site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   5896 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for January 22, 2023

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Your premise is not sound. Australasian aboriginals are worse off. Poorest Central Asians like the Kyrghizstani are around black level, judging by PISA results. Ditto, it seems, for lower-caste Indians, which is a group bigger than any majority-black nation. Some purely black populations score higher than some non-blacks; Igbos are stereotyped as crafty and big-brained by Africans and they do comprise a big part of those high-performing Nigerians in the Anglosphere. I suspect that Tutsi are smarter than Hutu and indeed pretty smart in general, which is why they eventually suffered a genocide, as it happens. And the lowest results for specific African nations are suspect. Anyway, someone is bound to end up at the bottom of the totem pole.

On the level of rhetoric, it can be said everyone else are overwhelmingly descendants of a single out-of-Africa migration event (hence the popular factoid that there's more "genetic diversity" in Africa than elsewhere). It stands to reason that everyone else might also be close – and different from the left-behind African population – in some important phenotypic traits. Though of course in actuality Africans we talk about are almost 100% Bantu, and thus fairly homogenous.

But yeah, even hardcore hereditarians allow that with continued successes to eliminate causes of deprivation and sickness, along the lines of GiveWell/Gates Foundation, populations that currently report those absurd scores will almost converge with African Americans. E.g. here's Emil Kirkegaard, who himself believes the B-W gap in the US to be 100% genetic, citing the oft-demonized Lynn:

This estimate of the genotypic African IQ as 80 means that the average IQ that Africans would obtain if the environments in which they were raised were the same as those of Europeans would be 80. Throughout sub-Saharan Africa the mean IQ of Africans is approximately 71, so it can be inferred that adverse environmental conditions in sub-Saharan Africa impair the sub-Saharan African IQ by around nine IQ points.

And Emil himself:

As such, we should expect African national IQs to converge to about 80 in the coming decades everything else equal. Ironically, the main factor that could prevent this is the mass emigration of high intelligence Africans into western countries, thus depriving their countries of their elites. This is what we are currently seeing from countries like Nigeria (Igbo elites).

The problem is that the gap may be more than 100% genetic, so to speak. That is, with deliberate interventions to close the gap we can raise individuals from the lower-IQ group above the performance they'd have had, given equal treatment; and on a population level, with humanitarian efforts, we may improve environments of African societies beyond the level they'd be able to sustain on their own, so new South Asian-like averages won't hold if aid program is terminated on account of its success. Still, maintaining optimal African performance would probably be a net moral (and economic) win for humanity.

the popular factoid that there's more "genetic diversity" in Africa than elsewhere

Is that not true?

It's true inasmuch as we literally talk about "genetic diversity" in the context of anthropological research, but implications that people try to smuggle in with these words are false. I'll just quote Cochran again.

On African genetic variation:

Occasionally I hear people talk about Africa’s great genetic variety. It exists: the genetic difference between Bushmen and Bantu is bigger than the difference between Bantu and Finns. A couple of thousand years ago, before the Bantu had arrived in South Africa & mixed with the Bushmen, it was even bigger: looking at ancient DNA from those unmixed Bushmen, looks as if they split off from the rest of the human race at least a quarter of a million years ago. Well before anything that looks like behavioral modernity, by any definition. Half as divergent as Neanderthals.

But the most divergent populations are small. There are fewer than 100,000 Bushmen, on the order of a million Pygmies, around 1000 Hadza. Most people in Africa are Bantu or related populations: next after that are Nilotic peoples.

And the venomously sarcastic Economists and biology:

Naturally, economists know a lot about human biology and evolution, just as civil engineers have to know about the properties of timber, concrete and steel. They have a good grounding in psychometrics, behavioral genetics, and quantitative genetics – how else could they do their job? Populations vary in traits that play key roles in economic activity and growth – in intelligence, asabiya, savings propensity, etc – you have to be aware of that variation, else whole continents would be economic mysteries. In the same way they know that those observed differences are a product of selection – which means economic historians think seriously about psychometric changes over time and their consequences, such as the Industrial Revolution. That kind of analysis helps predict where modern economic institutions can be successfully introduced, and where they cannot. [...]

Deirdre McCloskey has a new book out: Bourgeois Equality: How Ideas, Not Capital or Institutions, Enriched the World. I’m sure that there are many good things in it. But McCloskey makes a significant error in talking about genetics.

“Know also a remarkable likelihood in our future. Begin with the sober scientific fact that sub-Saharan Africa has great genetic diversity, at any rate by the standard of the narrow genetic endowment of the ancestors of the rest of us, the small part of of the race of Homo sapiens that left Mother Africa in dribs and drabs after about 70,000 BCE…. Any gene-influenced activity is therefore going to have more African extremes. The naturally tallest people and the naturally shortest people, for example, are in sub-Saharan Africa. The naturally quickest long-distance runners are in East Africa. The best basketball players descend from West Africans. In other words, below the Sahara the top end of the distribution of human abilities – physical and intellectual and artistic – is unusually thick. …

The upshot? Genetic diversity in a rich Africa will yield a crop of geniuses unprecedented in world history. In a century or so the leading scientists and artists in the world will be black – at any rate if the diversity is as large in gene expression and social relevance as it is in, say, height or running ability. ”

So by this argument that the most cold-tolerant Africans must be more cold-tolerant than Eskimos: but they’re not. The most altitude-tolerant Africans must be more altitude-tolerant than Tibetans – but they’re not. McCloskey is thinking that a turn to free markets will make Africa rich, and that will give educational opportunities to Africans now denied them – but a fair-sized mostly-African population already lives in the United States, a population that is already much more prosperous than sub-Saharan Africans. How are they doing? How many geniuses are they producing?

The whole argument is flawed. Overall genetic variation is mostly in neutral loci. By itself it tells you nothing about any particular trait. Europeans do have less overall genetic variation than sub-Saharan Africans (~20% less), but they show more variation in hair color and eye color than Africans.

Essentially every domesticated species has less genetic variation than its wild progenitor. Dogs have less genetic variation than wolves. So, does this mean that the tallest wolf is taller than any dog? No – the tallest Great Danes are taller than any wolf. The heaviest mastiffs are heavier than any wolf. Chihuahua are the smallest. Greyhounds are faster than wolves (by a little). [...]

What matters is the frequency of alleles that influence a trait, not overall genetic diversity. If, for example, the variants that tend to boost educational achievement (some of which were found in the just-released Nature study) were on average less common in sub-Saharan Africans than in Europeans – says 5% less common – Africans would tend to do less well in school. Like they actually do. Now Africa is a big place, and some groups are genetically quite distinct from others. Bushmen are genetically more distant from the Bantu than the Bantu are from Chinese. Some African populations might have experienced selective pressures that were more (or less) favorable for intelligence than others. Is there evidence, either in test scores or cultural accomplishment (better than any test), that some African populations may have smarts comparable with, or better than, people in Switzerland or Holland or Scotland?

TL;DR: Africans do have greater genetic diversity, but "genetic variation is mostly in neutral loci", i.e., greater genetic diversity does not imply greater phenotypic diversity, and even if there is greater variation in one phenotypic trait (e.g. height), this does not imply that there is greater variation in all traits. Correct?

Pretty much. Actually it's four points.

  1. Most of the asserted "genetic diversity" of Africa as a whole is due to peoples from ancient population clusters, which make up less than 1% of African population and are not associated with colloquial "black people". They are anthropological marvels, but frankly they're not the guys anyone is talking about. Related Razib Khan post.

  2. "Genetic diversity" for a given population is overwhelmingly a measure of ancestral population size and diversity of interchangeable variants that have spread by genetic drift. Out-of-Africa populations have passed through a series of severe bottlenecks, so they've shed some genetic markers we can find in African Bantus. Doesn't have much to do with anything consequential. It's like a JPG that's gone through lossy compression: there are color bands now, and less diversity of color patches or raw pixel values, but it doesn't mean the semantics of the image is altered, or that the range of any color channel is diminished, in fact the opposite can be true.

  3. Local adaptation can very quickly act on non-neutral loci, a few thousand years are more than enough to change a typical polygenic trait by 1 SD. We have no grounds to presume that ancestral (>50KYA) diversity explains modern diversity for groups that have evolved in different environments.

  4. By the same logic, yes, traits are independent products of selection. Just like all Sub-Saharan Africans are pretty dark relative to other races, they can be pretty ... fast runners, putting aside their internal ranking and their variation in toxin resistance or deep-diving talents or cricket skills.

Thank you, that was the TDLR of an effortpost I was looking for.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats