Re: IQ AND RACE. The taboo subject.

J Lopez (
12 Feb 1995 10:58:33 -0500

In <3hjmg6$> (Ian T Brown) writes:

>>There's also the problem of explaining/predicting those of us (AfAms) who
>>have (much) higher than average IQs versus those (AfAms) who don't. Is
>>this because some of us have a gene(s) that promote higher intelligence
>>or do we lack the gene(s) that decreases intelligence? How about those
>>"whites" who have substandard IQ they "suffer" for the same
>>reasons? Is there a separate (but equal ;-) smart/dumb gene for each race?

>No, there isn't a separate smart/dumb gene for each race. They are the
>same genes in all races. There is tremendous variation within
>populations, and the coincidence that the "smart" genes are found more in
>Asian-Americans than in African-Americans doesn't mean that it isn't
>found in African-Americans. Just that it is found in African-Americans
>less often (statistically) than in Asian-Americans.

I can't figure out how you have determined that the different "races"
have the same "smart" genes. Let's take the example of a Swede and an
Ibo, since the consensus among the "race" crowd seems to be that they
would be members of different races. There is no doubt, really, that
regarding the genes that code for, say, skin color or hair texture, we
are not just looking at different distributions of the same genes in the
two populations, but we're seeing completely different genes. That
is, the gene sequences coding for those particular genotypes are
virtually mutually exclusive between those two populations. You wouldn't
expect to find *any* Swedes with that Afro-type hair, it just doesn't
exist among indigenous Swedes, period. (AFAIK, of course).

So, who is to say that there is not a particular "smart" gene which only
exists in limited populations? The "race" folks have determined that
even among Asians and Whites with the same IQ, the Asian is likely to
have better visuospatial abilities (TBC p.301). So, perhaps there are
two types of genetic sequences at work here. Two separate and unequal
distributions. (with considerable overlap, of course). The point I'm
trying to make is not that there is or there isn't, but how do you *know*?

>>Now can you carry that thought a little further to
>>comprehend the problems caused when (certain) people ASSUME that there
>>is a genetic reason to discriminate?

>Good point. Also why I think that TBC should be treated as a curious
>acedemic exercise in juggling of numbers, rather than a serious influence
>on policy. There have been studies that correlate intelligence with
>left-handedness far more strongly than TBC correlates intelligence with
>race, and I don't see people assuming that right-handers should be
>discriminated against.

You've stumbled upon a good "pro IQ/race is genetic" argument there.
Many of us left-handers feel that we are discriminated against, yet
despite that, we tend to have somewhat higher IQs. Hmmm.

Then again, left-handers have shorter life-spans, too, and I believe a
higher incidence of clinical depression and insanity. Another
strike against the argument that "greater intelligence" equals "genetic

jlopez :: "How the hell can you write an essay on E. M. Forster with almost
total reference to Harold Robbins?" --Willy Russell