building credibility. You may view yourself as an arbiter of social discourse but you'll actually come off like a den-mother scurrying around excoriating the little Cub Scouts to behave themselves."

Considering all the cheap accusations of trolling and "racism" hurled against me I don't think you can complain about civility. Besides, Muntuwandi should explain why he fabricates information and backs his opinions with unrelated sources.

MoritzB 01:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

IQ and evolutionary history, writing

Skills that require IQ require writing. But writing was only invented 5000 years ago. During much of this period only a handful of people had the privilege of learning to read or write. Mandatory education is a recent requirement, only a few centuries old. Hence scientists question whether the evolution IQ could have been boosted by ice ages that took place 70000 years ago or 20,000 years ago only to become useful 5,000 years ago[74]. Hence other suggest that the intellect and skills that took man to the moon had already evolved in homo sapiens prior to their dispersal from Africa 50,000 years ago[75]. As evidence Jared Diamond states that people who were recently living in the stone age in New Guinea have now mastered western technology though never having had access to western technology in the 40,000 years of their existence in New Guinea.

I would suggest this paragraph be entirely rephrased. I can't quite describe it, but something sounds wrong with it.

It should be removed.

Some interesting counter-points are made in this paragraph. It should be kept but rephrased if the section is to be kept. Again, we cannot present a single researcher's POV as representative of the opinion of the entire scientific community.-- Ramdrake 19:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I will add a counter-point by Loring Brace.

MoritzB 21:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure Loring brace is an appropriate counterpoint here.-- Ramdrake 21:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Other supporters of environmental hypothesis say the same thing, to my knowledge.

MoritzB 22:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Measurements of genetic diversity by the population geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza indicate that the difference in “genotypic” intelligence between the most divergent human populations caused by random genetic drift should be about 12 IQ points. [76]

I'm sorry, but Cavalli-Sforza never said anything about genetic differences leading to diverging IQ levels. This is someone else's disputed conclusion (Jensen's) presented as Cavalli-Sforza's.-- Ramdrake 10:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It is Prof. Meisenberg's conclusion of Cavalli-Sforza's measurements as the reference indicates.

MoritzB 17:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, then the text should say so. The reader should be able to get the gist of the whole point without having to wade through the references.-- Ramdrake 19:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It does now. And I am not aware that this view is "disputed". As IQ is a partially genetically inherited trait it is subject to genetic drift like any other trait.

MoritzB 21:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Genetic drift remains to be demonstrated on intelligence. We can't let the article mislead readers into thinking it's a given.-- Ramdrake 21:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

All genetical traits are subject to genetic drift and require no particular demonstration.

MoritzB 22:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The first problem with MoritzB's version is that it pushes back the occupation of Europe from africa to 120,000 years. Though it seem each study publishes a new date the latest date for the first sustained human presence outside Africa is 50,000-60,000 [2]. So Lyn's assertion that European population went through two ice ages, one at 70,000 years is inconsistent with the consensus for the new dates.

Lyns assertion is that evolutionary pressures from the ice ages contributed to high IQs. However Diamond criticizes this view. he says

"Another one, popular with inhabitants of northern Europe, invokes the supposed stimulatory effects of their homeland's cold climate and the inhibitory effects of hot, humid, tropical climates on human creativity and energy. Perhaps the seasonally variable climate at high latitudes poses more diverse challenges than does a seasonally constant tropical climate. Perhaps cold climates require one to be more technologically inventive to survive, because one must build a warm home and make warm clothing, whereas one can survive in the tropics with simpler housing and no clothing.

Although formerly popular, this type of explanation, too, fails to survive scrutiny.The peoples of Northern Europe contributed nothing of fundamental importance to Eurasian civilization until the last thousand years; they simply had the good luck to live at a geographic location where they were likely to receive advances (such as agriculture, wheels, writing, and metallurgy) developed in warmer parts of Eurasia. In the New World the cold regions at high latitude were even more of a human backwater. The sole Native American societies to develop writing arose in Mexico south of the Tropic of Cancer; the oldest New World pottery comes from near the equator in tropical South America; and the New World society generally considered the most advanced in art, astronomy, and other respects was the Classic Maya society of the tropical Yucatan and Guatemala in the first millennium A.D. guns germs etc Muntuwandi 12:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The second problem with the ice age hypothesis is that the Last glacial maximum took place 20,000. The first agriculture pops up in the Near east 11,000 years ago. Trade in agriculture facilitates the invention of writing 5,000 years ago in the Near east. This is the first evidence of skills that require g. So the question is if ice ages create evolutionary pressures for intelligence, then why did the people in the Near east invent writing 5,000 years ago instead of those living in Northern Europe right next to the glaciers. Muntuwandi 13:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Not trying to defend anything here, but of course WP is about verifiability, not truth. I'm sure there are scientists which we can quote that have raised these objections before. Thus we can present point and counter-point to Lynn's arguments to make the section more balanced.-- Ramdrake 13:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi is ignorant of the ancient population migrations and his opinions have no validity. Scientific objections to Lynn's arguments can be included, of course.

MoritzB 17:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

These are not my opinions they are Jared Diamond's opinions. So maybe you are saying that Diamond is ignorant of ancient population migrations. Maybe you know better than diamond about these things. Muntuwandi 20:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you don't understand what Diamond writes and think that it somehow relates to the topic.

MoritzB 21:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Diamond is unequivocally disputing the hypothesis that the ice ages make people more intelligent. Muntuwandi 22:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. He says that warmer climates are better suited building civilizations. Diamond says nothing of the effect of cold climate on evolutionary pressures.

MoritzB 23:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Better suited than what? Colder climates, of course. If warmer climates are better suited at building civilizations, it flows that colder climates (such as ice ages) are less suited for this purpose. It's the old "half-full/hafl-empty" false dichotomy.-- Ramdrake 00:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Diamond says that that the earliest civilizations arose in the Middle East because of the ideal geography and climate of the region. Does this have anything to do with human evolution or intelligence? No. Diamond does not dispute or challenge Lynn's hypothesis. He does not even talk about it. The development of civilization and evolution of intelligence are different issues. Inuits score 6 points higher on Raven's matrices than Englismen but they didn't build a higher civilization largely because of the unsuitability of arctic climates.

MoritzB 00:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

One would expect that, if anything, civilization would arise first where people are most intelligent, if such a place exists, or that at least that place "where people are more intelligent" be among the earlier civilizations. That you insist that the two (intelligence and early civilization) are to be considered as totally unrelated goes counter to logic and likely constitutes OR (at least, I've never seen any researcher express this kind of idea).-- Ramdrake 01:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That very idea has been expressed by Diamond. Also, I haven't said that intelligence and early civilization are unrelated. Caucasians and Orientals rather than Africans developed advantaged civilizations because of genetic reasons explained by Lynn and Vanhanen.

Arctic regions didn't have capacity to support large populations and consequently advantaged societies did not develop in them.

MoritzB 01:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

From an anthropological perspective, Africans did develop advanced civilizations eg the Nok. Muntuwandi 03:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the Afrocentrists. However, the purpose of this article and the section in question is not to discuss the relative achievements of the races.

MoritzB 23:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, several of the earliest civilizations were in fact not built by Caucasoids: besides the Nok civilisation, the Egyptians were clearly a mixed race, the Kushites were black (Nubians), also, all the civilizations of Central America were built by non-Caucasoids; there are many other examples.-- Ramdrake 00:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The Sumerian civilization was built by "whites" (using the word in the strictest sense excluding Semites) and the civilizations of Indus Valley and Ancient Egypt by Caucasians. They are generally considered be the oldest civilizations.

MoritzB 02:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

We do not know for certain, Currently gene frequencies in the middle east are intermediate between Europe and Africa. Muntuwandi 03:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If you believe in Afrocentrist pseudoscience.

MoritzB 18:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't denigrate other editor's contributions. If you doubt their contribution, please ask for references.-- Ramdrake 19:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Punctuated equilibrium

Seriously!! There are currently two competing theories regarding the evolution of the brain.

• One is punctuated equilibrium in which the evolution takes place in short phases followed by stasis over a long period.
• the other is the brain continues to evolve to this day

1)One one extreme, theory one (punctuated equilibrium) posits the human brain reached its current form 50,000 years ago in Africa and has undergone no evolution since. ie that we are in the stasis period. According to this theory if we were to time travel a child from 40,000 years ago to today. That child can learn and function like everyone else. Evidence is that no matter how primitive a people are, there children can always learn western ways, like reading and writing. This means that skills to learn how to read, write and do arithmetic already evolved in Africa.

2)the other extreme is evolution of the brain never stopped. This means that people today are genetically smarter than those who lived 40,000 years ago. A child who is time warped from 40,000 years ago would be too primitive to live in todays, society even if it were raised by modern parents.This is the theory supported by racialists because they believe that differential selectionary pressures will result in different intelligences between populations.

3) An intermediate between the two , stating that major changes took place 50,000 years ago and there have been minor but significant changes since.

If we are to objectively discuss the evolution of IQ I propose this structure. Muntuwandi 23:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Original research and your beliefs are also wrong. Only sourced, verifiable information is needed.

MoritzB 23:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, the same goes for you.-- Ramdrake 00:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

All information in the section I wrote is backed by verifiable citations to scholarly journals. If you have different viewpoints to offer please state them.

MoritzB 03:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

MoritzB this is not proposing OR research, the theories that you have are not the only ones about intelligence. I am implying all of them including the one's that you propose. The only problem is that you need to find more up to date sources, Meisenberg's date's are all way off rendering his analysis obsolete. Muntuwandi 03:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether the changes in the average IQ of Caucasian and Negroid populations have happened in 50 000 or 100 000 years.

According to Harpending et. al. an IQ difference of similar size has been created in only 500 years! They write:

With its high heritability, IQ should respond rapidly to directional selection according to

equation 1. Assuming, for example, that the narrow-sense heritability of IQ is 0.8 and that

the parents of the next generation have an average IQ one point above the population

mean, the average IQ increases by 0.8 points per generation. In 20 human generations,

about 500 years, it would increase by 16 points—slightly more than the difference

between average Ashkenazi IQ scores and average European IQ scores. Change of this

magnitude over historical time is not at all implausible.

http://homepage.mac.com/harpend/.Public/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf

All that is speculation since nobody has yet to conclusively identify one gene that is associated with increased intelligence. We cannot test the IQs of people who lived 500 years ago. this is guess work. Muntuwandi 04:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Quoting Harpending: "Whether a trait is under the control or influence of one locus or many is not very interesting because its evolutionary dynamics would be nearly the same in either case. Farmers could breed for milk production in cows or back fat in hogs for millennia without identifying the relevant genes. Evolutionary biologists use the verbal shorthand of gene for to avoid long-winded specification of genetic material that predisposes to.” It is also just wrong that no genes affecting specific human behavioral traits, temperaments, or personality types (p. 31) have been found. There are a lot of them: variants of dopamine receptors, serotonin transporters, monoamine oxidase variants, and so on."

http://www.aaanet.org/aes/bkreviews/result_details.cfm?bk_id=3917

MoritzB 04:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes scientists are always finding genes for this and that and then retracting their statements. currently all that there is is a few weak associations that can be made such as dopamine receptors and risk taking. But there is no conclusive evidence for a single gene that is the sole influence of one personality trait. For traits that are controlled by a single locus, breeding can work but it is much harder to for polygenic and multifactoral traits. For example scientists have failed to find a gene for schizophrenia yet it is found in all races at similar frequencies. Its heritability among monozygotic twins is 50%. Hence it is possible for one twin to develop schizophrenia and the other one not to. How does one reconcile this. Possibly genes+environment=phenotype. Therefore one cannot use breeding and be guaranteed to obtain the schizophrenia trait. Scientists have also failed to find genes that are responsible for traits such as homosexuality. the children of gay parents are often straight. People who are gay are born from straight parents. Muntuwandi 04:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Biology and sexual orientation

Most scientists agree that it is unlikely that there is a single "gay gene" that determines something as complex as a (homo)sexual orientation, and that it is more likely to be the result of an interaction of genetic, biological and environmental/cultural factors.

• Causes of schizophrenia-

evidence suggests that genetic and environmental factors can act in combination to result in schizophrenia.

While you may say these are irrelevant, they are complex traits just like intelligence. It is thus unlikely that IQ is only under the influence of genes like all other polygenic traits. Muntuwandi 05:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that IQ is only under the influence of genes. It has been established that it is under the influence of both genetics and the environment. According to the Neo-Darwinian synthesis allele frequencies change between generations because of natural selection and other reasons. The APA report on race and IQ has linked IQ to these allele frequencies. If you disagree you can either disprove the APA report or the Neo-Darwinian synthesis. Otherwise it must be concluded that Meisenberg's premises have been correct.

MoritzB 05:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The APA report nowhere speaks of allele frequencies. Please don't attribute ideas erroneously.-- Ramdrake 12:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If allele frequencies change between generations and are subject to natural selection then how come schizophrenia has not been selected out of the population but is instead increasing in frequency in modern times. Schizophrenia is linked to intelligence ( John Nash). Schizophrenia is found in equal frequencies in all races. hence darwinian theories on personality traits are difficult to reconcile. Clearly the environment plays a role. Furthermore if intelligence is so heritable what has happened to all the children of geniuses. Einstein descendants are largely unknown. Intelligence recycles, within 3-4 generations genius is lost and the descendants return to average IQs. Meanwhile the descendants of dullards become geniuses after 4 generations. That is the cycle of intelligence. Muntuwandi 05:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you have trouble understanding why the incidence of some genetic diseases increases despite the fact that they apparently lead to fitness losses I suggest that you read a book of human evolution. Your feeble attempts at original research give you no justification to revert any information I have added to this article.

MoritzB 15:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, puncuated equilibrium states that *ALL* evolution works that way. Our brain, of course, is still evolving, but the time period for radical changes in the structure of the brain (and physical and biochemical differences as well, since they go hand in hadn) vary from species to species, from order to order, depending on just how big and complex the species' brain is. Species' with smaller brains can change much more greatly within shorter periods, due to their shorter overall lifespans, while it's the opposite for other species. That's something innumberable people seem to ignore when it comes to the subject of racial differeces. And no, sorry, Lahn's work doesn't count. There's been quite a few studies, even one buy Rushton, that's found no correlation with brain size. Likewise did those alleles vary GREATLY within "race", not to mention how they were found at their highest frequency in native americans, and were absent in much of southeast asia. That's just the tip of as to why the whole idea was bunk to begin with.

The lead sentence should be changed. The current one preempts an important issue of the topic, but does not offer a good introduction to the matter itself. I'll hold off on changing it on my own since this topic is so controversial.. W.M. O'Quinlan 15:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions?-- Ramdrake 15:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it serves as a good introduction to the topic.

MoritzB 18:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I would think something along these lines would at least be an improvement on the current lead: "Race and intelligence is the controversial study of how human intellectual capacities vary among the different population groups commonly known as races. This study seeks to identify and explain the differences in manifestations of intelligence (e.g. IQ testing results), as well as the underlying causes of such variance." W.M. O'Quinlan 18:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

How about this: Race and intelligence is the controversial study of how human intellectual capacities may vary among the different population groups commonly known as races. This study seeks to identify and explain the observed differences in manifestations of intelligence (e.g. IQ testing results), as well as the various underlying causes of this variance.? That would sound good to me, provided a consensus of other editors agree.-- Ramdrake 19:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds pretty good to me; however, where you have it "...human intellectual capacities may vary among..." (emphasis mine) I think problematizes something that is rather beyond dispute. At this point there are observed differences among the races, whatever their causes may be, so it would be more accurate/direct to omit "may" from that sentence. W.M. O'Quinlan 19:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I phrased it this way because some researchers doubt that IQ or "g" is the sum total representative of human intelligence (see the theory of multiple intelligences); some other measurements of intelligence, we may find out, might vary inversely. Alternately, one could speak of "certain measures of intellectual capacity", as IQ (or "g") is disputed as an overall measurement of intelligence. Does that make sense?-- Ramdrake 19:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Objection. The lead sentence is just fine now.

MoritzB 21:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, I see why you had it like that; I agree. I do think, though, that there should be some mention of the dispute over "g" and IQ somewhere in the introduction because it is somewhat misleading to suppose that the default assumption is that IQ tests don't measure anything significant.

MoritzB: reread WP:LEAD; the lead sentence may be okay for a school essay or a paper, but not for an encyclopedia article. It is too vague; even if that sentence belongs anywhere in the introduction, it is certainly not at the beginning, where the reader may have no idea of the relevance of the nature/nurture debate or exactly how it is central to a discussion on race and intelligence. W.M. O'Quinlan 22:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how we can convey in just a few words that IQ tests are very significant (for example, as social outcome predictors), but that there is significant debate over whether they measure all of intelligence (to me, these two are absolutely not contradictory). Any suggestions?-- Ramdrake 12:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the lead sentence now; naturally, it is open to adjustment, but I think it is at least some improvement. W.M. O'Quinlan 17:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There could be a short overview how media portrays research on race and intelligence but it actually mainly proposes a controversial environmental explanation to the IQ gap. The explanation of "media stereotypes" competes with more plausible (IMO) environmental explanations such as Black culture, nutrition, racism, legacy of slavery, Flynn effect etc.

Thus, I will move it to the proper place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence_(Explanations)#Environmental_explanations

A separate section for this single explanation is just POV pushing.

MoritzB 22:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering why people can't say that a certain people group has a lower iq score than others without it being seen as maliciously racist. We can state other facts and they are not denounced as racist. For example, European, Asian and Hispanic people are slower than people of African decent...no european has ever run a 100m dash in less than 10 seconds, while over 20 people of African decent have. If people of African decent have a slightly lower average IQ than those of European decent, why can that not simply been said? I understand that culture, SES and family background all affect IQ but the authors of The Bell Curve as well as Arthur Jensen controlled for those factors and still found a difference in IQ. Can we not just say that different people are good at different things?

( 67.119.13.75 23:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC))

Hey watch this video Muntuwandi 04:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's few fixed physical differences between ethnic groups, so that kind of falls apart. Either way, physical differences are set greatly apart from aspects involved with the mind, and it's disgustingly naive to think it's just a matter of being better at something else. Unsigned Comment by User:67.180.36.51 17:48, 3 August 2007 (edit) (undo) 71.249.100.53 07:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I would say that it is disgustingly naive to deny that intelligence is not a genetic factor, considering a persons development is almost entirely controled by their DNA in every other aspect of their development to discount just one area of this because that is the current politically correct view rather than the scientifically correct view is incredibly childish! 84.68.62.89 20:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am removing the section because it is a hypothesis about intelligence, but it is not conclusive. No scientist has found a gene that confers upon Ashkenazi Jews increased intelligence, they are only speculating. Correlation does not imply causation.

A team of scientists at the University of Utah has proposed that the unusual pattern of genetic diseases seen among Jews ofcentral or northern European origin, or Ashkenazim, is the result of natural selection for enhanced intellectual ability.

He is proposing a hypothesis, he has not proved it.

This paper elaborates the hypothesis that the unique demography and sociology of Ashkenazim in medieval Europe selected for intelligence. In particular we propose that the well-known clusters of Ashkenazi genetic diseases, the sphingolipid cluster and the DNA repair cluster in particular, increase intelligence in heterozygotes.

All this is speculative hypothesis, nothing is conclusive. So we should not give it any more credibility than speculation maybe it can go to Ashkenazi intelligence article. Muntuwandi 13:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Original research. Your claims are also wrong. The article is not speculative and proves that natural selection has increased the frequency of genetic traits in question.

MoritzB 15:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the article does hypothesize, and doesn't prove anything. However, all scientific theories started with some hypothesis somewhere.-- Ramdrake 16:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The article presents factual evidence that the frequency of Ashkenazi genetic diseases has been affected by natural selection. Because of that it is reasonable to presume that they increase IQ in heterotsygotes.

MoritzB 17:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It's reasonable to presume. Your presumption is your own OR.-- Ramdrake 17:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it is the main thesis of the study by Cochran et. al. which is linked as a source. The study presents evidence that the disease mutations have increased the fitness of heterotsygotes and the study explains why the fitness increase must be caused by increases in genotypical IQ.

MoritzB 18:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, abut they can't say for sure that those mutations are what causes the observed IQ scores. There are demonstrable genetic differences in this ethnc group, that's a fact. That these genetic differences are related to an increased intelligence is at this point just a hypothesis, and certainly not proven.-- Ramdrake 13:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but this is not how the story comes across, as you wrote it. Also, the study has been criticized for many things, one of them for making the starting assumption that BGH was strictly a genetic trait and then trying to fit evidence to prove it, which is way, way out of mainstream. As such, giving this single study this much space I think breaches undue weight NPOV guidelines.-- Ramdrake 18:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The space given to Black-White IQ differences breaches WP:UNDUE, IMHO. As a principle genetic IQ differences between different White ethnic groups deserve the same amount of examination. Therefore, WP:UNDUE requires us to include information about Ashkenazi intelligence to this article.

The study has been positively reviewed by the famous evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker. http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2006_06_17_thenewrepublic.html

If the study has indeed been criticised you are welcome to include the criticism to the article or change the wording of the paragraph so that it is NPOV. However, there is no justification to withhold information about this study.

MoritzB 18:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The article by pinker discusses 7 different hypothesis, If there are so many theories then nothing has been concluded. Muntuwandi 20:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No, those 7 hypotheses are included to the same theory presented by Cochran et. al.

MoritzB 20:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Moritz has introduced some information from Minoo Southgate: The negative images of blacks in some medieval Iranian writings, Iranian Studies, Volume 17, Issue 1 Winter 1984. It appears to be interesting but some what inflamatory in the context of its placement. I did a G-search and found this work discussed in the description of coursework at Univ. Penn; see: http://www.africa.upenn.edu/africa/courses/syllabi/Ames159.html. -- Kevin Murray 20:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Southgate describes the Islamic views nicely. They had enormous importance in the development of Islamic slave trade and subsequent Atlantic slave trade. Thus, this information is certainly relevant and should be included to the article.

MoritzB 20:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the information is important, but the quote as displayed could be offensive. I also think that it amy be overly detailed for a summary section, and belongs in the history sub-article. -- Kevin Murray 21:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds more like a gossip column to me most likely creative trolling. This has nothing to do with the article. I had already mentioned this before why do we need to dig up quotes from periods before anthropology became a science. Every person in history has always viewed his or her own group as the best. this is a childish edit. MoritzB if you have a racialist agenda why not try to dig up more sophisticated information to support your views. Your sources are really terrible. If you are having troubles in your life, it is not the fault of black people. You should not look for scapegoats for whatever inadequacies or shortcomings that you have. Muntuwandi 22:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks.

If the views Europeans had during the colonial era are relevant so are the views of Muslims who enslaved more blacks.

As an analogy the Nazis considered Jews sub-human. Although the Nazi views were not based on real science and they are "offensive" they have historical importance and SHOULD be included to Wikipedia. Muslims had similar opinions of Blacks and they were used to justify slavery.

MoritzB 22:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The views of Eurpoeans are there as an example; the point of this article isn't to report on every single racist view in history. The passage you added is needlessly inflammatory, especially quoted pretty much out of context as you did. I'm not saying that racist views should be reworded to be presentable; I'm saying that needlessly inflammatory material should be avoided, especially one with peripheral import on the subject of the article such as what you wrote in.-- Ramdrake 23:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You claim that I quoted the passage "out of the context". Why?

MoritzB 00:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm still double-checking it, but the author I don't think used this entire set of epithets in the same sentence.-- Ramdrake 01:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I will add it to the history subpage. Are you OK with that?

MoritzB 01:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

What is important about the views of Europeans is that they were the first to be formalized from folk taxonomy into pseudo-scientific classifications and theories of intelligence. While acknowledging that all societies had beliefs about foreigners, they remained just that with no formalization. Muntuwandi 01:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The racial division to Whites and non-Whites in the Islamic society was the foundation of elaborate White Supremacist social practices. The blacks remained in oppressed status because of their race.

MoritzB 04:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that this information is pertinent to this article specifically, but it is interesting to see that racial prejudices are not strictly limited to western society. -- Kevin Murray 04:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

All animals have tribal instincts. Often on the street when you see two people meet who are walking their dogs, the dogs get into a fight. Chimpanzee groups are known to attack members of other groups. [3]. Racism is simply an "us and them" animalistic instinct that goes to show that no matter how civilized humans think they are, at the core they are just beasts like all other animals.

One fact I find quite interesting with regards to religion and Africans is the origins of Afro-asiatic languages. The semitic languages are now thought to have Negroid origins. Jared Diamond says.

We're taught that Western civilization originated in the near East, was brought to brilliant heights in Europe by the Greeks and Romans, and produced three of the world's great religions: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Those religions arose among peoples speaking three closely related languages, termed Semitic languages: Aramaic (the language of Christ and the Apostles), Hebrew, and Arabic, respectively. We instinctively associate Semitic peoples with the Near East. However, Greenberg determined that Semitic languages really form only one of six or more branches of a much larger language family, Afroasiatic, all of whose other branches (and other 222 surviving languages) are confined to Africa. Even Even the Semitic subfamily itself is mainly African, 12 of its 19 surviving languages being confined to Ethiopia. This suggests that Afroasiatic languages arose in Africa, and that only one branch of them spread to the near East. Hence it may have been Africa that gave birth to the languages spoken by the authors of the Old and New Testament and the Koran, the moral pillars of Western civilization. [4]

So I think it is overly simplistic just to isolate quotes from a specific point in time in which Arabs speak lowly of blacks, when it seems most likely that at one point history ancestors of Arabs were taught a language which would become their own by African Negroes. Muntuwandi 05:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Other verifiable POVs can be added or inaccuracies corrected as per WP:NPOV. Consensus has been achieved of the major points. MoritzB 05:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it hasn't. Please stop insisting it has been reached. Please re-read the discussions above if you need convincing. You haven't changed an iota from the previous version which was rejected by consensus, to the point where the same grammatical errors are still there.-- Ramdrake 06:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I cannot see those grammatical errors. Please point them out. After some discussion we have arrived to a consensus in major issues. It is obvious. Please stop pointless reverting which leads to loss of information.

MoritzB 11:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

MoritzB the analysis that you include is terribly flawed, to start with the dates are way off. Muntuwandi 12:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The date of migration mentioned is verified and reflects scientific consensus.

MoritzB 20:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Please provide references to that effect (that it reflects scientific consensus), outside of the Meisenberg article, please.-- Ramdrake 21:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The other scientific POV is now included to the article.

MoritzB 20:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about?-- Ramdrake 20:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The migration is said to happen 55000-60000 years ago in the article. That is the date Muntuwandi wanted.

MoritzB 20:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Meisenberg's whole analysis is based on obsolete dates, furthermore it is fringe theory since there is no evidence of consensus. Muntuwandi 03:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC

Meisenberg's method is not based on any date and any possible date used in the calculation leads to the same conclusion. He is also a well-known, reputable scientist who has written a book widely used in university education.

Also, Steven Pinker endorses a similar theory about Jews although in that theory the IQ gains of the Jewish population have happened only in 800 years. This is enough to prove that the theories are mainstream.

Furthermore, I ask you to stop that senseless reverting. Fourdee already put the lost information back to the article. It is not appropriate to criticise one sentence or issue without any reliable sources backing your opinion and then remove a lot of other verified information.

MoritzB 06:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've edited your changes accordingly, without reverting them. Hope you'll appreciate the differences.-- Ramdrake 12:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

English Jews are mostly of Sephardic descent so Lynn's findings are consistent with the hypothesis of higher Ashkenazi IQ.

MoritzB 13:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I found other papers from Lynn that estimate the IQ of Ashkenazi Jews even lower: around 103. I'll include them as soon as I have a minute.-- Ramdrake 13:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh, "Three early studies are summarized that found that Jews in Britain have mean IQs in the range of 110–113. New data are presented for two nationally representative samples of 7–16 year olds in which Jews had mean IQs of 108.5 and 107.7. Taking all five studies into account, it is proposed that the best reading of the IQ of Jews in Britain is 110"..." It is proposed that the over-representation of Jews among Nobel prize-winners can be partly explained by the higher average Jewish IQ."

Lynn: - On the high intelligence and cognitive achievements of Jews in Britain

So those are the actual IQ scores Lynn reported.

MoritzB 14:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Take a look here: Ashkenazi_Intelligence#Psychometric_Findings It does give a finding of 103.5 from Lynn's research alone. Please don't conflate result scores by Lynn with Lynn's estimated averages based on his results plus those of others.-- Ramdrake 15:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Lynn has never claimed that the IQ of British Jews is 103. The number he gave in the study you quoted is 110.

MoritzB 15:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake, thus your edits were in direct conflict with Lynn's abstract you gave as a source and they have to be reverted.

MoritzB 05:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Depending on which of Lynn's studies you look at, his findings are somewhere in the 103.5-108.5 range. He only gets to 110 when he compares his studies with other studies.-- Ramdrake 11:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Quoting the source directly: "Three early studies are summarized that found that Jews in Britain have mean IQs in the range of 110–113. New data are presented for two nationally representative samples of 7–16 year olds in which Jews had mean IQs of 108.5 and 107.7. Taking all five studies into account, it is proposed that the best reading of the IQ of Jews in Britain is 110."

This is what Lynn's study says. However, you wrote that "Richard Lynn finds an average IQ for Jews in Britain of 103 to 107 only" and gave that abstract as a source.

MoritzB 13:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There are several theories on Ashkenazi intelligence, we should not give undue weight to only one theory. see Ashkenazi_intelligence#Alternative_Explanations and WP:UNDUE Muntuwandi 15:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of those theories are really alternative explanations how the genotypic IQ gap developed.

MoritzB 01:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

So far, there is little proof that the nature of the IQ gap is genetic, just hypotheses.-- Ramdrake 10:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There is proof that the disease mutations have given a fitness advantage, see the study of Cochran et. al.

MoritzB 13:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that's the working hypothesis that they have: that the heterozygous version of those mutations gave them a fitness advantage. It's a working hypothesis, but it's far from proven.-- Ramdrake 13:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No, in the study they analyzed the genome and concluded that the frequency of the mutations had increased rapidly because evolutionary selection.

MoritzB 13:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It still doesn't tie these genetic mutations to increased IQ.-- Ramdrake 14:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

As the possibility of disease resistance is excluded in the study the increase in IQ is the only plausible explanation for the fitness advantage when the functions of the genes are taken into account.

Furthermore, environmental explanations need to be proved too. So far those environmental explanations do not exist.

MoritzB 15:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The absence of an organized environmental explanation (which is false, please see Ashkenazi_Intelligence#Alternative_Explanations) would not mean that the genetic explanation would be the explanation by default. This is the same logical fallacy that prompts creationists to try to poke holes in evolution. There is the distinct possibility that these genes do not confer any IQ advantage whatsoever, and the paper by Cochran doesn't prove anything. It makes certainly makes for an interesting hypothesis, but it doesn't prove that the IQ advantage has any genetic basis.-- Ramdrake 16:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No. There exists a genetic explanation which is much better supported by the totality of evidence than any environmental explanation that has been proposed according to Cochran et. al.. Merely the existence of the possibility that the gap might be explained only environmentally does not mean anything as scientific theories cannot be proven with 100% certainty.

MoritzB 17:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, none of those alternative explanations are environmentalist. They are alternative genetic explanations proposing different mechanisms of selection.

MoritzB 17:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer MoritzB's version however the statement of the measured number may not be in line with the best (largest sample population) studies cited on Ashkenazi Intelligence which seem to say 107.6, which is close to what I have seen cited for Germans of 106. Citing the highest numbers may exaggerate the difference since these are small studies and conflict with the others. Another issue is that Jews and Askhenazi Jews are not races by the modern sense of the term, so if we are going to go back to the older sense of "race" meaning "ethnicity" some equal treatment of other high-IQ ethnicities would be in order rather than focusing on one. As far as we have information, perhaps we should look at the measured IQ of all groups that significantly deviate from the norm, perhaps in a table, and base the numbers on studies with large sample groups. Something more like (I'm not sure of the exact numbers, just guessing), Askhenazi 107.6, Germans 106, South Koreans and Japanese 105, Northern Europeans as a whole (whatever value), Southern Europeans (whatever value), American Negroes 85, African Negroes 67 - Just break it out as far as we have useful information on those groups that deviate the farthest.

I agree there should be some balance as far as other points of view, but I personally feel the exact opposite of Ramdrake - environmentalist explanations tend to be desperate unfalsifiable fabrications without any real scientific evidence much like creationist arguments - based purely on an agenda and need for something to be true, while the science has always supported a substantial genetic cause for all basic human behaviors. There's no scientific study that doesn't find similarities in separately adopted twins' behavior, or correlations between adoptees and their natural parents, etc. - there is no kind of science in support of the pure environmentalist argument, only conjecture and propaganda. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 19:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The intro paragraph contains a factual error--Ashkenazi Jews score significantly higher than other groups (107-115) in the U.S. and Britain.

In the book IQ and Global Inequality, Hong Kong and Singapore scored 108, higher than the jewish 107.6. As in the IQ and the wealth of nation, the average IQ for Shanghai is 109.4. 65.254.40.42 20:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Also in South Korea, the IQ is 109 in Lynn, R. and Song, M.J. (1994) General intelligence, visuospatial and verbal abilities of Korean children. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 363-364. Shinzuru2 17:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Similar high scores can be measured in European university cities. Highly intelligent people tend to selectively migrate to specific geographic areas so measurements in these areas can give a false view of the average IQ of a nation. The IQ averages reported in the IQ and the wealth of the nations for Asian nations are lower than you wrote. (See Lynn's web site)

MoritzB 19:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jews

Why does the introduction break down the data advantageously for Ashkenazi Jews when the subject is about race and intelligence (as opposed to ethnic groups and intelligence)? Juxtaposing the Ashkenazi Jews against ALL of Europe, ALL of East Asia, and ALL of North and South America is statistically ridiculous and distracts from the main focus of the article. The fact that Ashkenazis have the highest average IQ scores likely belongs somewhere in the article, but not as the last sentence of the introduction. W.M. O'Quinlan 23:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, East Asians are not a race either. Also, e.g. the Malays belong to the Mongoloid race.

Malays doesn't belong to the Mongoloid race. Northeast Asians are more genetically similar to Indians and Caucasians than Thai, even though Northeast Asians and Thai people look similar. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/85/16/6002.pdf

MoritzB 07:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well regardless of the status of the "Mongoloid race", I think that the "East Asian" and "European" and "sub-Saharan African" categories comprise more meaningful racial groups than the Ashkenazi Jews do by themselves. W.M. O'Quinlan 15:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I can agree. They are just a European ethnicity after all.

MoritzB 19:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.