Cited by 8Cognitive Abilities and TestingRace, Genetics, and SocietyGenetic Associations and Epidemiology

A Genetic Hypothesis for American Race/Ethnic Differences in Mean [i]g[/i]: A Reply to Warne (2021) with Fifteen New Empirical Tests Using the ABCD Dataset

Fuerst, John G.R., Shibaev, Vladimir, Kirkegaard, Emil O. W.·2023·Mankind Quarterly

Abstract

Intelligence tests are excellent predictors of school and job performance, and racial/ethnic differences in mean IQ are common. Based on five lines of evidence, Warne (2021) builds a case for partly genetic causes of differences in general intelligence (g) across American self/parental-identified race or ethnicity (SIRE). Based on a careful reading of Warne (2021) and the authors he cites, we generated 15 predictions flowing from a partial genetic hypothesis. These predictions concern (1) mean cognitive differences and Spearman’s hypothesis, (2) measurement invariance across European genetic ancestry, (3) high within-group heritability and low shared environmentality, (4) admixture regression for g, (5) polygenic scores, (6) brain volume, and (7) results based on the method of correlated vectors. We used the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study sample (N = 10,245) to test these hypotheses using classical and state-of-the-art statistical techniques. Decomposition of variance using twins showed that the heritability of intelligence and of brain/intracranial volume estimates were, respectively, moderate and high for both the White and the non-White subsamples, while the variance attributable to shared environment was low. Within SIRE groups, both genetic ancestry and education-related polygenic scores (eduPGS) predicted both brain volume and g. Moreover, brain volume was weakly but statistically significantly related to g (r = .14 to .25). Path and mediation analysis sho…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.46469/mq.2023.63.4.2

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A further nine usable studies were identified based on the search.

    “A further nine usable studies were identified based on the search (Blankson & McArdle, 2015;Dalliard, 2013;Fuerst et al., 2023;Hu, 2025;Kane, 2004Kane, , 2007;;Kane & Brand, 2008; National Academy of Sciences [NAS], 1921;Shibaev & Fuerst, 2026).”

    From A Meta-Analysis of Spearman’s Hypothesis in the United States (2026) · cites this paper as Fuerst et al., 2023

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fuerst, J. G. R., Shibaev, V., & Kirkegaard, E. O. W.
Venue
Mankind Quarterly
Published
2023
Volume
63
Issue
4
Pages
527-600
ISSN
0025-2344 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4381414902
Cited by
8
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3
FWCI
1.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Mankind Quarterly (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Race, Genetics, and Society
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
Keywords
general intelligence, genetic ancestry, brain volume, heritability of intelligence, admixture, polygenic risk score, measurement invariance, shared environment, positive manifold, Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study, Spearman's hypothesis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review