IQ Distribution

[Gorbash]

That they didn't differentiate between certain colors does not imply that they couldn't look at a blue and a red square and notice that they were different colors. (I believe scandinavians used the word blue even for black, but if you gave them a black ball and a blue ball they'd be able to tell the difference.)

True, but it does leave them with a disadvantage that could affect scoring. And yes, they should be able to differentiate between the two different balls, but that doesn't mean the fact that they're equating black and blue as the same color won't have an effect on testing (ranging from translations issues around "form a shape using all blue objects" to, potentially, issues with perceiving dark blue objects on a black background).

I'm not sure what kind of 'culture' would suffer some horrendous inability to evaluate this, for example:


Unless that culture was universally unable to distinguish shapes, which would suggest that it's a problem that's not inherently cultural, because all cultures have outliers. (Perhaps all pygmys are far-sighted and so the image appears a blur, for example.)

Or their culture reads from top to bottom rather than left to right. I could easily see getting different answers on that question based on which block is assumed to be the start of the pattern.

That is not what the research indicates. The research indicates that phenotypic expression will assert itself regardless of parenting strategy. (Unless the parenting strategy involves such obscene violence that the care-recipient doesn't survive or is entirely mangled by the process.)

But not necessarily cognitive and behavioral expression.

"Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" (1995), which was one of the strongest bits of research arguing your point that I found, does point out the following:

"We should note, however, that low-income and non-white families are poorly represented in existing adoption studies as well as in most twin samples. Thus it is not yet clear whether these studies apply to the population as a whole. It remains possible that, across the full range of income and ethnicity, between-family differences have more lasting consequences for psychometric intelligence."

I can see your argument for genetics playing into phenotypic expression of cognitive ability to some extent (several more recent studies or compilations, like "A Twin Study of the Genetics of High Cognitive Ability Selected from 11,000 Twin Pairs in Six Studies from Four Countries" (2009), somewhat support your argument, but also maintain that environment is a strong factor), but I don't think there has been enough research yet to support the assumption that specific genetic backgrounds correlate to specific amounts of variation in IQ. And most of these studies still remain focused on comparisons between groups within the western world (Europe and the US); if you can find a twin study that covers both a Western and a non-Western nation, and controls for economic differences between the twins involved, please post it up.

[Werra]

I don't think there has been enough research yet to support the assumption that specific genetic backgrounds correlate to specific amounts of variation in IQ.

1. Evolution is real.
2. Humans are an evolved species.
3. Intelligence is a result of the physical form of human organs.
Therefore, genetic variations exist which cause differences in intelligence.

Is there even one other trait a human can posses which is not a priori assumed to be influenced by the biological ancestry?

And most of these studies still remain focused on comparisons between groups within the western world (Europe and the US); if you can find a twin study that covers both a Western and a non-Western nation, and controls for economic differences between the twins involved, please post it up.

Why would it matter that twin studies are limited to within Western nations? First of all, they can still show how much of the variation in IQ is genetic and how much stems from the environment, even using only natives. Second, there are lots of people with diverging genetics amongst Western populations.

[Gorbash]

1. Evolution is real.
2. Humans are an evolved species.
3. Intelligence is a result of the physical form of human organs.
Therefore, genetic variations exist which cause differences in intelligence.

Sure, but that doesn't mean we should start equating "person is in genetic group X" with "person is more likely to be smarter." Not only do we not have a full understanding of the genetics or physical mechanics involved with intelligence, we can prove (via twin studies) that culture and upbringing has an effect on resulting intelligence (somewhere between 20-35% in modern research), and therefore can't prove that any one subgroup of people is always going to be smarter than another *because* of their genetics.

Why would it matter that twin studies are limited to within Western nations? First of all, they can still show how much of the variation in IQ is genetic and how much stems from the environment, even using only natives. Second, there are lots of people with diverging genetics amongst Western populations.

Because environment and upbringing within Western cultures can end up grouping people of similar genetic subgroups into similar environments and cultural situations, at that can confound the comparison. If we want to prove that one subgroup is more or less intelligent than the others, we have to prove that any variation we see isn't being caused by culture. If that culture tends to be consistent across the population (and many minorities in Western nations of subcultures that impact them regardless of their economic status), it could be the 'cause' of the variation we're observing.

By running twin studies that are not restricted to Western nations, we can see how the results look outside of Western cultures, and compare afterwards to our previous studies to see if the variation is consistent. If its not, its very likely what we're seeing is a direct result of subculture the population being measured is in.

[Werra]

Sure, but that doesn't mean we should start equating "person is in genetic group X" with "person is more likely to be smarter." Not only do we not have a full understanding of the genetics or physical mechanics involved with intelligence, we can prove (via twin studies) that culture and upbringing has an effect on resulting intelligence (somewhere between 20-35% in modern research), and therefore can't prove that any one subgroup of people is always going to be smarter than another *because* of their genetics.

80 - 65% influence of genetics on IQ outcome is huge. At best that means that the majority of the difference is due to genetics and at worst, that almost all the difference is genetic. Why do we need a full understanding of genetics and physical mechanics to know what the IQ distribution of a given genetic group is? We don't need the same for height, for example.
Truth is, we don't even need to know what genes are to understand that heredity is deciding in IQ. Simply charting ancestry and performance would be enough to make that judgement. "Person is more likely to be smarter" is exactly what we should think. Because it's true, even at just 65% influence of genetics. Even at 10%, honestly. The likelyhood would just be smaller.

Because environment and upbringing within Western cultures can end up grouping people of similar genetic subgroups into similar environments and cultural situations, at that can confound the comparison.

So what? A study only done on Finns or Scots would still show IQ to be hereditary.

If we want to prove that one subgroup is more or less intelligent than the others, we have to prove that any variation we see isn't being caused by culture.

Any variation? That's way too strict. Especially when we know that genes are at least 65% responsible. Again, can you imagine making the same case for height distribution?

If that culture tends to be consistent across the population (and many minorities in Western nations of subcultures that impact them regardless of their economic status), it could be the 'cause' of the variation we're observing.

The distributions we're seeing hold up in their native countries, as well as with individuals not raised in such subcultures.

Honestly, your standards seem really dubious. Turn the argument around in your head.
"If we want to prove that one subgroup is not more or less intelligent than the others, we have to prove that any variation we see isn't being caused by genetics."

[Krulle]

I'm not sure what kind of 'culture' would suffer some horrendous inability to evaluate this, for example:


Unless that culture was universally unable to distinguish shapes, which would suggest that it's a problem that's not inherently cultural, because all cultures have outliers. (Perhaps all pygmys are far-sighted and so the image appears a blur, for example.)

Or their culture reads from top to bottom rather than left to right. I could easily see getting different answers on that question based on which block is assumed to be the start of the pattern.

Well, I saw two possible correct answers, but only one of them was in the list of possible answers.
There is simply no clue for how two different symbols i the first twoimages translate into the last image in the 3x3 matrix.
I tried it rowby row, and column by column, I did not get a "one single correct answer possibility",... Shape and filling remained ambiguous, and if row by row was treated, only the positions were "lower left and upper right".

[boldilocks]

I'm not sure what kind of 'culture' would suffer some horrendous inability to evaluate this, for example:


Unless that culture was universally unable to distinguish shapes, which would suggest that it's a problem that's not inherently cultural, because all cultures have outliers. (Perhaps all pygmys are far-sighted and so the image appears a blur, for example.)

Or their culture reads from top to bottom rather than left to right. I could easily see getting different answers on that question based on which block is assumed to be the start of the pattern.

Well, I saw two possible correct answers, but only one of them was in the list of possible answers.
There is simply no clue for how two different symbols i the first twoimages translate into the last image in the 3x3 matrix.
I tried it rowby row, and column by column, I did not get a "one single correct answer possibility",... Shape and filling remained ambiguous, and if row by row was treated, only the positions were "lower left and upper right".

Going top-bottom or left-right will in fact both lead you to answer #4. (Different rules, though.)
How these IQ test usually work from what I've observed, is that previous problems in the test will be simpler and set some easier rules that you then apply to increasingly complex problems that may add new rules of their own. This being Question B, it will most likely look ambiguous because the test assumes you've already done Question A.