The White Pill

This post is going to overview some evidence that hereditarianism, “race realism” etc. are going to be much more accepted in coming years.

So, first we can look to the pure amount of scientific studies on similar topics that are coming out right now. I pulled these next few graphs/charts from the book Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst by Robert Sapolsky:

Amount of times searched for biology-behavior topics over decades:

Search Terms
  genes/behavior testosterone/aggression amygdala/aggression MAO/aggresion epigenetics/behavior
1920-30 1 0 0 0 0
1930-40 3 0 0 0 0
1940-50 3 0 0 0 0
1950-60 10 2 0 0 0
1960-70 22 3 2 0 0
1970-80 39 24 4 1 0
1980-90 128 53 5 2 0
1990-2000 9,288 401 97 40 9
2000-10 27,754 757 321 119 197
2010-20 52,487 1,070 560 184 1.012

Publications per year of different biology-behavior topipublications hereditarianism.PNG

So, the amount of research on this topic is exponentially growing as is the interest in it. This means, assuming I am right, we are becoming exponentially closer to being undeniable in this case.

But, is the research being done right now confirming my case? First we can look at a couple of polls:

Rindermann, Becker and Coyle (2016) polled scientists as to why they believed international differences in IQ existed. Education was rated as the top reason why and genes were rated number 2.

Rindermann, Becker and Coyle (2013) polled scientists who believed evidence existed to prove the case that black-white intelligence gaps are heritable (n=228). They found average and median estimates of the black-white IQ gap to be considered heritable by 47% and 50% respectively.

For years, plenty of quantitative studies have proven the black-white IQ gap to be less of a product of environment. Many studies already prove IQ itself is at least 80% heritable by adulthood (see Plomin and Deary [2015]) and we have evidence that blacks and whites raised in the same environments will maintain the gap (Weinberg, Scarr, and Waldman 1992). For more on the black-white IQ gap, see an article posted on this website:

“The Black-White IQ Gap: 100 Years of Research in Race Differences in Intelligence”

But, since the major developments of molecular genetics over the last few decades, the use of quantitative genetics has been unfairly rooted against. Now, we’ll often see the phrase “find the genes”. We all hate it and it’s a stupid argument, but it continues. Regardless, we are finding the genes. The full case can be made in only a matter of time.

For example, Piffer (2015) overviewed the frequency of multiple alleles related to IQ within different continental populations. He found a strong correlation (r=0.91) and displayed – what do you know? – Africans have the alleles related to IQ less than Europeans and Europeans less than Asians.

In a recent article by Ken Richardson, Ken said,

“Only a few extremely weak associations between SNPs and observable human characteristics could be found.”

As per usual from Richardson, this is a really dumb argument. The estimates from SNP data to date doesn’t show the full picture and most researchers with an IQ above 80 know this. If we look to Weedon et al. (2008) we see there is an estimated heritability of height of 3%. This study looked at 20 SNPs though! Let’s look to a newer study: Wood et al. (2015) finds when you look to more and more SNPs, the heritability of height grows. They identify 697 GWAS-significant SNPs and find those alone are responsible for 20% of the heritability of height. They go on,

“The variance explained by genome-wide significant SNPs has increased from 3–5% with discovery samples of ~25,000 (ref. ) to 10% with a discovery sample size of ~130,000 (ref. ) to 16% with a discovery sample size of 250,000 (this study), and the variance explained from all captured common SNPs is ~50%”

As we find more and more genetic data, these molecular genetics studies are going to become more similar to the quantitative genetics studies we’ve had this entire time. And just to show the relation to IQ:

Lee et al. (2018) looks at a sample of over a million people and identifies 1,271 GWAS-significant SNPs. They continue with an analysis of “educational attainment and three related cognitive phenotypes generates polygenic scores that explain 11–13% of the variance in educational attainment and 7–10% of the variance in cognitive performance.”

Sniekers et al. (2017) identifies 336 SNPs associated with intelligence and 22 genes. From this, they estimate a heritability of about 5%. Within the study, they also produce an SNP-based heritability estimate of 20% from 12,104,294 SNPs.

The case for genes is only growing stronger. Eventually, once we can do more studies like Piffer’s it will be undeniable there is a strong genetic component to the black-white IQ gap. Quantitative genetics has paved the path and soon it will be indestructible.

One thought on “The White Pill

  1. You don’t even tango with Richardson’s main argument on the “gene” and what we “know of” it.

    “The case for genes is only growing stronger.”

    What does this mean? Genes can’t cause nor influence psychological traits. And GWAS are extremely confounded by population stratification.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s