Race and IQ: A Theory-Based Review of the Research in Richard Nisbett’s
Intelligence and How to Get It
The Open Psychology Journal, 2010, 3, 9-35
https://openpsychologyjournal.com/contents/volumes/V3/TOPSYJ-3-9/TOPSYJ-3-9.pdf
J. Philippe Rushton1,* and Arthur R. Jensen2
1 Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, N6A 5C2, Canada
2 Department of Education, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94308
Abstract:
We provide a detailed review of data from psychology, genetics, and neuroscience in a point-counterpoint format to enable readers to identify the merits and demerits of each side of the debate over whether the culture-only (0% genetic-100% environmental) or nature + nurture model (50% genetic-50% environmental) best explains mean ethnic group differences in intelligence test scores: Jewish (mean IQ = 113), East Asian (106), White (100), Hispanic (90), South Asian (87), African American (85), and sub-Saharan African (70). We juxtapose Richard Nisbett’s position, expressed in his book Intelligence and How to Get It, with our own, to examine his thesis that cultural factors alone are sufficient to
explain the differences and that the nature + nurture model we have presented over the last 40 years is unnecessary. We review the evidence in 14 topics of contention: (1) data to be explained; (2) malleability of IQ test scores; (3) cultureloaded versus g-loaded tests; (4) stereotype threat, caste, and “X” factors; (5) reaction-time measures; (6) within-race heritability; (7) between-race heritability; (8) sub-Saharan African IQ scores; (9) race differences in brain size; (10) sex differences in brain size; (11) trans-racial adoption studies; (12) racial admixture studies; (13) regression to the mean effects; and (14) human origins research and life-history traits. We conclude that the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that in intelligence, brain size, and other life history traits, East Asians average higher than do Europeans who average higher do South Asians, African Americans, or sub-Saharan Africans. The group differences are between 50 and 80% heritable.
种族和智商：理查德·尼斯贝特的研究的基于理论的回顾情报和如何获得它
J. Philippe Rushton1,* 和 Arthur R. Jensen2
1 西安大略大学心理学系，伦敦，安大略省，N6A 5C2，加拿大
2 加州大学伯克利分校教育系，CA 94308
摘要：我们以点对点的形式详细回顾了心理学、遗传学和神经科学的数据，使读者能够确定关于仅文化（0% 遗传-100%）是否存在争论的每一方的优缺点。 环境）或自然 + 培育模型（50% 遗传 - 50% 环境）最能解释平均种族群体智力测试分数差异：犹太人（平均智商 = 113）、东亚人（106）、白人（100）、西班牙裔（90）、南亚人(87)、非裔美国人 (85) 和撒哈拉以南非洲人 (70)。 我们将 Richard Nisbett 的立场并置在一起，他在书情报和如何获得它，用我们自己的，来检验他的论点，即文化因素本身就足以解释差异，并且我们在过去 40 年中提出的先天 + 后天模型是不必要的。 我们
回顾14个争论话题的证据：（1）需要解释的数据； (2) 智商测试分数的可塑性； (3) 文化加载与 g 加载测试； (4) 刻板印象威胁、种姓和“X”因素； (5) 反应时间措施； (6) 种内遗传力； (7) 种族间遗传力； (8) 撒哈拉以南非洲地区的智商分数； (9) 大脑大小的种族差异； (10) 大脑大小的性别差异； (11) 跨种族收养研究； (12) 种族混合研究； (13) 回归均值效应；(14) 人类起源研究和生活史特征。 我们的结论是，优势证据表明
在智力、大脑大小和其他生活史特征方面，东亚人的平均水平高于欧洲人南亚人、非裔美国人或撒哈拉以南的非洲人。 群体差异在 50% 到 80% 之间是可遗传的。
