Race science: wronger than ever

So based on a complaint by a race science proponent on Twitter, as discussed in the previous post, I reworked the Latino ancestry numbers and now it's even worse for race science than before.

Here's where it stands now:

ANCESTRY	IQ CLAIM	%	WEIGHT	WEIGHTED AVG
European (White)	100	65.1	0.651	65.1
African (Black)	68.5	6.2	0.062	4.247
Native American	87	18	0.18	15.66
East Asian	105	3.56	0.0356	3.738
Ashkenazi	114	3.56	0.0356	4.0584
Middle Eastern	84	3.56	0.0356	2.9904
		99.98	TOTAL	95.79

Now remember, race science believes that IQ scores are a measure purely of innate intellectual ability. Although they occasionally give lip service to the environment, when among race science friends as when the Winegard brothers published their "A Tale of Two Bell Curves" article for Quillette they go strong pinkerism straight-up hereditarian:

Of course, there are other possible explanations of the Black-White gap, such as parenting styles, stereotype threat, and a legacy of slavery/discrimination among others. However, to date, none of these putative causal variables has been shown to have a significant effect on the IQ gap, and no researcher has yet made a compelling case that environmental variables can explain the gap. This is certainly not for lack of effort; for good reason, scholars are highly motivated to ascertain possible environmental causes of the gap and have tried for many years to do just that. 

So one race science proponent claimed Latino IQ is 89, another claimed Hispanic IQ was 90 but when you look at the Latino/Hispanic ancestry breakdown, using race science IQ score claims, the average IQ should be 95.7 if IQ is a pure genetic expression determined by "race" and untainted by environment.

And please note, the 95.79 score is after I reduced the African score from 85, which was for African American, to 68.5 for sub-Saharan African. (I split the difference between Lynn's 67 and Rushton/Jensens 70.)

Now here's where it gets really interesting.

Although race science considers East Asians and Native Americans completely different races, with a big gap in average IQ (105 v 87) genetic testing does not, as shown by the 23andMe population groupings.

They consider "East Asian & Native American" to be just as much a discreet population as European.

I would include a link to this item but I think it is
only available through 23andMe accounts.

Race science thinks that the Native American IQ score of 87 represents their innate intelligence. But since Native American and East Asian groups are similar enough that they are counted as a single global population - just as all Europeans are a single global population - it stands to reason that environment must be the factor in bringing down Native American IQ scores, which should be the same as East Asian, if IQ is purely an expression of "race."

So why shouldn't we assume that Native Americans get the same IQ score as East Asians?

Giving Native American ancestry a score of 105 raises the overall score to 99. One point below Europeans and nine points above "Hispanic" (and ten points above "Latino" per race science variations.)

ANCESTRY	IQ CLAIM	%	WEIGHT	WEIGHTED AVG
European (White)	100	65.1	0.651	65.1
African (Black)	68.5	6.2	0.062	4.247
Native American	105	18	0.18	18.9
East Asian	105	3.56	0.0356	3.738
Ashkenazi	114	3.56	0.0356	4.0584
Middle Eastern	84	3.56	0.0356	2.9904
		99.98	TOTAL	99.03

So race science has failed even more when you compare their IQ claims about Hispanic/Latino as a demographic group against the actual ancestries that make up Hispanic/Latino-classified people.

And this is because race science is dependent on 19th century - or even 18th century concepts and race classification schemes and ignores 21st century discoveries. Which is why race science proponent Razib Khan was  triggered by that Carl Zimmer article.

But why exactly does 23andMe group Native American and East Asian as a single population? We'll talk about that next.