1/ Yet another article proclaiming GENETIC underpinning of IQ diff between races and ethnic groups. And that the topic of genetic influences on intergroup intelligence averages has been understudied. sigh. A short thread (article link at end).
2/ So many issues but I’ll only note 3: citations, race definition, GWAS misuse
3/ First: What is wrong with American Journal of Psychology Peer review system? This would not have made it through anthropology, human biology or most cognitive science reviews without substantive revision from current state.
4/ Why? Reliance of thoroughly refuted citations (eg. Rushton, Cofnas, Murray, etc..) and missing major key citations throughout…more than a twitter threads worth. Ugh.
5/ A key example: Entirety of support for “race is biology” citations consist of David Reich’s 2018 popular book and Tang et al. 2005 (in AJHG—and not citing ASHG recent statement refuting race=biology)). Totally insufficient and not even supporting what the author claims they do
6/ Defines Races as “as ancestral breeding populations that had their recent evolutionary origin in a particular geographic region of the world” Nope. What does this mean biologically? This is not a functional definition for the races used here (or for any generally used).
7/ Besides, this is article primarily about American “Black” and “White” groups with other “Races” thrown in now and again. Plus “Ethnic groups” is never defined or really used aside from superficially and in one reference to “European Jews”
8/ and in that mention we are told that the “European Jews” are the ethnic group with the highest average intelligence test score in the world.
9/ The author tells us that GWAS are the key to identifying that between group differences (Racial group differences in intelligence) are at least partially genetically caused. Umm, no…so much GWAS work demonstrates this is NOT how GWAS can be used.
10/ @kph3k 's recent book arguing FOR genetic influences on IQ/ED attainment also points out that this argument for between group genetic diff is totally erroneous as is the attempt to use GWAS in support of such assertions.
11/of course, near end of article emerges the claim that the academy is suppressing research into race/IQ, echoing Murray’s call that is we just do a little more research we’ll all see the light (as long as we ignore all the decades of work already done refuting these assertions)
12/ This article needed a more thorough peer review. It currently paints dishonest picture of a very well researched set of debates and data. The journal should be ashamed of having published it in this state.
13/ Read work by these folks to clarify how wrong article is. @AdamRutherford @JenniferRaff @thebirdmaniac @gravesjl55 @humanbioassoc @rasmansa @DeborahBolnick @Graham_Coop @RebeccaSear @Harrisonauthor @lancegravlee @jontheanthroman @mpigliucci @ent3c and so many, many more
14/ Here is the article to read if you want. jstor.org/stable/10.5406…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
