> but somehow it seems to be less of a hindrance for European and East Asian immigrants than for South American immigrants with little European admixture.
Stormfront? Is that you?
Everything you claim is utter tripe.
Students from low income families consistently, regardless of ethnicity or race,
score well below average. [1]
Most research into academic performance associate poverty and the risk factors of systemic poverty as the main contributor to poor academic performance even after race is accounted for.
> that IQ is heritable, largely genetic, and that one should expect different populations to have different mean IQs
There's so much wrong and 1/2 truths in this statement. First, while IQ does have a genetic component it is not crystalized. The genotype is a range of IQ whose phenotype is influenced primarily by...yeah, poverty and risk factors associated with poverty. Environment can influence a person's realized IQ by as much as 12-18 points.[2]
To put this in perspective, the average IQ of college graduates is 115. Of STEM graduates is ~125. So environment can mean the difference between not graduating from college and being a Physicist, Computer Scientist, Doctor, or Mathematician.
But, probably the most absurd claim you make is that we should expect the genetic variation to adhere to arbitrary identifiers like skin tone.
Why would you assume the color of skin is somehow a higher indicator of relatedness than height, or hair color, or nose length? In fact, it's actually a far worse indicator of relatedness than many metrics.
An East African can be more genetically related to Northern Europeans than to a West African regardless of similarity in skin tone. The concept of race that you're portraying; one where you can look at someone's skin color along some spectrum and by that attribute group them into categories of more or less genetic relatedness is unscientific garbage.[3]
Read. The article's results confirm what I said. They found that 60% of the variability in crystallized IQ and 49% of variability in fluid IQ are due to environmental factors.
Considering that IQ variability between African American's and American's of European descent has closed to 0.33 standard deviations and one standard deviation on the Stanford-Binet is 15 points the variation we see can be accounted for entirely by variability due to environment.
> You are also flirting with Lewontin's Fallacy
The wikipedia article you link provides quite a bevy of publications, professional groups/committees, and journals that do not agree with Edward's interpretation of the data while there is little to none to be found that do agree.
Further, Edward's is arguing against a data set and assertion made 40 years ago while all the aforementioned critics in that wikipedia article and the articles I linked are using current data, methods, and techniques.
Far from an old, untested hypothesis the negation of race as a clearly demarcated, global, and distinct genetic classification is the current well researched position of all fields touching on the topic and the overwhelming majority of researchers within those fields.
Something is not a fallacy just because one guy calls it such.
Most of the environmental impact on IQ comes from nutrient deficiencies and diseases (especially in childhood). Most of the variation that isn't explained by biological heridity is simply unexplained at the moment. It is wrong to attribute all of it to the environment in the normal sense of that word. My guess is just noise during the construction of the brain.
(And of course races are not clearly demarcated. Duh! There are still populations, though, and there tend to be differences, big and small, between them.)
Stormfront? Is that you?
Everything you claim is utter tripe.
Most research into academic performance associate poverty and the risk factors of systemic poverty as the main contributor to poor academic performance even after race is accounted for.> that IQ is heritable, largely genetic, and that one should expect different populations to have different mean IQs
There's so much wrong and 1/2 truths in this statement. First, while IQ does have a genetic component it is not crystalized. The genotype is a range of IQ whose phenotype is influenced primarily by...yeah, poverty and risk factors associated with poverty. Environment can influence a person's realized IQ by as much as 12-18 points.[2]
To put this in perspective, the average IQ of college graduates is 115. Of STEM graduates is ~125. So environment can mean the difference between not graduating from college and being a Physicist, Computer Scientist, Doctor, or Mathematician.
But, probably the most absurd claim you make is that we should expect the genetic variation to adhere to arbitrary identifiers like skin tone.
Why would you assume the color of skin is somehow a higher indicator of relatedness than height, or hair color, or nose length? In fact, it's actually a far worse indicator of relatedness than many metrics.
An East African can be more genetically related to Northern Europeans than to a West African regardless of similarity in skin tone. The concept of race that you're portraying; one where you can look at someone's skin color along some spectrum and by that attribute group them into categories of more or less genetic relatedness is unscientific garbage.[3]
1. http://www.academicjournals.org/article/article1379765941_La...
2. http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-67-2-130.pdf
3. http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674417311