Bugsy,

When it comes to comparing intelligence, using current technology, I think inter-country estimates are worthless. The country that was dumb enough to start and lose two world wars turns out to have the highest average IQ in Europe.

If you want to compare the intelligence of different populations you need to match samples by socio-economic background of the parents within the same countries. This has been done extensively in the US. In broad terms the findings are as follows:

Asian Americans score best

Next come Caucasians

Then Hispanic Americans

Then African Americans

I want to stress that this is comparing like with like. We find this when examining samples matched by socio-economic status.

This IQ difference is reflected in school performance which is the cause of some anguish as the following article illustrates.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/11/12/MNH8T5LTC.DTL

If you look at the table at the bottom of the article you will see that Caucasians and Asian Americans from disadvantaged backgrounds perform at about the same level as Latino and African American children who are not disadvantaged.

Another cause for concern has been the rate at which the children of middle-class African American families drop into poverty.

See:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/12/AR2007111201711.html?nav=rss_print/asection

Quote:

Forty-five percent of black children whose parents were solidly middle class in 1968 -- …. - grew up to be among the lowest fifth of the nation's earners, with a median family income of $23,100. Only 16 percent of whites experienced similar downward mobility.

All this is consistent with the hypothesis that IQ measures something real, something that helps people prosper in modern high technology societies.

I truly wish it weren't so Bugsy. But that's what the research shows to date. Little bits of evidence, none conclusive in themselves, but pointing in the same direction.

Proof?

No.

Indicative?

Yes unless you're in denial

Yet we have a long way to go before we are able to tie these differences down at the level of genomes and brain functions as this New Scientist article illustrates.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19626324.100-intelligence-genes-reveal-their-complexity.html;jsessionid=HMEGFFBJELHG

The IQ paradigm is based on a number of key assumptions which can be depicted as a pair of alternative sequences:

1. IQ and other school assessments identify intellectual capabilities and indicate deficits in some groups.

2. Deficits cause educational 'disadvantage'.

EITHER
3A. These deficits (and the resultant 'disadvantage') are explained by genetic factors - this line of argument ends the debate about merit and all we can do is give the genetically inferior a truncated educational program and 'equality of dignity'.

OR
3B. These deficits are explained by the environment in which students are raised and schooled.

4. If we compensate for the deprived environment, we give the 'disadvantaged' child equal opportunity.

5. This compensation should be aimed at making the 'disadvantaged' child as close as possible to the 'advantaged' child.

6. Success in schools leads previously 'disadvantaged' children to equal access to society's reward structure.

Now every one of these assumptions is dubious and there is sufficient empirical data that challenges their validity.

Human sciences notoriously claim to be objective. But five minutes reflection will demonstrate that they are constructed and operate in such a way as to reinforce the status quo. The IQ industry is a prime example.

The 'science' of IQ has claimed the mantle not only of 'science' but also of neutrality. But the IQ industry exists to give political legitimacy to the existing order which we declare to be a meritocracy. Those who lack 'merit' don't deserve to be given equal access to society's reward structure.

There's a lot of smoke and mirrors about what is going on here steven. Your correlations may be consistent with a hypothesis, but they are also indicative of many societal factors coming in to play. What the genome scanning data are showing us is that there are a great many genes which may responsible for intelligence, on your link only six genes were possibly identified, accounting for only 1% of the variation! extrapolate that out to 600 (which is actually silly, because it will be far more than that, since the most powerful effects were likely already detected), and you have a continuum of genetic effects (or polygenic trait), a perfect situation for stabilising selection to occur (not a magic force). This means that given the natural variation within and between populations, it is unlikely that there has been a strong selection pressure for "intelligence" (or ability to complete IQ tests) that has been able to give the kinds of effects that have been attributed to it across disparate populations.

Your examples of strong selection occurring with lactose intolerance are good examples of single genes with strong effects. It's similar with insecticide resistance or disease resistance, but not anywhere near as complex as polygenic traits.

Societal influences can have a strong effect on any number of these genes, and until we do know what they are and what alleles are present on populations, I think it irresponsible to say (or even indicate) these correlations are due to the genetics between groups rather than just individuals.

Even though you say you may have read Flynn's article, I see no indication that you actually understand it.

I am not in denial over this, the science will be what it will be, but probably not before a lot of jacks have a field day with speculations.

Bugsy, Frank,

We've all stated our positions. There is no point in rehashing all the ground. We'll have to wait and see how the science turns out.

My position is this:

Am I CERTAIN there are differences in the average level and the variability of intellectual abilities between population groups and some of these differences have a genetic component?

Absolutely NOT.

But I do think the evidence points in that direction. On a balance of probability I think that's how the science will turn out. We'll probably know by about 2020.

At this stage none of us can know for certain how the science will turn out. But both of you seems 100% convinced that the answer is "NO."

Under the circumstances either or both of you should be prepared to give me good odds on a real life bet.

So how about it?

What kind of odds would you give me?

Of course at my age there's a distinct possibility I won't be around by 2020 but my heirs can collect my winnings - if any.

Any bets are cash down now with a third party holding the money.

If there is no definite answer by 2020 all parties get their money back with interest.

If either or both of you are on we'll thrash out the details and mechanics.

Yeah, I'll take the bet, but you can stick odds on.

I don;t think that the genetic differences of populations are pointing in that direction at all.

I'd put maybe $2000 on it, it may be enough to buy a beer by the time it's resolved. It won't be 2020, I'd bet even more money on THAT, probably $100000.

I suggest that the problem with taking/making a bet on this is how you are going to judge the result.

So here's my proposal. I'll offer to be the stakeholder, and if the question isn't resolved to the satisfaction of both parties - that is, both have to agree that the evidence one way or another is conclusive - I'll keep the money.

Fair?