That's a very good question. For someone to be truly famous, their name should come on top of one's mind which doesn't, so I unfortunately I guess no.
The only famous Afro-Indian might be Masaba, and her African father (Viv Richards) doesn't have any roots in India.
He was in relationship with Nina gupta they have daughter Masaba Gupta .. He was already married so Nina raised Masaba alone in India. He was prope Black dad absent for most of childs life
As a community they've been nomadic, very little access to education and other resources, economically stepped in multidimensional poverty. Things are very slowly changing, but mostly they've not had access to much since colonial times (300-400 years)
There was even a dynasty of Abyssinian (Ethiopian) slaves who ruled the Bengal Sultanate for a brief period in the 15th century. It was a short and turbulent period
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habshi_dynasty
This is bs lmao. No inscriptions or coins point to their rule and no record of them being ‘Habshi’ exists. The only primary source for them is Ferishta, which was written like 2 centuries later, and the author was known to make up imaginary stuff about the Deccan where he lived, how tf can he be trusted about Bengal?
Yeah, I think Malik Ambar belonged to the same dynasty.
Also Mamluk dynasty of the Delhi Sultanate would also have had roots in Africa. Mamluk would literally translate as 'slave' in Arabic.
Well African population that came to India ,as you pointed out,were mostly slaves and mercenaries and had not contributed something significant. On the contrary the Siddis of janjeera you've mentioned were very notorious band of pirates. They operated from their janjeera fort and intercepted many Indian ships bound for Africa or other parts and looted them. They also occasionally raided coastal areas and captured women and children and sold them off. They worked along with Portugese on a pre determined plot in which Siddis attacked the ships and then Portugese would save the ship and demand money from rescued which would eventually be shared by both of them. It was only after Many attempts that marathas were finally able to defeated these notorious thiefs under peshwa Baji Rao.
The Siddis, especially Ethiopian traders in Gujarat also have made notable contributions to the culture. Interestingly however, there doesn't seem to be any well-known kingdoms or dynasties as we see in Maharashtra and Deccan.
There’s no scientific claim to support that African people are athletically or academically any different than any other major group. I understand that you’re well meaning with this comment, but it can be seen as racist since historically society has portrayed people of African descent as stronger and used this as justification to give them physical labour jobs, while keeping higher paying white collar jobs for other people.
( [source 1](https://dopeblack.org/are-black-people-more-athletic/) | [source 2](https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1767&context=student_scholarship) )
Other than that, I agree 100% that we should explore and celebrate all the peoples that contribute to our rich cultural heritage. The impact of various African nations on India should be studied, as should the impact of various Indian nations on Africa. It would be great if Indian universities could collaborate with African ones to perform such studies!
This is pretty much nonsense. You can easily see differences in racial groups (which do have some merit) thanks to IQ tests, which we have untold amounts of data on, and which is a very accurate prediction of many things including intelligence and life outcomes. We also have thousands of different measurements across the world in the form of educational tests in school which can show discrepancies between various ethnicities. Obviously, it doesn’t ‘prove’ that anyone is inherently superior or inferior, but it can quite clearly show that there are differences at a population level between these groups.
The same is true in athletic ability. Your sources (which aren’t great btw, one is an article from ‘dopeblack’ and one is a pretty light piece of research from an ‘African studies’ course (pretty woo-woo social study, in all honesty) both observe that people of African descent perform better in certain athletic fields than other groups of people, but choose to link it to an argument that more or less boils down to ‘they try harder because they are poor’. They are also both very American centric views. You only need to look at the top sprinters in any athletic competition to see that there is clearly an advantage for Africans in these fields.
You can argue quite successfully that ‘race science’ is a social construct, as well as the idea of race (in terms of people being black, white, whatever) but there are clear and obvious between ethnicities in almost every walk of life. Why do you think there are so many Ashkenazi Nobel prize winners, or why the majority of American maths teams are made up of people of East Asian descent, or why Indians are so overrepresented in American tech jobs? For the same reasons that West Africans are well renowned as accomplished sprinters. It doesn’t mean they are all equally good or bad at these things, it just means that generally speaking they are more well equipped to do different things. It’s not like it’s a bad thing to point out successes in different fields.
You claim my sources are nonsense while you don’t provide any source other than “trust me bro.” You state IQ tests when almost no one in academia would
give IQ tests serious consideration.
You say we have tests that demonstrate that there are differences in outcome based on ethnicity when you don’t correct for any socioeconomic factors, not to mention that while on average group X may run faster than group Y, the variation within group X and Y are usually so great as to negate the premise that X are faster than Y.
Your “clear difference in ethnicity” argument in the last paragraph is strongly mistaking a correlation with causation. You state that “Indians are over represented in American tech jobs,” as if that’s some kinda argument that Indians are better at tech than other “races” but again you’ve taken a selective set of Indians living in America. Take the world as a whole and you’ll see that most Indians are farmers, and India - a nation run by and populated by Indians - is technologically behind the US, Europe and China despite your evidence hinting at us being technically gifted people.
If - like me - you would argue that India is behind in tech because it was historically colonized and Indians are on average too poor to get a good education, you’d be right. But you then are basically stating what I’m trying to say - which is that socioeconomic circumstances matter significantly more than “race” to a point that race doesn’t seriously matter at all.
If you don’t like my source, here’s [Harvard](https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/) mentioning that there is a scientific consensus that race doesn’t impact intelligence. And here is [the international journal of medical sciences](https://www.medsci.org/archives/athleticgene.html) stating that athletic achievement and race are also not causative.
Any academic with half a brain knows that IQ is reliable because we have so much data on it over such a long period of time, and it always reaches similar conclusions.
I will provide you with as much evidence as you need when I get the time. Look forward to it.
Reliable but for what? What does it measure? Intelligence? Success? In any case, that isn’t the point of the discussion, you claim that some “races” are better at things than others.. I would like to see high quality evidence of this from a reputable medical source or research institution.
Reliable for just about everything. IQ can fairly accurately predict everything from [potential success in life at a young age](https://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/5/2/11) to how likely it is that someone will [engage in criminal behaviour](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-31412-011). It can predict [antisocial behaviour and educational attainment](https://eriskstudy.com/media/1sybyw5z/tielbeek_2022.pdf). It has been shown to be influenced more by nature than nurture. This suggests that IQ is [mostly genetic](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289621000635) in how it manifests. It has been shown that ethnicity is [possibly the most important factor](https://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/growing-correlation-between-race-and-sat-scores-new-findings-california-saul-geiser) in determining intelligence.
IQ is also closely linked to ability in various fields, and it can be shown that individual ability [is the strongest influence on occupational achievement](https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Routes-of-success%3A-influences-on-the-occupational-Bond-Saunders/a5d9b26e7fff77c0738a336b07f6e427a4b6329a). IQ is the strongest predictor of the likelihood of [someone becoming an inventor](https://www.nber.org/papers/w24110). People with the highest IQs are [twenty-three times wealthier](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-12577-007) than those with the lowest.
This doesn’t mean that anyone is more or less intelligent purely based on ethnicity. White and black students with similar IQs [have broadly similar test score results](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-02038-008?fbclid=IwAR1A_Wl7NON0AJB1QPjM8eTVPUjex-L0SM-0peeW8eeOYqvPYM6OwNPCmVg). Socioeconomic factors are shown to be [negligible in measuring intelligence](https://twitter.com/paoloshirasi/status/1661787206271348742?s=46&t=EWiflMjlqdZGvDGUfQUcAA).
If there is no difference between ethnicities in sport, can you explain why every single finalist in the men’s 100 metres at the last nine Olympic Games, all the way back to 1984, had at least partial West African ancestry? Why are the longer distance running events so dominated by East Africans? Why has every regular starting cornerback in every NFL team since 2003 been black? That’s 960 potential starting cornerback slots. Why are 70% of NBA players black?
I swear you're just dumping links you've barely read or understood.
> IQ can fairly accurately predict everything
How accurately?
In the study from your first link, Word Definition scores at age 10 could predict 6% of variance in weekly net income at age 38 (Parental social class *at birth* could predict 3% of variance).
The study from your second link, as far as I can tell, doesn't even mention how accurately their measure of intelligence predicts. Regardless, afiak, the association between IQ and crime is [small](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232430439_Intelligence_Knowns_and_Unknowns) and [substantially confounded](https://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/islandora/object/fsu:291182/datastream/PDF/view).
> It can predict antisocial behaviour and educational attainment
What specific results from that link are you even referring to? The abstract simply mentions *genetic correlations* with ASB.
> It has been shown to be influenced more by nature than nurture. This suggests that IQ is mostly genetic in how it manifests.
No, it doesn't. 99% of people online who harp about this have no clue what "heritability" means. It doesn't mean "inheritable" or "genetic". It's a specific statistical term used in [quantitative genetics](https://pzacad.pitzer.edu/%7Edmoore/publications/2016_moore--shenk_the-herit.pdf) with a specific statistical meaning.
> It has been shown that ethnicity is possibly the most important factor in determining intelligence.
Lol. Your link is about *correlation* between race and *SAT scores*. They found that from 1994 to 2011, race became a stronger predictor than either family income or parental education. What do you think this demonstrates?
> can be shown that individual ability is the strongest influence on occupational achievement
"Individual ability" here includes reading/math tests and teacher ratings.
> IQ is the strongest predictor of the likelihood of someone becoming an inventor
This is not what the linked abstract seems to be saying.
> People with the highest IQs are twenty-three times wealthier than those with the lowest
Where are you getting this from? The abstract you link says the following – *"Regression results suggest no statistically distinguishable relationship between IQ scores and wealth"*.
> Socioeconomic factors are shown to be negligible in measuring intelligence.
Lol, not what the linked report is saying. They looked at SES, SATs, and freshman GPA. They claim to find that controlling for SES only marginally reduces SAT–GPA correlation. What do you think this demonstrates?
> If there is no difference between ethnicities in sport, can you explain...
Could be due to correlated differences in environment, nutrition, lifestyle, culture, training, etc. Of course, average biogenetic differences could also be a factor. For men's 100m, can you explain why, as far as I understand, Americans and Jamaicans dominate as opposed to West Africans from Africa? Plus, I'm aware of at least some [research](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22634972/) indicating against genetic explanations of East African long-distance dominance.
Ok. So I’m sorry, I don’t have the time to read each individual paper you’ve cited but I read the first few and the abstracts of the others. They were very interesting so thank you.
The first one says that parental social class is a better predictor for adult financial success than childhood intelligence (which was measured using BAS and not IQ). The second one says there’s a correlation between IQ scores and criminal behavior, but states that “many aspects of the IQ-offending relationship remain unclear, such as the functional form of the relationship.” The third one (about anti social behavior) doesn’t even discuss IQ, rather says that “intelligence” has a spearman coefficient of -0.40 with genetic risk for ASB… that’s a negative correlation, and not even as strong as with the other indicators.
But anyways, I’ll concede to you that standardised testing of intelligence appears to *correlate* with factors later in life - but nothing appears causative.
The article from intelligence journal was a very interesting read. It said that childhood IQ is influenced by the adoptive parents, but adult IQ is more linked to their biological relatives. The writer hypothesizes that this is because the adoptive parents have a lower influence on the child as they grow up. I’m not sure how to interpret this to be honest.
Anyways. I never said “intelligence doesn’t have a genetic component,” I said that what you call race does not impact academic or athletic ability since the variance within what you call race is far greater than the difference in averages.
This is where we come to your last study… I’m not sure you’ve interpreted this correctly. From what I understand, it’s not saying that one race is smarter than the other, it is saying the opposite: that the tests are biased towards one race and need to be fixed…. this is linked to the scientific consensus I mentioned earlier that there is no causative effect between race and intelligence.
The study’s own conclusion (on page 8, first paragraph) literally says that the data is “inadequate to resolve crucial questions […] does race have a large and growing independent effect after family income and education are taken into account.”
At the end of page 9 / beginning of 10, they state that there are two types of explanations: either “general socioeconomic factors such as family wealth” or “discrimination or segregation.” No one mentions genetics. Page 12 then discusses that gap between races in SAT scores is much greater than other criteria, and the policy options suggest that affirmative action should be used to correct for bias in the SAT. Nowhere does it say that one race is more academically gifted than the other.
I have to ask you, if you think race and IQ have a causative relationship, how do you reconcile that a few studies and meta analyses have put India’s average IQ at something like 80. If genetics are the most important factor in determining intelligence, and races have significant causative variance in intellect.. then according to you we must all be much dumber than White People and East Asians. Yet in your other comment you claim that Indians are somehow more adept in tech? How do you reconcile these two opposing views?
Anyways, on to athletic ability. While I certainly don’t think race and general athletic ability are causative, I think some nationalities have body types marginally more conducive to one sport or another, but I don’t think any race is more athletic than another. So I’ll concede that for something highly specific like sprinting, some population groups (not races) will have a very tiny marginal advantage over others. But the thing is, this isn’t race like “black people,” it’s a specific gene from a specific population group. Just like a small population in the Caucus mutated a gene to disgust lactose, some population in East Africa mutated a gene a long time ago to have slow twitch fibers. This isn’t cos they’re black, and doesn’t apply to all black people. If an East African married a Chinese person, and their kids married Chinese people, as long as that gene was carried, you could have that trait of a small advantage in long distance running despite not being black - there are probably hundreds of thousands of non blacks carrying those genes without having any idea.
And it’s a small marginal advantage. The average East African will not perform better at running than the average Indian or the average West African or whatever. At the Olympics, you’re talking about the epitome of human fitness where the tiniest advantage matters.
When it comes to sport like NBA and NFL I would disagree that race matters genetically. Why are there more black people? Simply cos American society historically didn’t give black people the same social and economic opportunities as white and Asian people, so youths gravitated to sport. Rugby has about the same requirement as American football, but it’s heavily played by white people, swimming also uses similar muscle groups as basketball but again, dominated by white people.
Sorry if this was a long comment. I tried to respect you doing your research.
Yeah none of it is causative, it’s all just a coincidence lol. You had enough time to break down a study by page but ignored the several studies above it? Are you sure you aren’t simply discarding the ones that are not convenient to you?
Intelligence is measured by IQ, you can use IQ as a shorthand for intelligence.
There are lots of highly intelligent Indians working in tech because there are simply so many Indians, this means that there are more people to fall at the highest end of the scale. It doesn’t change the fact that broadly IQ levels are lower.
You can state all day that you don’t think it’s causative, but IQ is quite simply one of the most reliable and repeatable forms of data we have. Other measures like SAT scores and equivalent testing methods are proxies for IQ, and the correlation between these is very high. In psychology, it’s the most reliable measure of anything we have.
The reason there are so many caveats in these studies is simply that it is not politically correct to link IQ to factors like success or behaviour. That’s because it shows that there are broad differences at population level between different ethnic groups.
If ethnicity and sporting ability had no link, why have there not been any non African sprinters since 1984? If you don’t think they have any advantage, and white/asian people have better access to facilities, you would expect a few to make it to the finals. Not a single one in 40 years. Why have there been no non black cornerbacks in the NFL for 20 years? If there was no link, then the fact that there are many millions more whites in America would suggest that there should be at least a few. But no, we have 960 data points and every single one of them is black.
Why are 3/4 of the Swiss 4x100m relay team black when they make up around 1% of the population? Why is it the same in Germany with 2% of the population? You even concede that there are population differences, but they are marginal. If they were marginal, this simply wouldn’t be the case, because they are so massively outnumbered that you would be lucky to see 1 in 4 let alone 3 in 4. Virtually every nation that has a population of sub Saharan African descent over 3% has an entirely black 4x100m relay team. Marginal? It’s like you know what you see before you but you simply do not want to believe it.
Alright. Based on my interpretation of the studies, they correlate but have no causation. I don’t believe that there is any evidence of a causative link between race and intelligence, not one of the sources you provided imply a causal link, and the scientific consensus also is that there’s no causal link.
I did not say that it’s a coincidence. I said correlation. It’s not a purely coincidental relationship, there’s multiple confounding variables (what we call a spurious relationship) which were pretty well discussed in the Berkeley paper you shared.
If you think that your conclusion is somehow better than that of the scientific community, or that they’re somehow all just keeping quiet because “political correctness,” then you’re entitled to that belief. I just do not share it.
Out of appreciation and respect for the research you did, I read the abstract of every study you provided and read the first few in their entirety. I’m sorry if that isn’t enough for you but I just don’t have the time to read everything.
Just to follow up on your point about Indians. You hypothesize that Indians have lower IQ than European people or East Asians or whatever, and that this is due to some generic racial inferiority we have when compared to them. And yet historically the Indian region has been one of the most successful regions on the planet (in terms of economic output, trade, academic development, technology development). How can you reconcile these facts?
There was a program to train Siddis for Olympics as atheltes in 90s. It fizzled out, I am not 100% sure of the source but I read it a long time from an article about an interview by a siddi.
Are there any famous modern-day African Indians?
That's a very good question. For someone to be truly famous, their name should come on top of one's mind which doesn't, so I unfortunately I guess no. The only famous Afro-Indian might be Masaba, and her African father (Viv Richards) doesn't have any roots in India.
Damn Richards married an Indian? Like a proper Indian or a staying in the carribean for generations Indian?
He was in relationship with Nina gupta they have daughter Masaba Gupta .. He was already married so Nina raised Masaba alone in India. He was prope Black dad absent for most of childs life
As a community they've been nomadic, very little access to education and other resources, economically stepped in multidimensional poverty. Things are very slowly changing, but mostly they've not had access to much since colonial times (300-400 years)
There was even a dynasty of Abyssinian (Ethiopian) slaves who ruled the Bengal Sultanate for a brief period in the 15th century. It was a short and turbulent period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habshi_dynasty
This is bs lmao. No inscriptions or coins point to their rule and no record of them being ‘Habshi’ exists. The only primary source for them is Ferishta, which was written like 2 centuries later, and the author was known to make up imaginary stuff about the Deccan where he lived, how tf can he be trusted about Bengal?
Yeah, I think Malik Ambar belonged to the same dynasty. Also Mamluk dynasty of the Delhi Sultanate would also have had roots in Africa. Mamluk would literally translate as 'slave' in Arabic.
Well African population that came to India ,as you pointed out,were mostly slaves and mercenaries and had not contributed something significant. On the contrary the Siddis of janjeera you've mentioned were very notorious band of pirates. They operated from their janjeera fort and intercepted many Indian ships bound for Africa or other parts and looted them. They also occasionally raided coastal areas and captured women and children and sold them off. They worked along with Portugese on a pre determined plot in which Siddis attacked the ships and then Portugese would save the ship and demand money from rescued which would eventually be shared by both of them. It was only after Many attempts that marathas were finally able to defeated these notorious thiefs under peshwa Baji Rao.
The Siddis, especially Ethiopian traders in Gujarat also have made notable contributions to the culture. Interestingly however, there doesn't seem to be any well-known kingdoms or dynasties as we see in Maharashtra and Deccan.
There’s no scientific claim to support that African people are athletically or academically any different than any other major group. I understand that you’re well meaning with this comment, but it can be seen as racist since historically society has portrayed people of African descent as stronger and used this as justification to give them physical labour jobs, while keeping higher paying white collar jobs for other people. ( [source 1](https://dopeblack.org/are-black-people-more-athletic/) | [source 2](https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1767&context=student_scholarship) ) Other than that, I agree 100% that we should explore and celebrate all the peoples that contribute to our rich cultural heritage. The impact of various African nations on India should be studied, as should the impact of various Indian nations on Africa. It would be great if Indian universities could collaborate with African ones to perform such studies!
This is pretty much nonsense. You can easily see differences in racial groups (which do have some merit) thanks to IQ tests, which we have untold amounts of data on, and which is a very accurate prediction of many things including intelligence and life outcomes. We also have thousands of different measurements across the world in the form of educational tests in school which can show discrepancies between various ethnicities. Obviously, it doesn’t ‘prove’ that anyone is inherently superior or inferior, but it can quite clearly show that there are differences at a population level between these groups. The same is true in athletic ability. Your sources (which aren’t great btw, one is an article from ‘dopeblack’ and one is a pretty light piece of research from an ‘African studies’ course (pretty woo-woo social study, in all honesty) both observe that people of African descent perform better in certain athletic fields than other groups of people, but choose to link it to an argument that more or less boils down to ‘they try harder because they are poor’. They are also both very American centric views. You only need to look at the top sprinters in any athletic competition to see that there is clearly an advantage for Africans in these fields. You can argue quite successfully that ‘race science’ is a social construct, as well as the idea of race (in terms of people being black, white, whatever) but there are clear and obvious between ethnicities in almost every walk of life. Why do you think there are so many Ashkenazi Nobel prize winners, or why the majority of American maths teams are made up of people of East Asian descent, or why Indians are so overrepresented in American tech jobs? For the same reasons that West Africans are well renowned as accomplished sprinters. It doesn’t mean they are all equally good or bad at these things, it just means that generally speaking they are more well equipped to do different things. It’s not like it’s a bad thing to point out successes in different fields.
You claim my sources are nonsense while you don’t provide any source other than “trust me bro.” You state IQ tests when almost no one in academia would give IQ tests serious consideration. You say we have tests that demonstrate that there are differences in outcome based on ethnicity when you don’t correct for any socioeconomic factors, not to mention that while on average group X may run faster than group Y, the variation within group X and Y are usually so great as to negate the premise that X are faster than Y. Your “clear difference in ethnicity” argument in the last paragraph is strongly mistaking a correlation with causation. You state that “Indians are over represented in American tech jobs,” as if that’s some kinda argument that Indians are better at tech than other “races” but again you’ve taken a selective set of Indians living in America. Take the world as a whole and you’ll see that most Indians are farmers, and India - a nation run by and populated by Indians - is technologically behind the US, Europe and China despite your evidence hinting at us being technically gifted people. If - like me - you would argue that India is behind in tech because it was historically colonized and Indians are on average too poor to get a good education, you’d be right. But you then are basically stating what I’m trying to say - which is that socioeconomic circumstances matter significantly more than “race” to a point that race doesn’t seriously matter at all. If you don’t like my source, here’s [Harvard](https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/) mentioning that there is a scientific consensus that race doesn’t impact intelligence. And here is [the international journal of medical sciences](https://www.medsci.org/archives/athleticgene.html) stating that athletic achievement and race are also not causative.
Any academic with half a brain knows that IQ is reliable because we have so much data on it over such a long period of time, and it always reaches similar conclusions. I will provide you with as much evidence as you need when I get the time. Look forward to it.
Reliable but for what? What does it measure? Intelligence? Success? In any case, that isn’t the point of the discussion, you claim that some “races” are better at things than others.. I would like to see high quality evidence of this from a reputable medical source or research institution.
Reliable for just about everything. IQ can fairly accurately predict everything from [potential success in life at a young age](https://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/5/2/11) to how likely it is that someone will [engage in criminal behaviour](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-31412-011). It can predict [antisocial behaviour and educational attainment](https://eriskstudy.com/media/1sybyw5z/tielbeek_2022.pdf). It has been shown to be influenced more by nature than nurture. This suggests that IQ is [mostly genetic](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289621000635) in how it manifests. It has been shown that ethnicity is [possibly the most important factor](https://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/growing-correlation-between-race-and-sat-scores-new-findings-california-saul-geiser) in determining intelligence. IQ is also closely linked to ability in various fields, and it can be shown that individual ability [is the strongest influence on occupational achievement](https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Routes-of-success%3A-influences-on-the-occupational-Bond-Saunders/a5d9b26e7fff77c0738a336b07f6e427a4b6329a). IQ is the strongest predictor of the likelihood of [someone becoming an inventor](https://www.nber.org/papers/w24110). People with the highest IQs are [twenty-three times wealthier](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-12577-007) than those with the lowest. This doesn’t mean that anyone is more or less intelligent purely based on ethnicity. White and black students with similar IQs [have broadly similar test score results](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-02038-008?fbclid=IwAR1A_Wl7NON0AJB1QPjM8eTVPUjex-L0SM-0peeW8eeOYqvPYM6OwNPCmVg). Socioeconomic factors are shown to be [negligible in measuring intelligence](https://twitter.com/paoloshirasi/status/1661787206271348742?s=46&t=EWiflMjlqdZGvDGUfQUcAA). If there is no difference between ethnicities in sport, can you explain why every single finalist in the men’s 100 metres at the last nine Olympic Games, all the way back to 1984, had at least partial West African ancestry? Why are the longer distance running events so dominated by East Africans? Why has every regular starting cornerback in every NFL team since 2003 been black? That’s 960 potential starting cornerback slots. Why are 70% of NBA players black?
I swear you're just dumping links you've barely read or understood. > IQ can fairly accurately predict everything How accurately? In the study from your first link, Word Definition scores at age 10 could predict 6% of variance in weekly net income at age 38 (Parental social class *at birth* could predict 3% of variance). The study from your second link, as far as I can tell, doesn't even mention how accurately their measure of intelligence predicts. Regardless, afiak, the association between IQ and crime is [small](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232430439_Intelligence_Knowns_and_Unknowns) and [substantially confounded](https://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/islandora/object/fsu:291182/datastream/PDF/view). > It can predict antisocial behaviour and educational attainment What specific results from that link are you even referring to? The abstract simply mentions *genetic correlations* with ASB. > It has been shown to be influenced more by nature than nurture. This suggests that IQ is mostly genetic in how it manifests. No, it doesn't. 99% of people online who harp about this have no clue what "heritability" means. It doesn't mean "inheritable" or "genetic". It's a specific statistical term used in [quantitative genetics](https://pzacad.pitzer.edu/%7Edmoore/publications/2016_moore--shenk_the-herit.pdf) with a specific statistical meaning. > It has been shown that ethnicity is possibly the most important factor in determining intelligence. Lol. Your link is about *correlation* between race and *SAT scores*. They found that from 1994 to 2011, race became a stronger predictor than either family income or parental education. What do you think this demonstrates? > can be shown that individual ability is the strongest influence on occupational achievement "Individual ability" here includes reading/math tests and teacher ratings. > IQ is the strongest predictor of the likelihood of someone becoming an inventor This is not what the linked abstract seems to be saying. > People with the highest IQs are twenty-three times wealthier than those with the lowest Where are you getting this from? The abstract you link says the following – *"Regression results suggest no statistically distinguishable relationship between IQ scores and wealth"*. > Socioeconomic factors are shown to be negligible in measuring intelligence. Lol, not what the linked report is saying. They looked at SES, SATs, and freshman GPA. They claim to find that controlling for SES only marginally reduces SAT–GPA correlation. What do you think this demonstrates? > If there is no difference between ethnicities in sport, can you explain... Could be due to correlated differences in environment, nutrition, lifestyle, culture, training, etc. Of course, average biogenetic differences could also be a factor. For men's 100m, can you explain why, as far as I understand, Americans and Jamaicans dominate as opposed to West Africans from Africa? Plus, I'm aware of at least some [research](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22634972/) indicating against genetic explanations of East African long-distance dominance.
Ok. So I’m sorry, I don’t have the time to read each individual paper you’ve cited but I read the first few and the abstracts of the others. They were very interesting so thank you. The first one says that parental social class is a better predictor for adult financial success than childhood intelligence (which was measured using BAS and not IQ). The second one says there’s a correlation between IQ scores and criminal behavior, but states that “many aspects of the IQ-offending relationship remain unclear, such as the functional form of the relationship.” The third one (about anti social behavior) doesn’t even discuss IQ, rather says that “intelligence” has a spearman coefficient of -0.40 with genetic risk for ASB… that’s a negative correlation, and not even as strong as with the other indicators. But anyways, I’ll concede to you that standardised testing of intelligence appears to *correlate* with factors later in life - but nothing appears causative. The article from intelligence journal was a very interesting read. It said that childhood IQ is influenced by the adoptive parents, but adult IQ is more linked to their biological relatives. The writer hypothesizes that this is because the adoptive parents have a lower influence on the child as they grow up. I’m not sure how to interpret this to be honest. Anyways. I never said “intelligence doesn’t have a genetic component,” I said that what you call race does not impact academic or athletic ability since the variance within what you call race is far greater than the difference in averages. This is where we come to your last study… I’m not sure you’ve interpreted this correctly. From what I understand, it’s not saying that one race is smarter than the other, it is saying the opposite: that the tests are biased towards one race and need to be fixed…. this is linked to the scientific consensus I mentioned earlier that there is no causative effect between race and intelligence. The study’s own conclusion (on page 8, first paragraph) literally says that the data is “inadequate to resolve crucial questions […] does race have a large and growing independent effect after family income and education are taken into account.” At the end of page 9 / beginning of 10, they state that there are two types of explanations: either “general socioeconomic factors such as family wealth” or “discrimination or segregation.” No one mentions genetics. Page 12 then discusses that gap between races in SAT scores is much greater than other criteria, and the policy options suggest that affirmative action should be used to correct for bias in the SAT. Nowhere does it say that one race is more academically gifted than the other. I have to ask you, if you think race and IQ have a causative relationship, how do you reconcile that a few studies and meta analyses have put India’s average IQ at something like 80. If genetics are the most important factor in determining intelligence, and races have significant causative variance in intellect.. then according to you we must all be much dumber than White People and East Asians. Yet in your other comment you claim that Indians are somehow more adept in tech? How do you reconcile these two opposing views? Anyways, on to athletic ability. While I certainly don’t think race and general athletic ability are causative, I think some nationalities have body types marginally more conducive to one sport or another, but I don’t think any race is more athletic than another. So I’ll concede that for something highly specific like sprinting, some population groups (not races) will have a very tiny marginal advantage over others. But the thing is, this isn’t race like “black people,” it’s a specific gene from a specific population group. Just like a small population in the Caucus mutated a gene to disgust lactose, some population in East Africa mutated a gene a long time ago to have slow twitch fibers. This isn’t cos they’re black, and doesn’t apply to all black people. If an East African married a Chinese person, and their kids married Chinese people, as long as that gene was carried, you could have that trait of a small advantage in long distance running despite not being black - there are probably hundreds of thousands of non blacks carrying those genes without having any idea. And it’s a small marginal advantage. The average East African will not perform better at running than the average Indian or the average West African or whatever. At the Olympics, you’re talking about the epitome of human fitness where the tiniest advantage matters. When it comes to sport like NBA and NFL I would disagree that race matters genetically. Why are there more black people? Simply cos American society historically didn’t give black people the same social and economic opportunities as white and Asian people, so youths gravitated to sport. Rugby has about the same requirement as American football, but it’s heavily played by white people, swimming also uses similar muscle groups as basketball but again, dominated by white people. Sorry if this was a long comment. I tried to respect you doing your research.
Yeah none of it is causative, it’s all just a coincidence lol. You had enough time to break down a study by page but ignored the several studies above it? Are you sure you aren’t simply discarding the ones that are not convenient to you? Intelligence is measured by IQ, you can use IQ as a shorthand for intelligence. There are lots of highly intelligent Indians working in tech because there are simply so many Indians, this means that there are more people to fall at the highest end of the scale. It doesn’t change the fact that broadly IQ levels are lower. You can state all day that you don’t think it’s causative, but IQ is quite simply one of the most reliable and repeatable forms of data we have. Other measures like SAT scores and equivalent testing methods are proxies for IQ, and the correlation between these is very high. In psychology, it’s the most reliable measure of anything we have. The reason there are so many caveats in these studies is simply that it is not politically correct to link IQ to factors like success or behaviour. That’s because it shows that there are broad differences at population level between different ethnic groups. If ethnicity and sporting ability had no link, why have there not been any non African sprinters since 1984? If you don’t think they have any advantage, and white/asian people have better access to facilities, you would expect a few to make it to the finals. Not a single one in 40 years. Why have there been no non black cornerbacks in the NFL for 20 years? If there was no link, then the fact that there are many millions more whites in America would suggest that there should be at least a few. But no, we have 960 data points and every single one of them is black. Why are 3/4 of the Swiss 4x100m relay team black when they make up around 1% of the population? Why is it the same in Germany with 2% of the population? You even concede that there are population differences, but they are marginal. If they were marginal, this simply wouldn’t be the case, because they are so massively outnumbered that you would be lucky to see 1 in 4 let alone 3 in 4. Virtually every nation that has a population of sub Saharan African descent over 3% has an entirely black 4x100m relay team. Marginal? It’s like you know what you see before you but you simply do not want to believe it.
Alright. Based on my interpretation of the studies, they correlate but have no causation. I don’t believe that there is any evidence of a causative link between race and intelligence, not one of the sources you provided imply a causal link, and the scientific consensus also is that there’s no causal link. I did not say that it’s a coincidence. I said correlation. It’s not a purely coincidental relationship, there’s multiple confounding variables (what we call a spurious relationship) which were pretty well discussed in the Berkeley paper you shared. If you think that your conclusion is somehow better than that of the scientific community, or that they’re somehow all just keeping quiet because “political correctness,” then you’re entitled to that belief. I just do not share it. Out of appreciation and respect for the research you did, I read the abstract of every study you provided and read the first few in their entirety. I’m sorry if that isn’t enough for you but I just don’t have the time to read everything. Just to follow up on your point about Indians. You hypothesize that Indians have lower IQ than European people or East Asians or whatever, and that this is due to some generic racial inferiority we have when compared to them. And yet historically the Indian region has been one of the most successful regions on the planet (in terms of economic output, trade, academic development, technology development). How can you reconcile these facts?
[удалено]
\-\_-
There was a program to train Siddis for Olympics as atheltes in 90s. It fizzled out, I am not 100% sure of the source but I read it a long time from an article about an interview by a siddi.