The relationship between cross-national genetic distances and IQ-differences

Why are there differences across German states in student achievement and cognitive ability?

Background

For more than twenty years, large and generally stable differences in academic achievement and cognitive ability have been reported within Germany. In such studies, the southern regions lead in the west and east, while city-states lag behind. Expressed in school learning time, the students in Bavaria are 14 months ahead of the students in Bremen. It is striking that there are no or only marginally received studies on causes and consequences.

Purpose

This study attempts to explore the causes and consequences of the differences within Germany and what can be learned in general about their development.

Materials and methods

We use data from student assessment and other studies (e.g., PISA, IQB) and apply correlational and path analyses, controlled for various background factors.

Results

There are no stable correlations with evolution (genes), educational level of society (adult school years) and wealth (GDP per capita). However, there are high correlations, robust across indicators, with "burgher-conservative" education policies, e.g., central exit examinations, early tracking, grades at a young age (around r ≈ .65); with measures of students' quantity of education (hours of instruction, no teacher shortage; r ≈ .40); with measures of tertiary educational quality and appreciation of education (university quality, short duration of studies, professors' salaries; r ≈ .50); with student native/immigrant ratio (r ≈ .50); with middle-class burgher lifestyle (less private debt, less welfare dependency and less crime; r ≈ .60); and with burgher-conservative-right politics (share of votes for CDU/CSU and non-left parties, non-left state governments; r ≈ .80). Longitudinal analyses over four decades reveal interaction effects, i.e., more burgher policies statistically lead to more cognitively competent students (β ≈ .45) and more cognitively competent populations vote for burgher parties (β ≈ .30).

Conclusions

The results, which support the efficacy a bourgeois-conservative education policy and of lower immigration rates, are delicate for the practice of student achievement research and for the political milieu that dominates the social sciences.

The Fallacy of Equating the Hereditarian Hypothesis with Racism

There is a large amount of evidence that groups differ in average cognitive ability. The hereditarian hypothesis states that these differences are partly or substantially explained by genetics. Despite being a positive claim about the world, this hypothesis is frequently equated with racism, and scholars who defend it are frequently denounced as racists. Yet equating the hereditarian hypothesis with racism is a logical fallacy. The present article identifies ten common arguments for why the hereditarian hypothesis is racist and demonstrates that each one is fallacious. The article concludes that society will be better served if the hereditarian hypothesis is treated the same way as any other scientific claim—critically, but dispassionately.

Race as Social Construct

It is often claimed that race is a social construct and that scientists studying race differences are disruptive racists. The recent April 2018 “Race Issue” of the widely distributed National Geographic Magazine (NG) provided its millions of readers with a particularly illustrative example of this position. As discussions of race issues often recur, in both scientific and lay literature, stir considerable polemics, and have political, societal and human implications, we found it of both scientific and general interest to identify and dissect the following partly overlapping key contentions of the NG race issue magazine: (1) Samuel Morton’s studies of brain size is reprehensible racism (2) Race does not relate to geographic location, (3) Races do not exist as we are all equals and Africans, (4) Admixture and displacement erase race differences as soon as they appear, and (5) Race is only skin color deep. Also examined is the claim that Race does not matter. When analyzed within syllogistic formalism, each of the claims is found theoretically and empirically unsustainable, as Morton’s continuously evolving race position is misrepresented, race relates significantly to geography, we are far from equals, races have definitely not been erased, and race, whether self-reported or defined by ancestry, lineage, ecotype, species, or genes, is much more than skin color deep. Race matters vitally for people and societies. We conclude that important research on existing population differences is hurt when widely respected institutions such as NG mobilize their full authority in a massively circulated attempt to betray its scientific and public readership by systematically misrepresenting historical sources and scientific positions, shaming past scientists, and by selectively suppressing unwanted or unacceptable results–acts included as examples of academic fraud by the National Academy of Sciences (US, 1986). Any unqualified a priori denial of the formative evolutionary aspects of individual and population differences threatens to impede the recent promising research on effects of genome wide allelic associations, which would lames us in the vital quest to develop rational solutions to associated globally pressing societal problems.

Biogeographic Ancestry, Cognitive Ability and Socioeconomic Outcomes

The cause(s) of ubiquitous cognitive differences between American self-identified racial/ethnic groups (SIREs) is uncertain. Evolutionary-genetic models posit that ancestral genetic selection pressures are the ultimate source of these differences. Conversely, sociological models posit that these differences result from racial discrimination. To examine predictions based on these models, we conducted a global admixture analysis using data from the Pediatric Imaging, Neurocognition, and Genetics Study (PING; N = 1,369 American children). Specifically, we employed a standard methodology of genetic epidemiology to determine whether genetic ancestry significantly predicts cognitive ability, independent of SIRE. In regression models using four different codings for SIRE as a covariate, we found incremental relationships between genetic ancestry and both general cognitive ability and parental socioeconomic status (SES). The relationships between global ancestry and cognitive ability were partially attenuated when parental SES was added as a predictor and when cognitive ability was the outcome. Moreover, these associations generally held when subgroups were analyzed separately. Our results are congruent with evolutionary-genetic models of group differences and with certain environmental models that mimic the predictions of evolutionary-genetic ones. Implications for research on race/ethnic differences in the Americas are discussed, as are methods for further exploring the matter.

Biogeographic Ancestry, Cognitive Ability and Socioeconomic Outcomes

The cause(s) of ubiquitous cognitive differences between American self-identified racial/ethnic groups (SIREs) is uncertain. Evolutionary-genetic models posit that ancestral genetic selection pressures are the ultimate source of these differences. Conversely, sociological models posit that these differences result from racial discrimination. To examine predictions based on these models, we conducted a global admixture analysis using data from the Pediatric Imaging, Neurocognition, and Genetics Study (PING; N = 1,369 American children). Specifically, we employed a standard methodology of genetic epidemiology to determine whether genetic ancestry significantly predicts cognitive ability, independent of SIRE. In regression models using four different codings for SIRE as a covariate, we found incremental relationships between genetic ancestry and both general cognitive ability and parental socioeconomic status (SES). The relationships between global ancestry and cognitive ability were partially attenuated when parental SES was added as a predictor and when cognitive ability was the outcome. Moreover, these associations generally held when subgroups were analyzed separately. Our results are congruent with evolutionary-genetic models of group differences and with certain environmental models that mimic the predictions of evolutionary-genetic ones. Implications for research on race/ethnic differences in the Americas are discussed, as are methods for further exploring the matter.