New genetic evidence for a racial hierarchy
So I recently came across a nice paper by one Davide Piffer, titled:
Factor Analysis of Population Allele Frequencies as a Simple, Novel Method of Detecting Signals of Recent Polygenic Selection: The Example of Educational Attainment and IQ.
Why is this study interesting to us? Because it takes a few alleles influencing brain development or neurological function associated with higher intelligence and educational achievement, and compiles data on their distribution among various populations.
In short, it tells us which populations are genetically more intelligent.
These results should look familiar:
Frequency (%) of alleles associated with higher educational attainment
Beijing Chinese: 39.6% or 39.2%
[Asian: 39.1%]
Southern Chinese: 38.9%
Japanese: 38.7% or 39.6%
Finnish: 36.5%
British: 36%
Spanish 35.7%
[European: 35.5%]
Tuscany Italian: 35.1%
Utah White: 35% or 34.1%
Colombian: 32.9%
[Latin American: 31.8%]
Puerto Rican: 31.7%
California Mexican: 31.1%
Kenyan: 17.1%
US Black: 16.9%
[African: 16.4%]
Yoruba Nigerian: 15% or 14.8%
Some of the populations above get two scores because he used more studies when possible, and as you can see the results are coherent. Differences below 1 or 2% within racial groups can probably be ignored, but there's a very obvious racial gap: the frequencies of these alleles among Asian populations hovers around 39%, in Europeans around 35%, in Hispanics around 32%. Then after an enormous drop we find Blacks below 17%. The pattern is astoundingly clear.
Though the frequency data is the most reliable, he also calculated a polygenic score that attempts to weight alleles on their correlation with intelligence and scored smaller populations, which we can use to rank them. The specifics are complicated, but suffice to say that + is better than -. I have edited the data below to make it understandable:
Han (Beijing) +1.54
Daur (Kithan Mongolian) +1.49
Japanese (Tokyo) +1.41
Korean +1.34
Mongolian +1.25
Japanese +1.23
Tujia (Central Chinese) +1.12
Xibe (Manchurian) +1.08
Miao (Southern Chinese) +1.02
Tu (Mongolian) +0.96
Uyghur +0.95
Han Chinese +0.89
Dai (Thailand) +0.87
Hezhe (Siberian) +0.85
Yi (Southern Chinese) +0.84
Oroquen (Mongolian) +0.84
She (Fujian Chinese) +0.81
Lahu (Laotian Chinese) +0.72
Yakut (Turko-Mongol) +0.69
Naxi (Yunnan Tibetan) +0.48
Hazara (Persian Afghan) +0.41
Finnish +0.39
British +0.38
Adygei (Caucasian) +0.36
Druze (Israel) +0.33
Cambodian +0.32
Balochi (Pakistanese) +0.22
Italian (Tuscany) +0.19
Burusho (Central Asian) +0.16
Italian (Napolitan) +0.14
Nasioi (Melanesian) +0.12
White (Utah) +0.11
Kalash (Dardic Aryan) +0.11
Spanish +0.08
Brahui (Pakistanese Dravidian) +0.06
Palestinian +0
French -0.01
Orcadian (Orkney) -0.03
Russian -0.03
Mexican (California) -0.06
Puerto Rican -0.10
Bedouin -0.19
Pasthun -0.21
Sindhi (Pakistanese) -0.23
Mozabite (Berber) -0.24
Basque -0.30
Colombian -0.53
Sardinian -0.59
Pima (Mexican) -0.88
Amerindian (South) -0.93
Maya (Yucatan) -0.98
Surui (Amazonian) -1.15
Karitiania (Amazonian) -1.17
Papua New Guinean -1.25
Black (Southwest US) -1.44
Yoruba (Ife) -1.48
Kenyan -1.60
Mandenka (Senegal) -1.60
Yoruba (Benin) -1.65
Bantu -1.89
Biaka (Pigmy) -1.89
Mbuti (Pigmy) -2.24
San (Bushmen) -2.29
There are a few surprising finds in here. The first is that many Central Asian and Levantine populations seem at least as fit as Europeans. Perhaps it's just a quirk of small sample sizes, but remember that Levantines gave birth to Phoenicia and Carthage and the Central Asian minorities are generally Aryans (related to Persians and Northern Indians.) We might conclude that is it cultural/religious factors that are holding them back rather than genetics.
Another surprise is the relatively low score of Basques and Sardinians, which hardly does justice to their IQ. One explanation is that these populations are mostly descended from Paleo-Europeans and they are also small and endogamous, so they might have rare alleles contributing to their intelligence.
The most spectacular outliers are the Naasioi-speaking Melanesians, better known as the blonde Solomon Islanders, who score up there with the whiter nations. On the other end of the scale, Amazonian Indians and Papuans are the closest to Africans (though negroids are still at least twice as unfit.)
How come some of these populations (Mongolians, Southern Asians, various minorities) have not achieved much? Perhaps they have other genes affecting their behavior, making them unfit for civilization, or their environment made civilization difficult (Siberia is harsh, so even survival is a feat.) Many of these minorities are also high achievers within their countries, but their small population sizes prevent them from really taking over. They tend to be survivors of ancient populations wiped out by their neighbors, and this selection process may have culled the dumber members from the gene pool. In any case, it's certain that they have more potential than Africans.
Finally, it's a shame that this study doesn't have Germanic, Jewish or Aboriginal samples for comparison.
No comments:
Post a Comment