The g factor refers to general cognitive abilities; things that make you better or worse at a wide variety of cognitive tasks. Differences in the g factor are partly due to genetics, with estimates for its heritability ranging from 20% to 80%. Brain size has been implicated in g, IIRC accounting for like 10% of g.
There are various studious that investigate whether there are genetic differences in g between black people and white people. A lot of them are quite questionable because they are very indirect, looking at e.g. whether phenotypic differences after controlling for various correlated social factors.
In principle the most direct approach would be to just have a good genetic model of differences in g and applying that to genetic data that distinguishes the races. However, genetic models of psychological traits are still in their infancy, and we do not understand the mechanisms of genetic factors in much detail beyond their statistical average causal effects. This becomes a problem for various reasons that have been discussed in various places and which I won't go into in detail here.
Over time, presumably we will develop better models, to the point where eventually we will have a good mechanistic understanding of how g develops. At that point, presumably someone will do a definitive, solid study of the race differences in genetic g.
RESOLVES TO (white genetic g - black genetic g). To quantify genetic g, we will measure it with the within-race standard deviation of phenotypic g being 15. Mechanisms such as "black people have darker skin and society discriminates against darker-skinned people, giving them a lower phenotypic g" must be controlled for by the study. Mechanisms such as "black people know other black people and g is socially contagious, bringing the black g down due to historical disadvantage" or "black people have socioeconomic disadvantage in their families" may not confound the study in order for it to count for this market.
I will not be betting in this market.
1,000
3.00Uh @tailcalled what populations is this based on? Is this White Americans vs Black Americans? White defined by what? People with 1/4 Native ancestry? Black Americans including who? People with how much ancestry?
If such a study ever gets done, I think it would get done AFTER the widespread adoption of embryo selection in the US. Since I think white people will do embryo selection en masse before black people, this would inflate the number. It's also possible that high rates of intermarriage could make the study more complicated by the time it is done.
I know such a study has not been done. Speaking as a hereditarian, it would be nicer if people focused on IQ gaps other than the B-W one. Yes it's edgy and woke people who want to force equal outcomes are wrong. Some more variety maybe? Hispanic IQ? Ashkenazi IQ? Asian American IQ? You are also less likely to attract people betting those markets toward 0 and calling you a racist. Yes, you're not a racist. The neo-Nazi guy who calls himself Nate Higgers and makes exaggerated claims about Haitian migrants is a racist. But given the terrible state-sponsored discrimination Black Americans faced pre-1965, it would really make more sense to make markets on the other gaps first.
I know you are trying to have us just think of how much of the BW gap is non-environmental. I think somewhere in the range 50-100%, but your guess is as good as mine. Again how much admixture of this or that you have to have to be this race, selection effects, selective migration from Africa, etc will all swing the argument. I don't think we can remove 50% of the gap with the standard woke interventions even if it's 50, because in that case I think network effects play a pretty big role. As always, embryo selection is the best way forward.
Race isn't well defined genetically and intelligence is so contextual it can have genetic correlates that are "causal" due to discrimination based on observable characteristics (or to other circumstances, e.g. nutrient deficiency or whatnot from sunlight exposure differences that is highly situational) rather than anything else. Where do I bet that such a study will not be successfully conducted?
@JonathanRay It shouldn't just be a comparison of standard polygenic scores because polygenic scores are subject to various potential biases (e.g. the red-headed abuse model) and as you say, they don't capture all of the heritability.
It feels hard to say now ahead of time what exactly the rules should be because our understanding and methods will probably change over time to consider some paths more promising than others. One thing that would definitely be sufficient would be if we could come up with a good theoretically-justified mechanistic understanding for each racial genetic difference, and then counted up those differences. Theoretically-justified mechanistic understandings wouldn't have problems due to long tails of rare mutations as they aren't reliant on statistics over those mutations, but on the other hand it's not even clear that it will ever become possible to have this powerful of a theory. So I don't expect that kind of study to be the one that answers the question.
For quality's sake we should probably say that I will post the study for a month's worth of discussion on this market before resolving the market, so we have a chance of catching any serious problems.
Not sure if this sufficiently answers your question.
@tailcalled fair enough. Another issue is that a lot of environment is downstream of genetics. The environment of blacks living in the US is quite a lot better than that of blacks in any black countries. They reap large environmental benefits from living with a higher IQ population. Controlling for environment when environment is downstream of so much behavioral genetics is kind of an Everest regression. The US black-white gap is probably smaller than what you would get if you seeded 1000 identical exoplanets with 500 US white populations and 500 US black populations.
@JonathanRay Feel free to create your own market based on seeding 1000 exoplanets. Make sure to link it here.
@JonathanRay On the other hand, it may be well larger than what you would get from doing aggressive things to even out the environments. For instance if you did something crazy like CRISPRd everyone to have the same skin tone so no one could tell who is white and who is black and then had everyone randomly adopted, then I think the gap would decrease.