Feeds:
Posts
Comments

“The average African IQ is 70”

Note: In this post “Africans” means just black Africans and IQs are on a scale where Britain = 100 and America = 98 in 2006.

“The average African IQ is 70” is something you hear on the Internet. It means that black Africans have an average IQ of 70. Some put it lower at 67. It has become an article of faith among HBDers and other scientific racists.

It is not just the Internet: it has appeared in at least 20 scientific papers and in several books and studies. It is what James Watson had in mind in 2007 when he said he was:

inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa [because] all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really.

The number comes from Richard Lynn, professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Ulster. He took some studies where IQ tests were given to Africans, took the average and got 67.

The number is suspect for a very simple reason: Africans do way better at school than you would expect from an average IQ of 67. Given their PISA scores and other measures of school achievement, you would expect an IQ somewhere near 82.

As it turns out, Lynn’s 67 is based in part on children who lost points because:

  • Some were not used to pencils and could not draw. One boy said it was the first time he ever drew a picture.
  • Some were not familiar with line drawings.
  • Some did not wear Western clothes and so did not draw people that way.
  • Many did not know about telephones, tennis, dollars, miles or other things common in America.

The main one: Most knew English only as a foreign language.

On top of that, Lynn marked down some scores and did not say why or how:

  • Boys in Uganda who averaged 86 Lynn marked down to 80.
  • Zulu children in South Africa who averaged 89 were marked down to 74.
  • From a study on Nigeria and Sierra Leone he took the two worst samples out of five. No reason given.

Of the 42 studies he could have used, Lynn used 11. They had an average IQ of 67. The studies he did not use had an average IQ of 80. He gave no reason for his choice (though he did not seem to know about those that appeared only in African journals).

There are good reasons to throw out some studies:

  1. The test was not properly administered.
  2. The test was not given in full.
  3. The test takers were not a representative sample.
  4. The test has known cultural biases.
  5. The test has not been tried on a broad Western sample, making it hard to compare.

If you throw out all those you are left with 12 of the 42 studies. They have an average IQ of 81. Very close to the 82 expected from school achievement.

That is where the Netherlands was in the 1950s if you take into account the rising IQs of the Flynn Effect – which seems to have run its course in the West but not in Africa.

Huge thanks to the Cynic for pointing me towards the scientific paper this post is mostly based on (see below for the link).

See also:

582 Responses

  1. Abagond,
    Once again, I think you are missing the forest for the trees.

    The issue here isn’t whether Africans can churn out Nobel prize winning economists or physicists and the like. The issue is whether African citizens are human beings per the UN charter. I say they are. So that, to me, means a range of things that has nothing to do with IQ, such as safe drinking water, being free from mass rapes and civil wars/strife, stable governments and so forth. The argument put forth by the HBD crowd is that these things simply aren’t possible per the low IQs of African citizens; based on what we can see in many African societies, I would beg to differ. Many seem to have enough IQ to make their countries relatively stable, and in some cases are actually on an upward swing.

    In short Abagond, it is my considered view that way too much focus is put on rather esoteric points of argument, and woefully not enough on things that not only matter, but are within much of our reach to do something about. Black Crime, is one such example – why do we not condem this, in the strongest possible langage that we can, on our blogs and venues throughout the Afrosphere?

    See what I mean?

    O.

    Liked by 1 person


  2. “The issue is whether African citizens are human beings per the UN charter.”

    Actually, you can’t be a citizen of Africa, any more than you can be a citizen of North America.

    Like


  3. You’ve never heard citizen used in a loose context, such as “citizen of the world?”

    Like


  4. So, absent any white admixture, blacks should have an average IQ of 81. Got it. You’re really banking on the Flynn Effect, aren’t you? I suppose if you replicated the factors that may have caused the effect in the west, and transplanted them to sub-saharan africa, we could test this. Any suggestions?

    Alternatively, we could move all sub-saharan africans to europe and north america.

    Like


  5. Ok, ok, wait a second.

    Isn’t IQ of 70 borderline mental-retardation?

    And nobody thinks it’s fishy to assume a (very large group of people, millions of them originating from a large continent) are, on average, mentally retarded?

    Take a second to process this fact. It makes no logical sense whatsoever.

    Also:

    all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really.

    And, of course, everybody’s quick to trust tests. Isn’t this a good point to realize there’s something wrong about the tests themselves, or the way they are administrated.

    The main one: Most knew English only as a foreign language.

    This is also an important factor. My IQ is around 120, I think, and I did some tests in English. I got much lower score, around 100, 110 tops (I was partially saved by non-verbal sections of the tests).

    Like


  6. I double Mira’s comment. Assuming standardised and consistent test methods with identical content, average IQ 70 seems highly implausible. (Especially to someone who has spent some time in central Africa). The figures in the 80s sound closer to the truth. That is, if IQ by Western standards can ever be a meaningful measurement for cognitive abilities at all.

    Even if assuming the discrepancy to be that extreme, plausibility deserves the most attention:
    http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/26/why-do-iq-scores-vary-by-nation.html

    Like


  7. That is, if IQ by Western standards can ever be a meaningful measurement for cognitive abilities at all.

    Yes, this is, indeed, a very important point that should be discussed.

    I just wanted to point out, even if you believe IQ is an objective measurement for cognitive abilities, the average result bordering on mental disability is a clear sign there’s something wrong with the way you measure it.

    Like


  8. @ Mira
    Either the way you measure it is flawed or all the data floating about is simply incorrect.

    If anybody has links to the actual tests in all details that yield those (only consolidated) figures, please post them. It shouldn’t be a problem to put a few megabytes online in 2011.

    A question for the initiated, were those tests timed?

    Like


  9. You’ve never heard citizen used in a loose context, such as “citizen of the world?”

    The phrase “citizen of the world?”is specifically used to advocate and promote the idea of single-world collective interests. It has been both coined and accepted only on that basis.

    However, we don’t say, you are a citizen of Asia, or of the Arctic, or Oceania, any more than we say that we are citizens of McDonalds because we eat there.

    Like


  10. King,
    Methinks you’re being obtuse here. You knew what I meant.

    Why is it so very hard for you guys to simply focus on more simple, tangible, doable things? Like that I mentioned above?

    O.

    Like


  11. Headline: “Scientists discover that those silly Africans don’t know as much about the west as we do so they must be dumb as a box of rocks.”

    What a waste of time! Standardised IQ tests mean very little, even in a uniform cultural group. Using these tests on people with different cultural references only says something about the IQ of the researchers.

    Like


  12. It’s a shame that this article was published in 2009, but you still hear the, “Africans are damn near retarded!” comment from HDBers right up till this very day. You’d think that the hardcore ones would of heard about this study as soon as it came out.

    Anyways, I’ve always found Lynn’s scores hard to believe. Not bc I didn’t want to believe them, but bc they didn’t seem fitting if you compared them with other regions/populations of the world. For instance, South Asia’s average IQ is said to be in the low 80’s, yet they are the second least developed region after SSA. Then you have Caribbeans and African Americans with higher IQ scores when they are all the same race??? Of course HDBers attribute that to their European heritage -_-.

    I wonder how smart AAs and Black West Indians are supposed to be now if you assume SSA’s avg IQ is 81…

    Like


  13. Obs… I didn’t say that I didn’t understand what you meant, (that would be being obtuse) I just noted that what you said was incorrect.

    But to the issue at hand.

    Do you not understand why Abagond is delving into scientific racism and it’s broader implications beyond academics?

    It sounds like you are arguing that it’s not that important.

    Like


  14. Obsidian:

    This thread is about African IQ, not whatever you want it to be. If you do not like my topics, then suggest one. That is how this post got started. In the meantime you can talk about the forest at the Open Thread and let the people here talk about the trees.

    Like


  15. Psychology is not my field of expertise, but it’s been my experience that IQ tests have always held a cultural bias.

    If you give a group of Nuer tribesmen (Southern Sudan & Western Ethiopia) a standard Western IQ test, of course they’re going to fail! They’re pastoral, and most of their lives revolve around cattle! Ask them about cows, and they can tell you quite a lot. Just like the Inuit can tell you a lot about snow.

    Intelligence is based on culture. Sure, there are sharp people who pick up on things faster than others, but we can’t measure that with IQ tests. IQ tests only measure how smart you are in a given culture.

    Basically, they assume that both the test taker and test maker share the same/similar culture, and so the knowledge being tested on is relatively well-known to both parties. Being able to measure their score on the test depends on this assumption of a level playing-field. Sadly, there has never been a level playing-field in the history of testing.

    And as of yet, there are very few cross-cultural IQ tests, because nobody has come up with a good definition of what a universal IQ means.

    The best ones I’ve seen test people in their culture’s own context. And the best Western IQ tests I’ve seen measure not just a single type of intelligence, but all the different types of intelligence, from spatial to kinetic and so on.

    Liked by 1 person


  16. @Obs

    “The issue here isn’t whether Africans can churn out Nobel prize winning economists or physicists and the like.”

    “So that, to me, means a range of things that has nothing to do with IQ, such as safe drinking water, being free from mass rapes and civil wars/strife, stable governments and so forth.”

    Look, this is a lot more important than your condescending paternalistic tone towards Africans or Afro-descendants in the West. These are not just some simple minded ppl who can’t possibly be bothered with complicated Western subjects like physics and economics(Dude, you seriously sound like the PC throwback of a 19th cent. imperialist, it’s not even funny). Not only should they have those basic needs the UN probably can’t provide for them, but they need foreign investment and trade in order to develop.

    You don’t think the attitude of some Western or Asian businessman might affect whether or not they engage in much needed business with the rest of the world(outside of exploitation)? The entire continent already has a bad rep. Africans don’t need pseudo-science to confirm what prejudiced people already think of them. That they are sub-human.

    It should be obvious as to why this is important. And don’t bother with the, “your putting words in my mouth” BS. I’m just telling you how your comment came off.

    Like


  17. Is this a joke?😀

    “Of the 42 studies he could have used, Lynn used 11.”😀

    Is that really 42? I mean, no one, not a single real scientist can not draw any conclusions if the statistics are that ridicilous.😀

    42 kids out few hunderd million? Is this emeritus professor senile?😀

    42 kids and this guy, really, tells us that africans (what? billion individuals or so?) have this and that IQ? And he uses american tests?😀

    Man, this is getting more and more ridicilous. This is way more crazy than I belived! Monty Python stuff, really!😀

    And this is something HBDers base their statements? Oh man, that is so funny!😀

    No wonder they are so lost! And one thing: anybody who can this kind of crap seriously should check their heads. Absolute minimum for anykind of statistical study is 1000 units. 42!😀

    Like


  18. The 42 studies together tested a total of 14,219 Africans. Lynn’s 11 studies tested 2,056.

    Like


  19. @jobcob “You’re really banking on the Flynn Effect, aren’t you? I suppose if you replicated the factors that may have caused the effect in the west, and transplanted them to sub-saharan africa, we could test this. Any suggestions?”

    Well no one really knows the factor(s) that attributed to the Flynn Effect, though their have been guesses. I’ll quote Wicherts’ paper itself(link included in the post).

    “Specifically, Flynn (1987, 2007) has shown that IQ levels have increased considerably in the developed world over the course of the twentieth century. African countries below the Sahara have not experienced the improvements in the variables that have been proposed to have caused the Flynn Effect in the developed world. These include improvements in nutrition and health (care), increases educational attainment, improvements in educational practices, urbanization, large-scale dissemination of visual–spatial toys, etc. Although it cannot be precluded that genetic effects play a role in the low IQ performance of Africans, we view environmental circumstances as potentially more relevant to the present-day difference in mean. The average IQ level of 81 for Africans in terms of western norms may appear to be low, but from a
    historical perspective it is not. For instance, due to the Flynn Effect, the average IQ of the Dutch population in the 1950s, compared to contemporary norms, would also be around 80(Flynn, 1987, 2007). Note that in terms of societal development, contemporary African countries are more similar to developed countries in the first half of the twentieth century than to present-day developed countries.”

    It’s not feasible to transport all Africans to the West for several reasons. The development of African countries are w/in their own hands. I thinking ending foreign aid to corrupt gvmts, as well as forgiving debts from intl banking agencies would help.

    Like


  20. ^These debts from banks like the IMF and World Bank allow corporations to exploit these populations. The also lower money that could be spent on much needed social expenditure(school, infrastructure, etc) and promote income inequality/plutocracies.

    Like


  21. ***And as of yet, there are very few cross-cultural IQ tests, because nobody has come up with a good definition of what a universal IQ means.***

    I think researchers look at the g-factor. Also, Jones & Schneider explain here:

    “Unlike traditional IQ tests that measure a very diverse set of
    cognitive abilities, culture-reduced IQ tests necessarily measure a much smaller number of abilities, focusing on nonverbal reasoning and novel problem-solving. Fortunately, the types of tests that lend themselves to cross-cultural research correlate very highly with the overall scores from traditional IQ tests (Jensen 1998). For our purposes, it does not matter if one believes that IQ tests are valid measures of whatever “real intelligence” is (if there is such a thing as “intelligence”). The tests measure a set of skills that appear to be very advantageous in societies with modern economies. Unlike other measures of human capital such as reading comprehension and mathematical reasoning tests, culture-fair IQ tests have no literacy prerequisites. Because the tests are nonverbal, the test items are the same for everyone and thus results are more comparable across language groups and
    cultures.

    We do not conceptualize culture-fair IQ tests as measures of some immutable quantity that is solely determined by genes. Although it is quite clear that genes play an important role in the development of cognitive abilities, it is equally clear that cognitive abilities are quite sensitive to environmental inputs and can change considerably over the ifespan (Shaie 2005). It is relatively easy to disrupt the delicate processes of the brain with disease, malnutrition, parental abuse and neglect, environmental toxins, and brain injury. With considerable effort, it is also possible to raise IQ somewhat with high-quality personal health care, sound public health policies, adequate nutrition, reasonable parental involvement, and excellent education (Armor 2003). The fact that IQ scores have been rising 0.2 standard deviations per decade in most countries ever since mass IQ testing started in the 1920’s (Dickens & Flynn 2001; Flynn 1987) suggests that in many societies people have increased access to some of these things.”

    http://mason.gmu.edu/~gjonesb/Immigrant%2520IQ

    Like


  22. What exactly do you mean by “studies”? How did Lynn’s experiment work? Would you give me some details?

    Like


  23. The G-factor is actually a severely debated measure of intelligence, and while current research uses the G-factor in conjunction with other intelligence assessments, the trend is moving away from concepts of “general intelligence”, because (as I said above) intelligence is based on culture. What we define as “smart” is based more on our own preconceived notions of rational thinking, problem-solving, and other subjective mental faculties, than on any scientific definition.

    Peter Schönemann has an excellent position on the reason for “general intelligence” to be a discredited notion, although his work is highly advanced and hard to understand.

    As far as psychology, sociology, and cultural anthropology are concerned, most of the work in those fields acknowledge that there are many kinds of intelligence, and attempting to condense this extremely nebulous concept into a single statistical factor, is pointedly foolish. In my field particularly, ethnocentrism is what we call the position that a Western definition IS the definition, even when it’s based on supposedly objective criteria.

    And I think this problem with simplifying complex issues has a lot to do with the public’s consumption of fast-food culture. Easy answers, and instant gratification. E=MC(square). “Yes, I want some fries with that.” “Well here you go.” Rapid fire answers, as if you typed it into Google. Things of that nature.

    The layperson is simply unable to grasp the niceties and complexities inherent in most fields, which is also a by-product of a school-system that used to focus on well-roundedness, instead of specialization. You need to be specialized to understand these things, and that’s partially why people like Obsidian will continue to come here and whine/complain that we’re not addressing the “right” issues for them. Because they can’t understand the subject! Because they can’t be bothered to learn the material first. They’d rather just move on and discuss something else they don’t need to strain themselves to think about.

    Which is lamentable, but not unexpected.

    Going back to your second quoted paragraph Schwartz,

    The rise in intelligence is a little misrepresented. Sure, access to healthcare, water, food, improved education, parental involvement — all of these things help make people smarter. But again, how we define intelligence determines a lot of what we value in a given population.

    During tribalism among African nations, or American-Indian nations, life was — on the whole — much more satisfactory according to the testimonies from people who lived during that era. It was only upon the intrusion of foreign powers that their lives now required things like healthcare, and access to formal education.

    Shoot, Jomo Kenyata, by the measure of the Kikuyu, was as well-educated as any Oxford man (before he actually went to a Western school) for the life he would have led, if not for the British. (Side-note: I have a lot of problems with his politics, but he was a great anthropologist.)

    Like


  24. “The 42 studies together tested a total of 14,219 Africans. Lynn’s 11 studies tested 2,056.” Ok. I stand corrected.

    Still, if I interviewed 2500 newyorkers and claimed that all newyorkers think like this or that, how many would say that this is a fact? No objections?

    If I did 15000 IQ tests in Moscow, could I say that this or that is their level of intelligence? No objections?😀

    And really, american IQ tests for africans??😀

    A little cultural imperialism there. “But of course american IQ tests are universal”, right? Riiiiiiiiiight😀

    I bet if you did the same in Finland in english we would score less than fifty😀

    schwartz: “Because the tests are nonverbal, the test items are the same for everyone and thus results are more comparable across language groups and
    cultures.”

    No they are not. The test items are all culturally selected and have different contexts in different cultures. The very idea that because they are nonverbal they are universal is cultural fantasy. It is the same kind of fantasy as “the unversal language of Universum is mathematics”. You know, the idea that if we meet aliens we can communicate with them trough mathematics because that is how everything is organised in space.

    Yeah, according to us. The aliens could as well believe that universum is vanilla foam and based on whistling. How the hell we know? We do not.

    “The tests measure a set of skills that appear to be very advantageous in societies with modern economies.”

    Right. And what about societies were modern economics is not the bases of the whole society? There are those too, you know. Like some hippie communes in USA and western Europe😀

    Like


  25. Halisi said:

    “What exactly do you mean by “studies”? How did Lynn’s experiment work? Would you give me some details?”

    Lynn did not carry out any of the studies himself. Instead he looked through published studies done by others to find ones where Africans were given IQ tests. Sometimes the studies were not even about IQ but something else, like aggression or malaria.

    No one has gone throughout Africa (or most of Asia) giving the same IQ test to broad samples in each country. Nor is there any good IQ test that seems to work equally well in the West as in Africa and Asia. Instead all we have are studies here and there where IQ tests played a part for some reason.

    That leaves it wide open for people like Lynn to pick and choose the studies he wants and come up with an average. For Africa he picks ones with low averages. For China and Japan he picks ones with high averages. And many people do not question it because it fits their racist ideas. Even James Watson, one of the greatest living scientists, did not question it.

    Like


  26. I’d love to see a study the average IQ of HBDers; specifically, how well would they be able to grasp the most basic survival skills after being thrown into the wilderness (African savannas or the jungles of South America) with nothing but a standard, Army-issued survival kit…

    On second thought, skip giving them the survival kit – their mighty IQs will protect them from everything! 😆 :laughing:

    Liked by 1 person


  27. Then wouldn’t the only way to define intelligence be to find what each culture deems as the basis of intelligence and write an IQ test for that? Or give them a multiple intelligence test that works with their environment? What Lynn did doesn’t even count as science.

    Like


  28. “Even James Watson, one of the greatest living scientists, did not question it.”

    Omg… if only I could count the number of times simple minded HDBers quoted Watson and told me to, “Suck it! Don’t need no facts! Nobel Prize winner and discoverer of DNA, James Watson agrees with me. Appeal to Authority muhhhf*ckaaa!”

    Okay, I embellished their general statements a lil, but you get the point.

    Like


  29. The reason why these IQ tests are questionable on a global basis is that they seem to reward those who are keen (in an almost neurotic kind of way) and punish those who take their time to cognitively tackle problems. The result may yield the same efficiency among those who take more time for reflection. The tests do not respect that though.

    Another factor is dyslexia. It is scientifically proven that dyslexia is in no way related to cognitive capability, aka intelligence, but still is taken into account in so-called IQ tests.

    My grandmother (African) and my mother (mixed African) were both dyslexic, seemingly slower (in terms of responsiveness) than others but intellectually absolutely sharp. My father (British European) is not dyslexic. He’s quick-witted but doesn’t get certain things quite right, to put it mildly. My brothers are the same, and so am I probably…

    However my grandmother’s, objectively irrelevant, disability was one of the reasons (apart from her skin colour apparently) back in the days she made it to nurse “only” and not to MD which she could have mastered quite easily. My mother was brilliant in biology and other sciences but as soon as it got to put things on paper she froze.

    I have plenty of personal anecdotes from Africa that contradict the stereotype of “borderline retarded” people. Plenty of examples of people who may seem slower and less eloquent by Western standards but definitely sharp, witty and competent. Those stories are admittedly easy to dismiss because of their anecdotal character but nevertheless lived and real.

    Like


  30. @ sepultura13:

    Obviously you haven’t been paying attention to the HBDers. Africa is one big farm where things just grow, dontcha know! The hardest thing you can do is live somewhere where it snows, and the people who lived there evolved the smarts which make them superior.

    Which is of course why Eskimos came to dominate the planet. All hail our Eskimo overlords!

    Like


  31. Halisi:

    As has been said above, it is hard to separate intelligence from culture.

    Some Western IQ tests have been changed to make them work better in Africa – to make them more a test of intelligence and less a test of English or Westernization. But the moment you do that you lose the power to compare scores across cultures. Yet if you do not change the test, it remains culturally biased and again you cannot make a true comparison. So it is like a Chinese finger puzzle.

    Like


  32. I, for one, welcome our new Eskimo overlords😉

    Like


  33. James Watson is probably right about the science 99% of the time as compared to the man in the street, but even he is human, not even Eskimo, so he is capable of being wrong.

    Like


  34. Why, oh why wasn’t I born with superior Eskimo genes???
    Those frosty Asians are are so smart!!!

    And their sled dogs are more clever than dolphins!

    Like


  35. @ES:

    *slaps forehead*
    Of course, silly me – I completely forgot about snow making you smarter! I guess that gives me an edge…I spent most of my life in Alaska! 😎 I’ve only been ‘civilized’ for 20 years, and could easily return to my feral nature…😆

    So, I’ll put in a good word for all y’all who will welcome our Esquimau and Athabascan overlords with open arms – and, the dogs are easy to deal with now that the Iditarod is on! 😀

    Like


  36. I always have wanted to ask these HDB ppl how Eskimos or Sami people fit into their snow makes you smarter theory. I don’t believe they have any intellectual deficits, but you know how these HDBers think…

    Like


  37. There is no objective way to measure intelligence mainly because intelligence is interpreted within a particular society, and no society is the same as the next. Intelligence is usually explained by those with a certain view of the world, those with not only a good education, but with money and privileges to create “tests”.

    I read this in Post Traumatic Slave Syndrone by Dr. Joy Degruy Leary Ph.D.

    When the earliest I.Q. tests were taken, they used people from Poland, Russia, Italy and other Southern and Eastern European immigrants. None of them spoke English and on top of that they were tired, stressed and hungry.

    The results of the “tests” showed they did terrible which lead the “scientists” to believe that those countries were sending their dumbest people to America.

    If they already have negative notions about Africa and Africans, then a “test” like the one mentioned was nothing more than to prove the white supremacist myth loved and adored so much back then and today.

    Like


  38. Oh and I forgot the Ainu people of the most Northern part of Japan.

    Like


  39. “Oh and I forgot the Ainu people of the most Northern part of Japan.”

    or, as I like to call them… the Snowbound Brainiacs!

    Like


  40. Wait, so does this mean those crazy Scandinavian vikings were actually…

    Cultured aristocrats with a superior intellect who merely feigned their enjoyment of bludgeoning people to death on a random basis? Oh, but they did have that oh so civilized penchant for naming countries the exact opposite of their topographical climate. (Greenland, Iceland… What’s next? Arctica is actually Sunnyland?)

    And, of course, we all know the advanced civilization of the Irish pre-Whiskey. They had flying cars for geebuses sake!

    But then they were ruined by those idiotic Black Irish. Grrr.

    Le sigh. Oh the hilarity.

    Like


  41. Where are the actual HDBers on this post? I only see about one or two comments from them? Does this mean they find no faults with this research? Nothing to say about the topic of race & IQ and what this finding means to you????

    Like


  42. And their sled dogs are more clever than dolphins!

    Ask sam about these animals with superior intellects! His beloved pet Jakko is still trying to communicate with sam but due to sam’s relatively inferior intellect, he cannot manage this, and sam is from a cold country! Just the other day, out of frustration, Jakko tried to kick some sense into sams head but to no avail. Not only do the humans in cold climates possess superior IQs, but the beasts are even smarter than they are! Superior intellects all round! Here’s Jakko. Notice the brilliant and superior gleam in his eyes!:

    http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSoZQ7JVqBOry4rIql0XTpNzHUKXw68lisQqawt2yzY4ASfRfV1

    Here’s a couple of Vikings dressed up to party— or pillage, take your pick as it may be all the same for them!

    http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS5FnREFSITJRKcZLjulTcVwbxjQKqzAQRrdR-lcS0kd7FyKvC0

    After a couple of drinks, their IQ rises to 3,000!

    Like


  43. @Herneith

    Notice the brilliant and superior gleam in his eyes!

    LOLOLOL these snow jokes are killin me!🙂

    Like


  44. I held my head into the freezer this morning. Right after I was overcome with an inexplicable urge to solve a complex calculus problem.

    Like


  45. Yes, snow makes us so intelligent up here. The name of my pet reindeer is Jaakko, pronounced as Yaakko, the k’s pronounced as in KKK. And he is pretty smart, actually so smart that when ever he is running on the road and some car tries to go around it, Jaakko goes straight at it. But that is because he has this other part of his carachter, which is also made possible only by the snow: courage.

    Only an individual who has been born and rised in snow is so courageous that he goes straight at his doom despite of anything. No hesitation, no hemming or humming, just straight to the jaws of destruction. I might ad that local elks have the same attitude.

    And just to show how smart the snow makes us is our drinking habits. Up here we have no vineyards and other soft southern oasises. So up till 1500’s finns were know to eat poisonous mushrooms to get high. We had some mead and thing called sahti which could get all the desired effects on weddings and so on: womiting, diarreah etc. But when we really wanted to get “drunk” we ate magic mushrooms, and not just any, but the poisonous deathly ones.

    A bit later we and our latitude neighbours came up with alchohol. Pure clear booze. Some call it vodka, some call it moonshine, some call it poison, but it is a wonderful inventions and shows how smart we are. When, say, a soft unintelligent roman has to drink few barrells of vine in order to get drunk, one only needs to drink one bottle of our booze and you are out. And to emphasise how smart we are, this is very smart thing to do when there is -35 celsius degrees outside and total arctic darkness around. The trip to home is a life threatning adventure because if you pass out or get lost, you die.

    Which brings me back to the HBDers. The real reson why I do not respect them is that they all are from somewhere south, from England, Boston, New York, or something like that. I mean, these guys are talking about intelligence and they live in the same latitudes as the italians and spanish and greeks, whom we all know top be lazy and simple folks.

    We up here in the real North are so smart that we live in enviroment where nobody else wants to live. We’ve had a lovely snow cover in capital region since November and just got even more snow and sleet today. Somewhere south they are just surfing and chillin out on the beaches, those stupid jerks! They soak up the sun, which we are only beginning to see after few months of total darkness, those loosers. We take our vitamine D from tablets and not from the sun, dumbs!!

    Well, I quit now because… Well, I don’t know why but I do. I have to go for a walk because it is so nice outside. Snow and sleet pouring down, wind speeds up to couple dozen knots etc. This is how smart we are: down south they all flock to those friggin promenades in warm evenings and walk past the cafes and such greeting people every few steps away, but when I go for a walk in this weather NOBODY bothers me and I can walk alone all day!! Ha!

    Like


  46. Eskimo overlords? Everyone knows the one true master of the world is Frosty the snowman.

    Like


  47. @ Aiyo

    No, it’s Santa Claus! Didn’t you know that he’s taken more than half the world’s money and uses it to run the North Pole? I mean, how else is he supposed to afford all those presents?

    Like


  48. Mira:

    “Ok, ok, wait a second.

    Isn’t IQ of 70 borderline mental-retardation?

    And nobody thinks it’s fishy to assume a (very large group of people, millions of them originating from a large continent) are, on average, mentally retarded?

    Take a second to process this fact. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. “

    In my experience, black people notice that right off. So do some white Americans, but many do not. Not even James Watson. It shows how profound their racism is.

    Like


  49. The Cynic said:

    “Where are the actual HDBers on this post? I only see about one or two comments from them? Does this mean they find no faults with this research? Nothing to say about the topic of race & IQ and what this finding means to you????”

    The silence is so deafening that I find myself tempted to play devil’s advocate just to make it more interesting. Which is pretty sad (that I should feel the need to do that).

    Like


  50. Snowy Eskimo Overlords? I always did have an underlying suspicion that snow men and snow angels were in fact superior to Greco-Roman statues and art…

    Like


  51. You have no idea what you are talking about. Heres the real deal, the one all the stories tell about:

    Like


  52. Did someone say “Vikings”? Here ya go!!
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12287230

    The fire festival looks like it would be fun…my inner pyromaniac desires to see the mayhem in person! 😎

    Like


  53. This rubric I’ve created determines how intelligent Westerners are for trying to measure people from other countries/continents using their own yardsticks. Their average score is lower than that of the fruit fly.

    Like


  54. Why always such negative posts about Black people? makes me wonder whether or not you actually like black people or you want to make us feel inferior to you….

    Like


  55. @Disgusted

    Did you read the entire post?

    Like


  56. @ Victoria,

    Well, their yardsticks seem pretty effective in terms of predicting academic results. There’s also a robust link with macro-economic development & performance (see the Jones & Schneider paper above).

    Like


  57. ***Where are the actual HDBers on this post? I only see about one or two comments from them? Does this mean they find no faults with this research? Nothing to say about the topic of race & IQ and what this finding means to you????***

    Well one question is whether the Flynn effect will close gaps. Rushton & Jensen published a paper last year suggesting that was unlikely. Wicherts has also written that the Flynn effect gains are qualitatively different to g-factor group differences.

    Like


  58. @ Schwartz

    Are you saying… that a Western-created I.Q. test is effective in predicting how foreign students will perform in a Western styled, academic system, in their own country?

    Like


  59. @Schwartz

    Saying the regional IQ gap can’t be closed, is like saying the 6 inch height difference between North and South Koreans can’t be disappear(remember height is more 75-90% genetic, much more-so than intelligence); especially when you have no proof of a greater frequency of intelligence genes w/in Euro-populations, as opposed to those in SSA.

    Like


  60. @Schwartz

    “Well one question is whether the Flynn effect will close gaps. Rushton & Jensen published a paper last year suggesting that was unlikely. Wicherts has also written that the Flynn effect gains are qualitatively different to g-factor group differences.”

    Again, in order to make such an argument, one would have to know what factor(s) caused the Flynn Effect. The fact is nobody knows, so any arguments put forth are simply personally opinions. I’ll quote Wicherts once again(link attached to the post).

    “Specifically, Flynn (1987, 2007) has shown that IQ levels have increased considerably in the developed world over the course of the twentieth century. African countries below the Sahara have not experienced the improvements in the variables that have been proposed to have caused the Flynn Effect in the developed world. These include improvements in nutrition and health (care), increases educational attainment, improvements in educational practices, urbanization, large-scale dissemination of visual–spatial toys, etc. Although it cannot be precluded that genetic effects play a role in the low IQ performance of Africans, we view environmental circumstances as potentially more relevant to the present-day difference in mean. The average IQ level of 81 for Africans in terms of western norms may appear to be low, but from a
    historical perspective it is not. For instance, due to the Flynn Effect, the average IQ of the Dutch population in the 1950s, compared to contemporary norms, would also be around 80(Flynn, 1987, 2007). Note that in terms of societal development, contemporary African countries are more similar to developed countries in the first half of the twentieth century than to present-day developed countries.”

    Like


  61. I belive from my experience that average IQ is lover in Africa than in western Europe or North America. But i agree very much in your point 3. “The test takers were not a representative sample”. An average african are poorer, lower educated and less influed of western lifestyle; the lifestyle who influed the context of the IQ tests. So they not representative.
    I only know East-Africa. Im shure if you take a sample from the economical and cultural elite in citys like Dar es Salaam, Nairobi and Kampala, you find the avarage IQ higher. This are groups who are more simular to comare with the rich Europe and N.A.

    Like


  62. @ The Cynic:

    Did you read the entire post?

    I don’t think reading is Disgusted’s strong point.

    Like


  63. @Schwartz

    Saying the regional IQ gap can’t be closed, is like saying the 6 inch height difference between North and South Koreans can’t be disappear(remember height is more 75-90% genetic, much more-so than intelligence); especially when you have no proof of a greater frequency of intelligence genes w/in Euro-populations, as opposed to those in SSA.

    Excuse the typos.

    Like


  64. Ugh… I tried to be trendy and use strike-outs on my post.
    100% FAIL😦

    Saying the regional IQ gap can’t be closed, is like saying the 6 inch height difference between North and South Koreans can’t disappear(remember height is 75-90% genetic, much more-so than intelligence); especially when you have no proof of a greater frequency of intelligence genes w/in Euro-populations, as opposed to those in SSA.

    @Eurasian
    Lol I’m guessing this isn’t your first interaction with Disgusted? Hehe don’t think I can say much though. Obviously I have my own troubles on how to type!🙂

    Like


  65. That is really crazy because mine is 135 and am east African. I wonder who they tested to come up with such an insult. Its just another way of making the rest feel that Africans are different to them and increase hate for the blacks.

    Like


  66. Just to add something into this, I just met an old army buddy of mine and we tried to recall our scores in the IQ tests. It seems that we did something like vegetable level, couldn’t remember that actual numbers but friend of mine remembered the officer in charge say in desperation: “I can’t show these to my superiors, they think we have bunch of vegetables here!”😀

    Like


  67. 82 is still very low.

    Like


  68. “82 is still very low.”

    National IQ Averages

    Iran 84
    Marshall Islands 84
    Puerto Rico 84
    Egypt 83
    India 81
    Guatemala 79
    Ecuador 80
    Nepal 78
    Qatar 78
    Brazil 87
    Mexico 87
    Lebanon 86
    Cuba 85

    Like


  69. @Chow

    Not very low, just low. And not as low as America’s average IQ of 73 in 1917.

    Like


  70. People must have had IQs of -500s thousands of years ago!

    Like


  71. There are good reasons to expect IQs to have gone up over the past 100 to 200 years in America. People are taller and live longer, both signs that they eat better and enjoy better health, which is bound to affect brain development. Americans are also much better educated. Even in the early 1980s you still came across older black Americans who could not read or write – and there are still blacks whose reading and writing is shockingly bad. IQ tests are, to a degree, a literacy test.

    Like


  72. Abagond makes a good point. I think all you have to do is pick up a history book to see how people were generally less smart back then. The Salem Witch Trials are a classic example, among many others, of historical stupidity.

    Like


  73. “There are good reasons to expect IQs to have gone up over the past 100 to 200 years in America. People are taller and live longer, both signs that they eat better and enjoy better health, which is bound to affect brain development. Americans are also much better educated.”

    True, but have you ever read letters written to home by rank and file Civil War soldiers in the 1860s? They don’t sound any dumber.

    http://spec.lib.vt.edu/cwlove/jcmorris.html

    http://spec.lib.vt.edu/cwlove/black.html

    http://www.civilwararchive.com/LETTERS/kellogg.htm

    Not to say that there are not some examples to be found with bad spelling and sparse punctuation, but less so than you find on the internet today.

    Like


  74. “If you throw out all those you are left with 12 of the 42 studies. They have an average IQ of 81. Very close to the 82 expected from school achievement.”

    Wicherts derived the 82 for school achievement by using a regression analysis. This analysis artificially raises low scores and lowers high scores. Using direct transformation, Rindermann, Sailer, and Thompson calculated national African IQs of 60-70, IQs slightly lower those calculated by Lynn and Meisenberg. [Rindermann, H., Sailer, M., & Thompson, J. (2009). The impact of smart fractions,
    cognitive ability of politicians and average competence of peoples on social development]

    “Of the 42 studies he could have used, Lynn used 11. They had an average IQ of 67. The studies he did not use had an average IQ of 80. He gave no reason for his choice (though he did not seem to know about those that appeared only in African journals).

    As for African IQs, you’re misrepresenting the facts. According to Wicherts, the average of all the IQ samples that he dug up (44) was 77 circa 2010. The average of the samples that Lynn dug circa 2003/2007 was 67. The data is still coming in and new meta-analyses are in process. Whatever the case, it’s clear that the West African IQ is below 80.

    “That is where the Netherlands was in the 1950s if you take into account the rising IQs of the Flynn Effect – which seems to have run its course in the West but not in Africa.”

    With regards to the Flynn effect, I discussed this elsewhere:

    “Based on Wicherts (2009) high end values, the average West S.S. African IQ is 77. Wicherts et al. likely would argue that the Flynn effect is bound to hit Africa and reduce that 1.5 SD difference to zero. The Flynn effect, though, has been in effect in Africa. In 1929, Fick found a Zulu IQ of 65 relative a British IQ of 100; in 2009, eighty years latter, Wicherts (2009) estimated that the Black South African IQ was 77 relative to a British IQ of 100. Were the Flynn effect yet to hit Africa, based on Wicherts estimates, the 1929 South African IQ should have been 53 [77 – (8×3)] and based on Fick’s data, Wicherts’ 2009 estimate should be 41 [65 – (8×3)].

    One could argue that the Flynn effect, whatever its cause, only occurred at half pace in Africa. Adjusting gives a contemporaneous W. African IQ of 89 [77+ 24/2 or 41 + 24 x 2].”

    The Flynn effect is somewhat of a red herring as are IQ scores. What really matters is the average general intelligence or GQ difference. In the US, there are GQ differences between Blacks and whites — this is what makes to gap so stubborn and meaningful. A general intelligence difference represents a robustly biological difference. Between cohorts there are no GQ differences; (the Flynn effect is not a Jensen effect).

    So the Flynn effect does not suggest anything about the US B-W difference. It’s not clear if the African-European difference is a GQ difference or not. If it is, the mechanism underlying the Flynn effect are not going to close that gap.

    Like


  75. It’s a little sad to see some people arguing about measured IQ differences as if they’re absolute numbers! And more depressing is that people still think g-factor/GQ/general intelligence is a real thing =/

    The only thing general about intelligence, is that every scientist has as much of a different opinion about it as the layperson does. You can measure literacy, enculturation, things of that nature, but there are many forms of intelligence, and all of these vary by culture. Ability to read or write isn’t important if you’re born into a culture that values hunting ability or the potlatch.

    Yet, we so many people think our contrived ideas of intelligence are somehow universal. Oy vey.

    Like


  76. From my own personal experience in taking an IQ test I would conclude that not all candidates are aware, or are not made aware, that there is a time factor for completion.

    I found the test quite manageable but wasn’t pushing myself. All of a sudden: “Time’s up!”

    If somebody scores 70 within the stated time, but could double the score in an extended time frame – what use these IQ tests?

    Like


  77. @Chuck
    The Flynn effect, though, has been in effect in Africa. In 1929, Fick found a Zulu IQ of 65 relative a British IQ of 100; in 2009, eighty years latter, Wicherts (2009) estimated that the Black South African IQ was 77 relative to a British IQ of 100. Were the Flynn effect yet to hit Africa, based on Wicherts estimates, the 1929 South African IQ should have been 53 [77 – (8×3)] and based on Fick’s data, Wicherts’ 2009 estimate should be 41 [65 – (8×3)].

    -Who is this Fick you speak of? I would really appreciate it if you dropped a link about his research.

    -Africa is not a country. Just bc there was an alleged Flynn effect in South Africa does not mean this phenomenon occurred throughout the entire SSA region. Do you have any proof of a substantial regional advancement in avg IQ?

    -Maybe I’m just being picky, but Zulu doesn’t necessarily translate into Black South African.

    -I want to bring up Spearman’s theory of general intelligence later. Right now I’ll say that you guys are acting as if their is some huge consensus among psychologist that this theory is correct or that it’s the only intelligence theory out there. Spearman’s theory hasn’t been proven and it’s as controversial today as it was when Spearman first came up with it.

    -Nobody here suggested the Flynn effect would close the US B-W gap. Nobody has even brought up the US. This post is about Black Africa.

    -Stop acting as if it is incredibly unlikely that IQ has drastically increased in Western countries over the decades. Abagond made an excellent point about the increases seen in other genetic traits, like height(a trait much more inheritable than intelligence).

    Like


  78. @Chuck
    “Using direct transformation, Rindermann, Sailer, and Thompson calculated national African IQs of 60-70, IQs”
    “[Rindermann, H., Sailer, M., & Thompson, J. (2009). The impact of smart fractions, cognitive ability of politicians and average competence of peoples on social development]”

    Okay it’s getting late, so I don’t have time to read the entire study from Rindermann et al. at the moment. I will say that from my somewhat reading/skimming I don’t see what you are talking about. For one, their study had absolutely nothing to do w/ the avg IQ of nations. They were researching the avg IQ of political leaders from each country. Also, most of Africa, South Asia, Central America, Central Asia, China, and several other countries did not appear to even participate in the study. If you look at Table 1 on page 12-14 you will see many missing countries.

    I don’t even see a full list of national IQ averages anywhere within the study.

    If I am missing something please clue me in bc I don’t see what you are talking about concerning calculations of national African IQs between 60 and 70.

    I want to mention that I am tired at the moment. It may be possible that I am reading the wrong study. Though the title, date, and authors you cited appear to be correct. This is the link.
    http://www.iratde.org/issues/1-2009/tde_issue_1-2009_03_rindermann_et_al.pdf

    Good night everyone! It’s time for me to get to bed.

    Like


  79. @Chuck

    Okay I’m still tired, but I think I know where you effed up.

    Like I said before, the study you mention w/ Rindermann et al. did not include most African nations. I noticed that the few African countries he did use, all had low IQs between 60-70(just like you said). In Table1 you can see Ghana with a Cognitive Ability mean of 61.25, a South African IQ mean of 62.26, and I Botswana mean of 73.93.

    Once I saw Ghana’s low IQ avg I noticed right away that Wicherts study had a Ghana avg w/in the 60s. I went back to the Wichert’s study to see if I was right & I just happened to see the paper mention Rindermann’s name and study. I think this is an appropriate time to quote it.

    “In Fig. 2, we display part of the results from the study by Rindermann (2007), who correlated Lynn and Vanhanen’s estimates of national IQ with a student assessment mean score for 76 countries. This mean student assessment score was computed on the basis of the means of countries in the following surveys (cf. Rindermann, 2007): International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) Reading-Study of 1991, International Assessment of Educational Progress (IAEP)-II 1991, TIMSS 1995, TIMSS 1999, TIMSS 2003, Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2000, PISA 2003, Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) 2001. Note that some of these studies are also included in the studies we discuss below. Rindermann’s analyses included five countries in subSaharan Africa, the national IQs of which are all below the regression line in Fig. 2. As can be seen in Table 1, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, and Botswana show significant negative residuals in the prediction of national IQ from these student assessment means, although for Ghana and South Africa the residuals are non-significant.”

    As you can see Rindermann only included low IQ scoring countries between 60 and 70. I don’t see how you can say those five low scoring nations are representative of the entire region. Especially when you see countries with Nigeria with a predicted IQ average of 87.1. I knew something was up with your comment. Of course, I am still up late so if I’m in the wrong, feel free to let me know!🙂

    Like


  80. Just couple words of how stupid people used to be:

    well, they used batteries to galvanising in present day Irak 2000 years ago,
    they had a post office in Bagadad back 700’s with offices in India and China,
    the arabs knew the basics and chemistry of photgraphing back in 800’s,
    Filon from Foenicia knew about atoms 200 years ago, Heron invented steam machine,
    greeks made coin machines over 2000 years ago,
    they build the great pyramids few thousand years ago,
    the celts had more accurate calendar than the romans centuries before and were also using harvestin machines which were “invented” in Australia 1800’s,
    the koreans and chinese were using printing 300 years before Guttenberg,
    one greek calculated 2400 years ago that the earth is 38000 km’s circumwent,
    guys from Carthago visited central Africa 2400 years ago and how knows were,
    polynesians roamed the Pacific with their canoos for thousands of years before any white guy,
    the doctors in India were practising waxines and plastic surgery some 2000 years ago
    and some other stuff.

    I think we just like to see ourselves are somehow smarter than previous generations. Ok, we have electricity, medical science and lots more, but still, when 10 meters high tsunami hits us, there is nothing we can do.

    When the previous major tsunami hit the Andaman Islands, everyone were convinced that the primitive natives must have been wiped out. They were not. They had stories about the fight between the land and the sea, and when they saw how the sea retreated, they escaped to the high ground because they knew that the sea is going to attack land. They lost not a one person. Other nations lost hundred of thousands, including cities and towns, ships, trains, cars, highways etc.

    Now, were the natives smarter than other, more modern nations? I bet if someone would take their IQ tests, the results would be poor indeed.

    Like


  81. Of course the greeks did not build the pyramids, the egyptians did.😀

    Like


  82. Grrr… my comment appears to have been 404d. I have no idea why, but the last paragraph on pg.4 & the first paragraph on pg.5 of the Wicherts publication call out Chuck’s Rindermann BS!

    Like


  83. white guy here.

    What I never understand by any of the racist notions is, why is it that, whenever something comes along to credit the idea that blacks and whites are similar in intelligence, it gets shot down by the racist crowd, while those proofs that prove such notions, even if scientifically unmerited, get roaring approval by the racists?

    I’ll tell you why: racists and bigots have turned their hatred into a dogmatic belief. and dogmatic beliefs can’t be changed or challenged. sort’ve like “my team is better than your team”, I’m always going to love the San Francisco Giants, even in it’s worst year. they’re always going to hate black people, no matter what. that’s what makes their views dogmatic: they won’t change.

    they’re lost causes. they should be destroyed for ruining my society and the society my children (who most likely will be interracial, since my girlfriend/long time best friend is black) will inherit.

    Like


  84. zek j evets

    “It’s a little sad to see some people arguing about measured IQ differences as if they’re absolute numbers! And more depressing is that people still think g-factor/GQ/general intelligence is a real thing =/”

    You obviously haven’t been following the research lately. For starters, I’d advise reading: Deary, Penke, and Johnson 2010. The neuroscience of human intelligence differences.

    As for IQ differences, they aren’t absolute numbers — that’s the point. They are relative numbers. To the extent they measure g, they speak of relative differences between individuals in the ability to process information.

    Whether or not g is real depends on your meaning of real and what level of analysis you are talking about. There’s psychometric g, biological g, and genetic g — all are intercorrelated and most importantly the former has high predictive validity.

    Like


  85. @Sam
    I don’t think we’re smarter. Just better educated on average than our ancestors were. Which makes sense considering more people have access to quality education than b4

    @Chuck
    Just in case you missed it.
    https://abagond.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/the-average-african-iq-is-70/#comment-82202

    Like


  86. The Cynic,

    1. As for Fick*, my point was that the Flynn effect has already been in effect in (South) Africa. I could point to other studies which show that it has been in effect in other regions.

    2. As for the g-factor, I agree that discussions of that are for a later time. My point roughly was:

    There are across cohort IQ differences which do not represent biological or genetic g differences (e.g there’s no secular increase in cortical thickness) There’s between individual and population IQ differences, some of which represent biological g and genetic g differences, some of which just represent biological g differences, and some of which represent neither. The relevance of the Flynn effect for the African/ Non-African gap depends on the nature of the difference.

    3. I don’t know what you mean about acting like it’s “incredibly unlikely that IQ has drastically increased. “ I act like it’s incredibly unlikely that general intelligence and all it’s endophenotypic correlates has increased, not IQ.

    4. The Rindermann paper. I said “Wicherts derived the 82 for school achievement…using direct transformation, Rindermann, Sailer, and Thompson calculated national African IQs (based on school achievement) of 60-70.”

    Rindermann has Botswana (74), Ghana (61), and South African (63). This isn’t even close to the 82 mentioned based on school achievement. The take home point is that different methods of transforming the data gives different results and that the regression method inflates the African scores.

    [In the table, “CA-mean: cognitive ability mean normed according to UK (“Greenwich-norm”) M=100, as SD used students assessment results (SD=100) transformed into IQ-scale (SD=15)]

    Like


  87. The Cynic

    The issue with Rindermann concerns this statement:

    “Africans do way better at school than you would expect from an average IQ of 67. Given their PISA scores and other measures of school achievement, you would expect an IQ somewhere near 82.”

    There are several methods for calculating IQs from achievement scores. (Only a few SS African countries reliable partake in the international tests which is why Rindermann only lists a few.) The method Wicherts used by definition inflates all low scores and depreciates all high scores.

    My point here is simply the that school achievement scores suggests national IQs ranging from the upper 60s to the lower 80s. They support the verdict that the SS national African IQs are below the mid 80s and above the mid 60s, but they do don’t narrow the range much beyond that.

    In my view, the totality of the evidence suggests African national IQs of around 77.

    Like


  88. @Chuck
    Did you even read the studies? I’m talking about Wichert and Rindermann here.

    1)Yup, I’m sure you could point to other studies. Just like how you can point out that Fick study you mentioned. Either way I would still need a decent sample size for a continent with a billion ppl.

    4)You attempted to make it seem like the avg Blk African IQ was below 70, based on a mere FIVE nations, from a publication I doubt you even read. You can deny it, but anyone who read ur first comment can see you were being deceptive(assuming you didn’t copy & paste this from another forum w/o reading the study).

    Wicherts et al. already gave their reasons for using aggression analysis. This statistical method was used in order to minimize the errors w/in some of the studies. They already stated w/in the publication that some(mainly HDBers) wouldn’t be satisfied w/ their inclusion criteria. Seventy-seven, a number still larger than Lynn’s work, is what was provided w/o minimizing for errors. They did not hide this No deception.This number is an under-estimate for the following reasons:

    “(1) inaccurate (often ad hoc) IQ norms or norms based on mental-age IQs, (2) IQ tests that were not administered according to official guidelines (e.g., adapted), (3) studies of IQ in which the test administration was problematic, (4) IQ tests found to be biased with respect to Africans, and (5) IQ test scores of non-normal (e.g., unhealthy) samples.”

    Abagond touched on this w/in his post. It seems as if you are trying your damnedest to lower this number based on what YOU see fit. This publication is pretty thorough. No need to cite Rindermann when his study doesn’t include anywhere near enough numbers to prove your point.

    *Some of Rindermann’s studies are included in Wichart’s work.

    Like


  89. @ SMD707415,

    Your comments about dogmatic beliefs could apply equally to egalitarians and liberal creationists.

    Like


  90. @Chuck
    “In my view, the totality of the evidence suggests African national IQs of around 77.”

    And your reasons for dismissing all of the errors within the study are??? You read some of the reasons why points were lost right? Why do you feel those reasons should be ignored?

    Like


  91. @Schwartz
    What’s so wrong or evil about being an egalitarian? Wasn’t the United States founded on the philosophy that all men are created equal and that they should be treated fairly by the law?

    You don’t believe this applies to Blacks or any other groups? Would you like the law to treat people unfairly based on IQ tests and/or other methods?

    Like


  92. -Score for minimized errors is 82. Score with test errors(some of which are listed in the post) 77. Neither with averages below 70.
    -I never took statistics, but it was easy for me to understand how aggression analysis works and why it was used in the publication. Section 3.3 Statistical Analysis explains how the meta-analytic regression was used to calculate the inclusion criteria effects.

    Like


  93. “SMD707415
    white guy here.

    What I never understand by any of the racist notions is, why is it that, whenever something comes along to credit the idea that blacks and whites are similar in intelligence, it gets shot down by the racist crowd, while those proofs that prove such notions, even if scientifically unmerited, get roaring approval by the racists?”

    ……………..

    Let’s put aways the righteous manicheanism for a moment. My suspicion is that there are some horrible misunderstandings here. I don’t think that anyone disputes that “blacks and whites (as populations) are similar in intelligence.” According to HBDers, they (as populations) are about as similar as any random individual: there is a difference of about 1 SD between them and the difference has a partial genetic basis.

    This idea that “racists” think that Blacks or Jew or N.E Asians are wholly other or think that they are wholly different is your idea. When you project a way of thinking on people, you really should not be surprised when you find that they think accordingly.

    This is very simple. I notice an average difference in skin color and I ask: could there be a heritable component to the difference. I notice an average difference in birthweight and I ask: could there be a heritable component to that difference. I notice average differences in “the positive manifold” and I take pause to see if there are genetic based differences within groups; after seeing that there are, I ask: could there be a heritable component to the difference? (I’m glad to here that such ruminations mark me for elimination.)

    One point I do make is that this whole issue can readily be resolved (hybrid testing with modern genotyping). All hereditarians that I am aware of agree that this would do it (in the case of the US B-W difference). The academic community knows this. But they are loathe to put the hypothesis to a tests. Or I should say hypotheses since there are an infinite number of hereditarian hypotheses: Is the difference X between population Y and Z 100% environmental or partially mediated by genes.

    Like


  94. ***The Cynic
    @Schwartz
    What’s so wrong or evil about being an egalitarian? Wasn’t the United States founded on the philosophy that all men are created equal and that they should be treated fairly by the law?

    You don’t believe this applies to Blacks or any other groups? Would you like the law to treat people unfairly based on IQ tests and/or other methods?***

    The Cynic,

    Nothing is wrong with being an egalitarian in the sense of providing individuals with equal rights under law. I can’t think of many people who are against that idea. I was referring to dogmatic beliefs that individuals or groups should have statistically equal outcomes.

    Of course I agree that every effort should be made to ensure every individual has an opportunity to develop their abilities.

    Like


  95. The Cynic said:

    “You attempted to make it seem like the avg Blk African IQ was below 70, based on a mere FIVE nations, from a publication I doubt you even read. You can deny it, but anyone who read ur first comment can see you were being deceptive(assuming you didn’t copy & paste this from another forum w/o reading the study).”

    Look,

    There are two issues here:

    1. The National African IQs as assessed from IQ tests

    2. The National African IQs as assessed from achievement tests.

    My point about Rinderman and different methodologies concerned the latter and not the former. Your point that “Wicherts et al. already gave their reasons for using aggression analysis” concerns the former not the latter.

    I’ll state this again:

    “My point here is simply the that school achievement scores suggests national IQs ranging from the upper 60s to the lower 80s. They support the verdict that the SS national African IQs are below the mid 80s and above the mid 60s, but they do don’t narrow the range much beyond that.”

    ….

    The Cynic said:

    “4)You attempted to make it seem like the avg Blk African IQ was below 70, based on a mere FIVE nations, from a publication I doubt you even read. You can deny it, but anyone who read ur first comment can see you were being deceptive(assuming you didn’t copy & paste this from another forum w/o reading the study).”

    With regards to the Rindermann confusion, I thought it was clear that I was talking exclusively about National African IQs as assessed from achievement tests. I guess not.

    I said:

    “Wicherts derived the 82 for school achievement by using a regression analysis. This analysis artificially raises low scores and lowers high scores. Using direct transformation…”

    I’ll try to be more clear next time.

    ……………

    If you want to hear my explanation for why I think 77 is a better average SS African IQ as assessed from IQ tests, I will detail it, once we are clear on the above matter.

    Like


  96. The Cynic said:

    “What’s so wrong or evil about being an egalitarian? Wasn’t the United States founded on the philosophy that all men are created equal and that they should be treated fairly by the law? You don’t believe this applies to Blacks or any other groups?”

    Maybe this is the root of your error. BLACK PEOPLE WERE NOT CREATED EQUAL. Get that through your head!

    Like everyone else, they were not created. Like the rest of humanity they came about through the dirty sloppy business of natural selection and genetic drift. And if there is a Creator, she doesn’t appear to be too involved in this process.

    Like


  97. The Cynic,

    Anyways,

    You might be interested in this paper as it supports your apparent cultural view of national IQ differences.

    “Steppan, 2010. Protestantism and Intelligence: Max Weber and the Rindermann-Paradox” Page 134-150
    http://tijepa.books.officelive.com/Documents/V5_TIJEPA.pdf#page=137

    Like


  98. @Chuck
    Okay, here is what I want you to do.

    1)Open up the link for the Wicherts study.
    2)Read Ch.1 Scholastic Achievement Surveys. Keep reading until you feel you understand.
    3)Look at Figure 1 until you notice something.
    4)Look down Table 2. Every time you see a number underneath the “IQ Lynn” column, look over to the corresponding “Sample” column and read.
    5)Read the first long paragraph of the Conclusion.
    6)Watch those videos on Regression Analysis if you have to.

    If you do not understand after all of that, then their is nothing I can do to help you.

    Like


  99. Chuck,

    Actually I *have* been following the research. I spend most of my week studying, discussing, writing, researching, and debating these topics with my fellow students and professors. More importantly, I’ve explained on this very blog (though not so much this specific post) the fallacies of the argument you seem to be indulging in. That is, scientific racism.

    First of all, there is no “general” intelligence. What we call intelligent is a culturally biased assumption based on how closely a person’s knowledge and skills match our values. In a technological society, someone who can’t use a cell-phone or decipher traffic lights is pretty dumb. But in New Guinea, if you can’t understand the basics of potlatch reciprocity, you’re doomed to a life of poverty (relatively speaking) and low-status. This is ironic, coming from our capitalistic society.

    As far as the fields of psychology, psychometrics, sociology, and my own field of anthropology, there is no currently agreed upon general assessment of intelligence. There’s the 7 types, the triarchic theory, and the g-factor that you mentioned, but in reality any of them (though more likely a combination) could be equally valid when talking about a concept as enculturated as intelligence.

    The most important thing to remember about these numbers is that they aren’t causational; they do NOT indicate a reality, but a trend. Just like if you measure how smart/dumb left-handers are compared to right-handers. It only tells you a correlation, and scientifically that means a guess. You can make an assumption, but you can’t actually say that it IS (in the scientific sense of the word). This goes for the Flynn effect too. People aren’t getting smarter, but people are taking more tests and getting used to taking them, thus they tend to score better because they’re prepared to take tests. This is especially true in nations that send most of their population to primary education. And what’s more alarming is that they norm the base IQ at 100, but when the scores go up to 105, they renorm the average, and change the test. Thus, invalidating the original norm, and skewing the results towards people who go to schools (esp. good schools) and who are regularly tested (which are people in western nations, and esp. student at charter schools who use testing to get funding).

    Another problem is that these social experiments can’t be controlled. You can’t isolate a person from their environment to test for intelligence, whatever that intelligence may mean in the experiment. You can’t manipulate intelligence like a variable in a regular scientific experiment, such as a drug trial with the drug and the placebo.

    It’s quite apparent that you’re a layperson since you seem to take marginal research, and biased studies so seriously without questioning the veracity of the results, or methodology of the research. But that’s to be expected amongst HBDers and race-realists — I only wish they’d admit their naivete in these topics instead of presenting their opinions (and the opinions of non-experts) as “facts” or “truths” or whatever word they utilize to express their obvious — and oblivious, to them — racism.

    If you want to read some important studies on intelligence, I suggest starting with Cavalli-Sforza, who we discussed in a previous post, and then Jarred Diamond, who can explain the contextual side of Cavalli’s science.

    However, I suspect you’ll pass on this and instead quote me more studies you copied from the internet without explaining anything about them.

    But maybe I’m wrong? We’ll see I guess…

    Like


  100. @Yo Chuck
    When you get done with that little task I gave you, I want you to repeat this little mantra until it sinks in.

    WHITE PEOPLE ARE NOT SPECIAL

    It’s not too hard to understand. You should be able to learn that in no time!🙂

    Like


  101. I found this test which is apparently culturally unbiased. It’s based only on geometric shapes.

    http://iqtest.dk/main.swf

    Question for the experts – is that close to the tests Richard Lynn carried out?

    Like


  102. “The Cynic
    @Chuck
    Okay, here is what I want you to do.

    If you do not understand after all of that, then their is nothing I can do to help you.”

    I’ll say this again. Wichert’s method of using linear regression to predict the African national IQs inflates the African scores.

    In table 1, he lists African scores as predicted by regression. His conclusion that “the estimated national IQs of these sub-Saharan African countries equals 82” is based on linear regression.

    Regardless of your opinion of this method, linear regression is not the only method of calculating score (see: Lynn and Meisenberg, 2010.) We can also calculate scores by linear transformation or by direct equalization. Doing so gives significantly lower scores:

    Examples:
    TIMSS
    Ghana regression = 72.9; direct transformation = 60.2
    South Africa regression = 72; direct transformation = 59

    As such I maintain: the school achievement scores suggests national IQs ranging from the upper 60s to the lower 80s. They support the verdict that the SS national African IQs are below the mid 80s and above the mid 60s, but they do don’t narrow the range much beyond that.”

    Like


  103. The Cynic

    Notice,

    I am not saying what the scores are. I don’t say: “Given their PISA scores and other measures of school achievement, you would expect an IQ somewhere near” some number.

    My point is that the prediction is indeterminate because there are different methods that yield conflicting results. The best you can say is what I said: “[The school achievement scores] supports the verdict that the SS national African IQs are below the mid 80s and above the mid 60s, but they do don’t narrow the range much beyond that.”

    Of course, you could argue that the linear regression method happens to be the most suitable method and I could argue otherwise. But that’s not the point. The point is that the scores can support either Lynn’s or Wichert’s assessment.

    Like


  104. “The Cynic
    WHITE PEOPLE ARE NOT SPECIAL”

    Stop projecting. I don’t mix empirical with philosophical. Whether or not this group or that group is different is independent from whether or not this or that group is special to me, you, the universe, or anyone/thing else.

    Like


  105. Olufemi,

    Most IQ tests are only partially shaped-based, and shape-based questions are typically assortment or identification varieties. So the questions are usually, “what is the name of this shape?” or “put this shape with the like/similar/same shape” and other such processes like that. Since they’re only a part of the greater test, they usually do not help “generalize” them, though as I’ve stated that is already impossible.

    But the thing is, even shape-based questions can indicate cultural bias. Someone who lives a woodland area is not used to processing geometric shapes out of context, like on a blank board. For the yanomamo, their world (while shrinking) is devoid of the more post-modern elements of our society that contains geometric shapes in blank contexts — like against a bare wall, or flashing as a light. And so they’ll likely not be able recognize the relationship.

    However, put two seemingly similar trees together, and they can tell you instantly the differences between them, and likely which one leads to a good foraging area in their forest.

    Again, these are important things to remember that so many race realist, HBD wannabe’s forget. (Not meaning you though!) They’re not trained in this stuff, and so they come to the discussion with so much ethnocentrism, that they can’t conceptualize a world outside of their own little one. They assume far too many universals and generalities that the rest of the world — even among western nations — simply don’t take into account.

    Notice, by the way, how Chuck regurgitates endless IQ info, yet can’t explain or describe the numbers and what they mean. He talks about linear regression, and yet all that is is putting a line through dots on a graph of numbers. That doesn’t tell you anything other than an average, and correlation based on that average.

    I wish we had a statistician in here to talk about the ability to use numbers to indicate… well, anything. In England you can postulate that the correlation between higher birth rates in the English countryside and the higher stork population means that the storks must be bringing people babies! Yet, obviously this is not true. You gotta look at the numbers in context, because looking at them in isolation is too simplistic for life’s real complexities.

    Haha, I feel like I’m giving a lecture to undergraduate students. Oy vey!

    Like


  106. @ Chuck

    “Stop projecting. I don’t mix empirical with philosophical. Whether or not this group or that group is different is independent from whether or not this or that group is special to me, you, the universe, or anyone/thing else.”

    Hahahaha

    But it is your philosophy that predetermines what you consider to be “empirical.” Please dispense with the “pure science” outrage.

    Your real problem is that you were a liberal who got jumped by some Black guys once upon a time, and that experience (along with others) has led you on this vendetta of assumed fact. At this point, you have spent so much time and effort aspiring to be an internet expert on the “regrettable truths” about the dumber and more violent races, that you are no longer capable of questioning your own labyrinth of obfuscatory folly.

    You will never be convinced of anything but your current belief, because for you, this was never about the empirical—this was always an emotional argument that is ultimately more about an event in your life than it ever was about truth.

    Like


  107. Amen cynic 🙂

    Like


  108. @Chuck
    “Lynn and Meisenberg, 2010”

    I haven’t gotten around to reading this, but I did find a reply entitled, “Another failure to replicate Lynn’s estimate of the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans” from Jelte M. Wicherts et al.

    “We attribute the difference of roughly 10 IQ points
    between his estimate and ours to (1) our use of systematic methods and a lack thereof in Lynn’s work; (2) our use of weighting by sample size to estimate the mean IQ across samples and Lynn’s indifference to sample sizes; (3) our decision not to include unhealthy samples, which Lynn admitted; (4) our exclusion of samples in which test administration had met with problems, which Lynn attributes to low cognitive ability of test-takers; (5) our exclusion of data from the Coloured Progressive Matrices (CPM) for ages above 11 because the conversion from CPM scores to adult and adolescent norms for the Standard
    Progressive Matrices (SPM) artificially lowers the IQ; (6) Lynn’s exclusion of a number of high-IQ samples that he deemed unrepresentative; and (7) Lynn’s ad hoc downward correction of mean IQs from primary and secondary school students by two and six IQ points, respectively. Below we provide new estimates for these groups on the basis of rigorous stratified random samples. These estimates again fail to support Lynn’s assertion that Africans average an IQ below 70.”

    http://wicherts.socsci.uva.nl/wichertsRavenAfr2010rej.pdf

    Like


  109. @Chuck
    This little bit is interesting. From Wichert’s “Another failure to replicate Lynn’s estimate of the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans” publication:

    “The only characteristic of the samples that predicted Lynn and Meisenberg’s judgment of insufficient representativeness was average IQ itself: the higher the average IQ the greater the probability that Lynn and Meisenberg deemed the sample unrepresentative.”

    I’ll be back after I read the publications. The Wichert’s reply to lean is very short, so it shouldn’t take you to long to check it out.

    Like


  110. zek j evets

    Thanks for the post. We’re apparently coming at this from different paradigms. Let’s try to make sense of the divide:

    “More importantly, I’ve explained on this very blog (though not so much this specific post) the fallacies of the argument you seem to be indulging in. That is, scientific racism.”

    Chuck: Conceptually, I think it’s worth distinguishing between the scientific investigation of race, the use of science to promote an ideology (cultural Marxism or racial nationalism), and politically motivated science. They all overlap. For my own part, I often engage in politically motivated science. As far as I see it, I’m in the moral right. But I understand that others see it otherwise or misunderstand the logic of my position.

    “First of all, there is no “general” intelligence. What we call intelligent is a culturally biased assumption based on how closely a person’s knowledge and skills match our values. In a technological society, someone who can’t use a cell-phone or decipher traffic lights is pretty dumb. But in New Guinea, if you can’t understand the basics of potlatch reciprocity, you’re doomed to a life of poverty (relatively speaking) and low-status. This is ironic, coming from our capitalistic society.”

    Chuck: I see what you are saying. As for cultural bias, I would note that “intelligence” is a European term (L. inter-legere: to choose, pick, read; related G. logos: reason ). It clearly refers to a rational ways of thinking about the world. I’m not sure what it means to say that an understandings of “intelligence” which matches the historic meaning is culturally biased; the term itself and the valuing of what it is said to represent is culturally rooted. If you want to refer to something that has to do with thinking about the world in a non rational manner create a new term/ Anyways, by “general intelligence” I mean psychometric intelligence. Specifically the so called “positive manifold” or g. What’s important is that it’s socially important (in post-industrialized societies), heritable within populations, and rooted in brain morphology and physiology. (Interestingly, one of the strongest measures of it has turned out to be syllogism solving — this ties the psychometric definition back to the historic understanding).

    “As far as the fields of psychology, psychometrics, sociology, and my own field of anthropology, there is no currently agreed upon general assessment of intelligence. There’s the 7 types, the triarchic theory, and the g-factor that you mentioned, but in reality any of them (though more likely a combination) could be equally valid when talking about a concept as enculturated as intelligence.”

    Chuck: Ok. Let’s grant that there could be multiple assessments of intelligence and multiple things they measure (knowledge bases, processes, etc) — understanding, as you say, that “intelligence” is a encultured concept. General intelligence, nonetheless, has high predictive validity (it predicts work performance, trainability, academic achievement, etc), it is a trait that individuals vary in, and differences in it are highly heritable within populations. It’s meaningful to ask if differences between populations are also heritable. With regards to the US black-White or Hispanic-White disparities, differences in general intelligence are most certainly causal. I’m talking about these differences: http://abc102.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/g-and-group-differences/

    To put it another way, it’s an empirical fact that there are socially significant, predictive average ethnic differences in psychometric intelligence. It’s also an empirical fact that these differences are the proximate cause of some ethnic disparities. I am interested in is the ultimate cause of these differences. Presumably, others are also.

    “The most important thing to remember about these numbers is that they aren’t causational; they do NOT indicate a reality, but a trend. Just like if you measure how smart/dumb left-handers are compared to right-handers.”

    Chuck: Whether differences in psychometric intelligence, and general intelligence specifically, are causal or just somehow highly predictive yet epiphenomenal is an empirical question. The evidence, in my view, overwhelmingly supports the causal hypothesis. This is really a complex discussion — and I think it’s only worth having if we agree on some of the other points (Such as the worthwhileness of discussing this issue). You might want to check out: “Shikishima, et al., 2009. Is g an entity? A Japanese twin study using syllogisms and intelligence tests.”

    I think that at this point it’s safe to say that at least within populations general intelligence is causally potent.

    “And what’s more alarming is that they norm the base IQ at 100, but when the scores go up to 105, they renorm the average, and change the test. Thus, invalidating the original norm, and skewing the results towards people who go to schools (esp. good schools) and who are regularly tested (which are people in western nations, and esp. student at charter schools who use testing to get funding).”

    Chuck: The renorming shouldn’t be alarming at all. The purpose of IQ tests is to measure individual differences in general intelligence — not to measure absolute differences. Psychometric assessments use relative scales (brain A’s processing speed relative to the norms) as opposed to absolute scales ( as used in mental chronometry) and this works well for comparisons within populations at particular times. That this works well can be judged by the predicative validity of IQ tests. If it didn’t work well, on average, IQ tests — for example Wonderlic — would have a low validity and wouldn’t be used by say the NFL.

    “It’s quite apparent that you’re a layperson since you seem to take marginal research, and biased studies so seriously without questioning the veracity of the results, or methodology of the research.”

    Chuck: My field is ergonomics. It’s related to psychometrics — which is why I’m familiar with the research. With regards to intelligence, it’s no longer seriously disputed that:

    1. General intelligence has high predictive validity within populations and differences in it are socially
    important
    2. General intelligence is rooted in brain physiology and morphology
    3. Individual differences in general intelligence are stubborn
    4. General intelligence is highly heritable within populations
    5. There are substantial psychometric intelligence differences between US ethnic populations which are socially significant and rooted in brain physiology and morphology
    6. That between population differences in psychometric intelligence could be partially heritable.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “marginal research” and “biases studies”; within populations the research on g differences (predictivity, biology, heritability) is overwhelming. Given this you must mean research on between population differences. If you are familiar with the research in organizational psychology, you will know that between populations in the US the research on psychometric differences (predictivity, g-loadedness) is also overwhelming. There really is only one issue when it comes to marginal research — the research on between population heritability. And this is related to the research on global differences. (I’d note that the two are not logically dependent).

    “If you want to read some important studies on intelligence, I suggest starting with Cavalli-Sforza, who we discussed in a previous post, and then Jarred Diamond, who can explain the contextual side of Cavalli’s science.”

    Chuck: Jarred Diamond made a point to argue that that civilization differences resulted from environmental differences. There is nothing inconsistent with this and a genetic view of differences. Presumably, Diamond did not realize that the rate of human evolution has sped up 10-100x in the last 10,000 years. .

    Cavalli-Sforza’s points about the heritability of IQ and GQ are mute. As are other points about intelligence. Do a psychnet searches for (heritability and general intelligence) and (general intelligence and predictive validity) and (ethnic group differences and general cognitive ability) limiting your search years from 2000 to 2010.

    Everything I said above is rock solid. Whether the intelligence differences between this or that racial and ethnic (SES or gender) population has a genetic basis is an open question.

    “However, I suspect you’ll pass on this and instead quote me more studies you copied from the internet without explaining anything about them.”

    Chuck: If you want me to summarize the research I will. I’m never sure what other people’s backgrounds are so I don’t. As for the people you pointed out or alluded to (Sternberg, etc) I am aware of them. I don’t see any conflict in positions.

    Like


  111. The Cynic

    “@Chuck
    This little bit is interesting. From Wichert’s “Another failure to replicate Lynn’s estimate of the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans” publication:”

    Ya, I’m familiar with that paper. I’ll note that I appreciate that you don’t obfuscate about “heritability,” “differences,” “race,” and “intelligence” — or argue that one can’t coherently string a sentence together with the terms. You simply argue that there are no differences in genotypic IQ (g) between ancestral populations. Just ditch the moralism and you are gold star.

    Like


  112. @Chuck

    Huh? Umm… you said nothing about the paper besides being familiar with it. Lol “ditch the moralism.” I’ve discussed all of those things on previous post. That is not the topic at hand though. We’re talking about the average IQ of SSA and the flaws within Lynn’s work

    Like


  113. Chuck,

    Seems like this is going to be a long comment-style debate, so here goes…

    I often engage in politically motivated science

    Politically motivated science (that is, science as a means to a political end) is not science. Doing science to prove a point is doing science in reverse, because you’re actually supposed to test, experiment, and observe THEN create a hypothesis/reach a conclusion/theory/law/whatever. So, I’d say that’s your (and others’) biggest mistake.

    Pretending to approach race in a scientific manner in a society and context that is filled with acts of prejudice and structural racism is naive, if not downright ignorant. That’s your second mistake. Moving on…

    I would note that “intelligence” is a European term… It clearly refers to a rational ways of thinking about the world.

    Define “rational”.

    Because as we all know, not even people in a given society can agree on whether a specific thing/action/instance *is* (as in factual, truthfully, objectively and unequivocally) rational.

    Note that you understand the concept of intelligence as you’re defining it is European. That it IS a cultural construct. (Or rather, culturally constructed and culturally understand as it is enculturated into our society.)

    Your third mistake is misconstruing one society’s definition of intelligence, and a general intelligence that you posit exists among humans en masse. You essentially impose your/our ideas of the intelligence onto others, which is not only a colonial act, but also an ethnocentric one. That’s how I know you’re not conversant with these topics.

    General intelligence, nonetheless, has high predictive validity (it predicts work performance, trainability, academic achievement, etc)

    You refrain from defining general intelligence I notice… but that’s okay because I’ll assume — a charitable gesture considering what follows — a psychological/psychometric definition for you.

    As I pointed out above, and which you avoided answering, is that the criteria to which you ascribe a “predictive validity” to is AGAIN, based on a subjective, culturally constructed, ethnocentric perspective. You can test for work performance all you want, but unless you define the work, test it based on the context among a population where the work exists as a part of daily life you’ll only see an incorrect assessment, if indeed a correct methodology can yield predictive results. (There is dispute over whether testing accomplishes anything other than measuring a person’s ability to test well, and this is not unique to college classrooms!)

    As far as heritability, you’ll have to excuse me while I laugh at your position that IQ is inherited along racial lines for Hispanics! They’re not a race! They’re not even a coherent ethnicity. They’re a group who share a common language, and that’s about it. That’d be like comparing a sample size of Americans (which include A LOT of diverse groups) to a sample size from Ireland (which is, on the whole, far less racially/religiously/ethnically diverse than America, numerically speaking).

    I mean, you might as well compare Chaucer’s English-speaking population to the residents of Chulahoma Mississippi! Haha, oy vey.

    So, you’re “empirical facts” are not facts at all. Basically, you’re wrong. And that’s your fourth mistake.

    Whether differences in psychometric intelligence, and general intelligence specifically, are causal or just somehow highly predictive yet epiphenomenal is an empirical question.

    No, it’s not an empirical question. There is no controversy that these statistics and measurements are correlation. Any junior-college level psych student can tell you that. Shoot, my girlfriend can tell you that, and she’s not even a psychologist! (Though she did get a degree in the subject.) But according to the rest of your paragraph, you apparently agree and then proceed to make a glorified educated guess. Sorry, but that’s NOT science, and thus not factual in this discussion.

    So, yeah, wrong again kiddo.

    My field is ergonomics.

    Wait, let me get this straight. You build chairs!?!?

    But seriously, ergonomics is the study of designing equipment and devices to fit the human body and their environment. Or, as the IEA states: “Ergonomics (or human factors) is the scientific discipline concerned with the understanding of interactions among humans and other elements of a system, and the profession that applies theory, principles, data and methods to design in order to optimize human well-being and overall system performance.”

    In other words, you have absolutely NO expertise in this field. Why lie? Especially when anyone could easily look information like that up?

    That’s your fifth mistake.

    The renorming shouldn’t be alarming at all.

    Oh, but it should be, because if the g-factor is really general intelligence, then presumably it should be consistent across various criteria. This is called changing the experiment to suit your theory. Also known as, confirmation bias, and ethically bankrupt science.

    Yet, you also hypocritically attempt to attach a test you say is for relative differences to make generalizations about absolute differences.

    Presumably, Diamond did not realize that the rate of human evolution has sped up 10-100x in the last 10,000 years.

    Hahaha! Okay, now I know you’re messing with me.

    Please prove that evolution has sped up. I’d love to see you do that. Because currently scientists can’t even agree if humans ARE evolving presently, or if they are, in what ways. (Presumably we are though, due to punctuated equilibrium, but good luck proving it. Unless you’re there for the evolutionary context, then you can’t actually prove it happened the way you said it did. And that’s basic physical anthropology.)

    Cavalli-Sforza’s points about the heritability of IQ and GQ are mute.

    Have you ever read Cavalli-Sforza?? Because I have, and he is not only openly contemptuous of IQ/GQ heritability on the population/racial scale, but his research before-the-fact completely debunks it.

    This is your… I don’t know, hundredth mistake? Something like that.

    Everything you’ve said above is as flimsy as a stack of cards on a one-legged table while a drunken elephant dances in the corner. I mean, you’ve not only attempted to obfuscate your argument with academese (as opposed to plain speak, which you could do if you knew what you were talking about), but you’ve also avoided the actual criticisms I made in my comment regarding your arguments.

    And frankly, a super-long comment doesn’t help your case. If you really understood this — and I doubt building chairs or wrist-rests for carpal tunnel syndrome — you could condense your information to the argument at hand, instead of talking about the beginner stuff you still got wrong.

    Which is why my own super-long comment is probably gonna be my last to you. I don’t want to inhibit a real discussion.

    Like


  114. I had the test I posted above done by a few family members and friends. The correct answers are not published by the way, so there’s no way to cheat.

    * brother (50 y.o./ 25% African, 75 % European) – 110
    * sister (38 y.o./ 25% Afr, 75% Eu) – 105
    * cousin (female / 40 y.o./ 100% Afr) – 112
    * cousin (male/ 45 y.o./ 75% Afr, 25% Eu) – 115
    * cousin (male/ 50 y.o./ 100% Eu) – 105
    * brother in-law (42 y.o./ Vietnamese) – 104
    * friend (male/ 51 y.o./ Antillais – about 80% African?) – 104
    * friend (female/ 44 y.o./ 100% Afr) – 108

    My daughter (17 y.o., 63% Afr, 37% Eu) really loves those tests. She regularly buys those “brain training” books and computer games with all sorts of “IQ” tests. Unsurprisingly for me she made a 128 on the first and 132 the second time.

    Last but not least I (male/ 49y.o. / 25% Afr, 75% Eu) took the test but… I took it 5 times.

    On the first one I kind of rushed through in 15 minutes and made 108. The second time was in the morning with a hangover but I wanted to take my time to do it thoroughly. When I saw that I ran out of time I got stressed, obviously made mistakes and couldn’t finish. Result 92. The third time after a light breakfast (and no hangover) I made 115. I did reasonable timing on that one. The fourth time after a heavy dinner and a slight headache I made 103.

    Then my daughter explained to me that there are different tactics to get to the missing piece. Sometimes an element is going clockwise, sometimes it’s the number of lines in the figure, sometimes the position and so fourth. All you need is to know and memorise those different options and apply it to each puzzle. In other words, this can be trained. With that in mind I took the test the fifth time and made 119.

    It still can’t explain why my daughter did so much better than me. If the capability to do well in those tests is heritable then my wife (100% African) must be a genius. She refuses to take those tests as she thinks it’s bollox. Hang on… she probably is a genius then😉

    Like


  115. ***Please prove that evolution has sped up. I’d love to see you do that.***

    Anthropologist John Hawks has some posts discussing this in detail on his blog. Hawks himself co-authored the 2007 paper ‘Recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution’ PNAS vol. 104 no. 52.

    Like


  116. @olufemi:😀 also, you see that your genetics vary from time to time and that is the reasion why your results vary that much. It is in the genes, HBDers have proven it, so it can not be any other reason. Your genes change from time to time.

    About the training; these tests are just like rubics cube (anyone remember that bloody cube?). Once you learned the system it was all about hand speed. Nothing else. These tests are tailor made for someone who like these kind of tests and questions etc. Buddy of mine took one IQ test and did miserably, but the guy is genius with computers and engines, electronics etc. I think he barely passed the math at school. What is that?

    Also, the guys I have known who have scored the highest in these tests are usually, not always, socially impotent and incredibly stupid. They have no social skills nor they usually understand anything that involves more than few people. They do not usually understand the concept of being polite nor being socially alert. Some of them have social lives, most have almost none outside the necessary contact at work etc. Why is that?

    “I would note that “intelligence” is a European term… It clearly refers to a rational ways of thinking about the world.”

    Is this guy for real??😀 Is he seriously telling us that european culture is the only one that has a term intelligence, hinting that the concept of intelligence is only european??

    Well it is the english language that has the term “intelligence”. I think the swedish is “intellekt” which is not much different but is different. In finnish it is “älykkyys, äly” etc. So I guess since we do not have the term “intelligence” we finns are not europeans at all. Which, by the way, early race biologists were suspectin all along.😀

    Like


  117. @ sam
    Yes, the sociopaths with an IQ of 160😉

    In order to have any measurability at all, intelligence tests can only be based on “true or false”. Furthermore, what they can only measure is an individual’s performance relative to those who designed the questions. If the tested person answers all questions correctly, all that tells us is that person is on par with those who created the test. It tests a reaction to prefabricated “true or false” answers. The test designers should be able to finish them 100% correctly (at least very close). Does that make them geniuses?

    I could get together with a number of experts in my area and fabricate a test that the vast majority of the world population would fail. Are they all stupid? Are we more intelligent than them? Very certainly not. What’s intuitive and logical to one person might be unsolvable to another who was never confronted with the subject and, quite frankly, couldn’t care less.

    A really indicative test would be if the tested person had to create a system from scratch (whatever imaginable, physical, useful, fictional, sociopolitical, artistic). That is, with no time limit, in the most favourable conditions for the tested persons, under no stress and no preconceived design at all.

    The point is that truly beneficial and intelligent things for mankind virtually always emerged from creative thinking. That’s what intelligence is about. All else is learned, recombined knowledge or repeated through experience in one way or another, hence cultural. Now admittedly the question what’s “beneficial” is also a cultural one.

    Somebody recognising in a fraction of a second where the little triangle in the right corner of a square should be next in a circle or which word is the odd one out will tell nothing about their ability to create something truly innovative, original or useful, whether it be a concept or a physical object.

    Someone scoring high on IQ tests is not protected from doing foolish things and those who fail those tests will not necessarily behave like idiots.

    Like


  118. Schwartz,

    I’ve read John Hawk et. al.’s paper on the possible speed-up of human evolution. Take note, they believe that it has sped-up. That is their contention, their hypothesis for the positive selective traits they measured in human populations across time. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s evolution. As I said before, if you (the scientist) aren’t there for the actual change, then you cannot definitively state what actually occurred.

    Also take note that humans have gotten both taller, and longer lived over the past few thousand to 10,000 years. Particularly in the last couple hundred years. Yet nobody contends that this is due to evolution, but rather to better health and changing diets.

    So, like I said: prove that human evolution has sped-up. Don’t cite me a paper that says someone thinks it might be.

    Like


  119. Girl I refuse, you must have me confused
    With some other guy
    Your bridges were burned, and now it’s your turn
    To cite, cite me a paper
    Cite me a paper-er

    Like


  120. zek j evets

    A. I will reiterate my points since this is essential to establish.

    1. Within populations, there are socially significant, neurologically grounded, heritable differences in general cognitive ability (i.e. g or general intelligence).

    a. If you want an operationalized set of definitions for cognitive abilities and their hierarchical relations refer to: McGrew, 2010. “CHC theory and the human cognitive abilities project: Standing on the shoulders of the giants of psychometric intelligence research.”

    For example: Fluid reasoning (GF):

    “The use of deliberate and controlled mental operations to solve novel problems that cannot be performed automatically. Mental operations often include drawing inferences, concept formation, classification, generating and testing hypothesis, identifying relations, comprehending implications, problem solving, extrapolating, and transforming information. Inductive and deductive reasoning are generally considered the hallmark indicators of Gf”

    If you want an operationalized definition of general intelligence, it’s usually something like: the “substantial covariation among diverse measures of cognitive ability as indexed by an unrotated first principalcomponent score, which typically accounts for about 40% of the total variance of diverse cognitive tests, or by a total score across diverse tests as is done in intelligence tests ” (Plomin and Spinath, 2004. Intelligence: Genetics, Genes, and Genomics)

    b. When it comes to the within population heritability of g, I’d point you to:

    Deary et al. 2010. The neuroscience of human intelligence differences
    Hayworth, et al., 2009. Generalist Genes and High Cognitive Abilities.

    For a general summary, it has been found (in the US, throughout Europe, Japan, China, and Australia) that a) the heritability of IQ (g) increases with age and b) by adulthood additive genetics explains the majority of the IQ (g) variance within populations (who live in the normal environmental range).

    c. When it comes to neurological g, I’d point you to:

    Chabris, 2007. Cognitive and neurobiological mechanisms of the law of general intelligence. In M. J. Roberts

    For a general summary, general cognitive ability (i.e. g or general intelligence) and differences in it have substantially biological roots. The only real question now is whether the causal pathways (within populations) runs a) from genes- to brains-to general intelligence-to behavior, b) from genes-to behavior to brains/general intelligence, or c) from some mix of the two.

    Flynn of the Flynn effect argues b). But this is a complex discussion.

    c. When it comes to the predictive validity of general cognitive ability (i.e. g or general intelligence) and tests that measure it, there are numerous meta-analyses of this. For a general summary, GMA predicts work performance, scholastic achievement, trainability and so on — obviously as defined in context to post-industrialized needs and standards. In terms of pre-industrialized standards, it predicts the ability to solve syllogisms — which is about as close to the classical definition of intelligence as you can get.

    B. Now some specific replies

    “Pretending to approach race in a scientific manner in a society and context that is filled with acts of prejudice and structural racism is naive, if not downright ignorant. That’s your second mistake. Moving on…”

    Chuck: You’re approaching the issue of race from a structural discrimination paradigm. What’s your evidence that our society is filled with “structural racism?“ That there are racial disparities? What’s your evidence that this or that racial disparity is caused by “structural racism” as opposed to cultural or genetic differences or as opposed to being due to random chance? Funny that — you cease to be agnostic about cause and correlation when it comes to your paradigm.

    Why should I not be political when you so clearly are? A sociopolitical paradigm is clearly informing your interpretation of what evidence to count and discount and what correlations to interpret as causes. Oh, that’s right. I shouldn‘t be because by your paradigm, a genetic interpretation fosters the disparities that your paradigm says it fosters.

    “Define “rational. Note that you understand the concept of intelligence as you’re defining it is European. That it IS a cultural construct…..”

    Chuck: Look there are two issues here:

    1) Is a specific model of “intelligence” actually a model of “intelligence.”
    And
    2) Do individual differences in “intelligence,” presuming a specific model and means of measuring differences, measure something reliably important as defined in such and such a way…

    I think we agree that the psychometric model of intelligence qualifies as a model of intelligence. Etymological analysis supports that. You make your case that there is no universally accepted definition of psychometric intelligence or general intelligence. You don’t mention that there is no universally accepted definition of social class, culture, race, racism, ethnicity, disparity or any of the other related concepts we are discussing. Somehow that doesn’t prevent you from asserting that: “society and context that is filled with acts of prejudice and structural racism” and making a host of causal inferences.

    Naturally, when it comes to differences, the universal acceptance of a definition is unimportant, since we can operationalize the terms (refer back above).

    “Your third mistake is misconstruing one society’s definition of intelligence, and a general intelligence that you posit exists among humans en masse. You essentially impose your/our ideas of the intelligence onto others, which is not only a colonial act, but also an ethnocentric one. “

    Chuck: I have no problem with imposing ideas. It’s part of my culture. It would be nice if you could respect that. That said, when it comes to population differences in intelligence, we can ask, for example:

    1) Are ethnic New Guineans, on average, equally as intelligent, given this or that definition, as ethnic Japanese.
    2) Do ethnic New Guineans, on average, have equally high general intelligence as ethnic Japanese
    3) Presuming we answer 1 and 2 in the negative — is the cause of the between population difference the same as the within Japanese or New Guinean population difference.

    Based on the classical understanding of intelligence (the ability to engage in abstract reason and solve syllogism e.g, Aristotle), it’s pretty clear that contemporaneous New Guineans, on average, are not on with par contemporaneous ethnic Japanese. What about the psychometric understanding? I don’t know. What about the causes? I don’t know — but it’s something that could be investigated.

    “As far as heritability, you’ll have to excuse me while I laugh at your position that IQ is inherited along racial lines for Hispanics! They’re not a race! They’re not even a coherent ethnicity. “

    Chuck: Are you serious or are you being facetious? I used the term heritability, not inheritability. Heritability is the estimate of population variance due to genetics. One can ask: Does the SES IQ gap have a heritable component? Does the Northeast-Southeast US white IQ gap have a heritable component? Does the Sex Verbal IQ gap have a heritable component? Does the US Catholic-protestant IQ gap have a heritable component? Is there are heritable component to College non-college IQ gap? Given a non-0 within population heritability there are a number of reason for why an average population difference could have a heritable component. Differential reproduction, immigration, selection, mortality to name a few. With regards to “Hispanics” — we are talking about a population comprised of central and south American immigrants; it’s not hard to imagine how a heritable difference could emerge (e.g if a greater percent of genotypic low/high fraction immigrated there would be a genotypic difference).

    It’s pretty telling that you dismiss my comments as outlandish without giving them a moments thought.

    “Whether differences in psychometric intelligence, and general intelligence specifically, are causal or just somehow highly predictive yet epiphenomenal is an empirical question.

    “No, it’s not an empirical question. There is no controversy that these statistics and measurements are correlation. Any junior-college level psych student can tell you that.”

    Chuck: So are you saying that the relation (correlations) between general intelligence and various social outcomes could not be causal ? I don’t get your point. My point was that a) differences in general intelligence predict a number of social outcomes and b) whether or not there is a causal relationship (specifically one running from general intelligence to the outcomes) is an empirical question.

    “Oh, but it should be, because if the g-factor is really general intelligence, then presumably it should be consistent across various criteria. This is called changing the experiment to suit your theory. Also known as, confirmation bias, and ethically bankrupt science.”

    Chuck: Tautologically the g-factors is general intelligence. The question is: do humans have a g-factor, where g refers to the “substantial covariation among diverse measures of cognitive ability as indexed by an unrotated first principalcomponent score.” Your point against a human g-factor is the secular rise in IQ. This is a non-point however, since there have been no secular right in g-factor. I think that it’s interesting that IQ scores have risen. And the apparent fluidity of IQ, as testified by the secular rise, may explain national differences in IQ (ie. they are non-g factor differences ). They do not, however, challenge within population differences — and some between population differences — in IQ (g). And because they do not challenge the within population g differences, they do no challenge the prior plausibility of between population g differences.

    “And frankly, a super-long comment doesn’t help your case. If you really understood this — and I doubt building chairs or wrist-rests for carpal tunnel syndrome — you could condense your information to the argument at hand, instead of talking about the beginner stuff you still got wrong.”

    Chuck: You want short pithy comments. But when I makes short pithy comments without operationaling and qualifying terms, giving context, and citing references, and otherwise intellectually baby feeding you, you accuse me of lying, being hypocritical, over generalizing, presenting biased idea, being ethnocentric and colonialist and so on. When I go on to elaborate to circumvent these silly ad hominems you argue that I make overly long and tiresome comments.

    Anyways, I trust other readers here can see the merits in my points and the internal consistency of my position. Perhaps they will be willing to engage in intellectually honest (or informed) discussion.

    Like


  121. Cynic

    “That is not the topic at hand though. We’re talking about the average IQ of SSA and the flaws within Lynn’s work”

    I’m waiting to see we if have agreement about the achievement test data. (In the meantime, I’m taking pot shots at some of the nonsense that goes for intellectual discourse here). To refresh your memory, I said:

    “My point is that the prediction is indeterminate because there are different methods that yield conflicting results. The best you can say is what I said: “[The school achievement scores] supports the verdict that the SS national African IQs are below the mid 80s and above the mid 60s, but they do don’t narrow the range much beyond that.”

    Once we resolve this issue, I will comment on the IQ scores.

    Like


  122. “My point is that the prediction is indeterminate because there are different methods that yield conflicting results. The best you can say is what I said: “[The school achievement scores] supports the verdict that the SS national African IQs are below the mid 80s and above the mid 60s, but they do don’t narrow the range much beyond that.”

    Arrrrgh. This is like watching the water delivery man trying to predict the next earthquake. If he can just read though enough off-the-shelf books, and ramble through posted seismological studies on the internet, then he’s sure to come up with the right answers!

    Chuck, Doug1, Sagat, and Steve Sailer, all seem to believe that their brand of casual armchair genetics is really equivalent to withstand the balance of opinion from the actual experts in the field. It never occurs to them that they SIMPLY don’t understand, or that they have huge gaps in their amateur knowledge.

    I wonder if these guys would try and design a nuclear reactor based on the same lack of training? Still, they seem positive that their untrained theories are ABSOLUTELY on the money, and that the leading voices in the genetics community have all been compromised by political correctness or some other nonsense. They alone are the uneducated heroes of Truth.

    Like


  123. I wonder if these guys would try and design a nuclear reactor based on the same lack of training?

    Training? What training? Isn’t it mostly in the genes?

    Like


  124. “Training? What training? Isn’t it mostly in the genes?”

    …..

    To say that a difference is heritable is to say that, given equal conditions, individuals (or groups thereof) will differ as a result of genetically conditioned factors. The relation between IQ (g) genes and outcomes is log information inputed: log information outputted. It’s a tortoise and bunny rabbit kind of thing. Just because you conflate heritable differences with absolute differences, determined differences, fixed differences, etc. doesn’t mean that everyone else does.

    Like


  125. @ Chuck

    And your conclusion is?

    Like


  126. It never occurs to them that they SIMPLY don’t understand, or that they have huge gaps in their amateur knowledge.

    Why would these racist f*cks? What better way than to respond to a bunch of dumb kneegrows than to show them how much more dumb than anyone else they are? Show the kneegrows why they are dumb and any other naysayers for that matter? Let me quote Leghorn Foghorn: “Well looky here” You get the same amount of knowledge watching a Bugs Bunny cartoon than you do from these goofs.

    I wonder if these guys would try and design a nuclear reactor based on the same lack of training?

    Why not? I have read books about flying planes, I think I’ll try it!

    They alone are the uneducated heroes of Truth.

    Maybe they can use their brilliance to predict the winning numbers in the lottery! I have a theory about these guys which I have posted about. Needless to say, it has provided me with endless comic fodder for future posts! Thanks!

    Like


  127. on Tue 15 Mar 2011 at 20:31:14 Crusader for truth

    I’ve been saying this for YEARSS!!!!
    Why did everyone just take the study at face value and never examiune as to whether the study was correctly administered or not? I try to ask this question and people just blow it off. Finally, some well-deserved correction 50 or 60 years too late.

    Like


  128. ***Chuck, Doug1, Sagat, and Steve Sailer, all seem to believe that their brand of casual armchair genetics is really equivalent to withstand the balance of opinion from the actual experts in the field. ***

    Then it should be relatively easy for you to rebut Chuck’s comments. The reality is that experts in the field are now acknowledging human genetic diversity. The key is to explain this in a way that doesn’t foster social disharmony.

    Like


  129. The key is to explain this in a way that doesn’t foster social disharmony.

    The key is to explain “this” in scientific terms. Which genes precisely determine cognitive abilities? A simple enumeration will do.

    Like


  130. Personally, I love how Chuck assumes that working in the field of ergonomics qualifies him to regurgitate scientific racism as fact!

    Oh, it tickles my over-educated cheeks ; )

    Like


  131. Zek,

    That’s a pretty weak response. It would be more helpful for all of us, if you actually addressed his arguments and showed how they are flawed.

    Like


  132. “Then it should be relatively easy for you to rebut Chuck’s comments. The reality is that experts in the field are now acknowledging human genetic diversity. The key is to explain this in a way that doesn’t foster social disharmony.”

    The true reality is that VERY FEW (if any) experts in the field support anything close to the HBD crowd’s assertions.

    I can find astrophysicist that don’t believe in the Big Bang.

    I can find biologists who don’t believe in Evolution.

    Every field of science has their minority opinions. And using exciting terms like:

    “Expert’s are beginning to say!”
    “Scientists are starting to realize!”
    “Advances in the field are now telling us!”

    Demonstrates a laughable bias toward the grand idea that any outlier theory that you discover, which seems to support your own calcified views, is a sea change in the making—a revolution of thought!

    It has to date, in all cases, proven to be the same lonely voices of descent wailing into the wind of consensus.

    Like


  133. @ zek:

    LOL and co-sign!!

    “over-educated cheeks”…I love it! 😀

    @ Schwartz:

    You use the German word for ‘black’ as your nickname. That’s so funny I forgot to laugh.
    You and Gilbert Gottfried are bosom chums, I’d wager!

    Like


  134. Wow chuck you seem to be in fine forum these days.

    Chuck, you should be working on your girlfriend and practicing your alpha, not arguing with folks online about “the same ole same ole”.

    You guys, chuck will not give up until you admit that blk folks are inferior.

    Like


  135. ***The true reality is that VERY FEW (if any) experts in the field support anything close to the HBD crowd’s assertions.***

    King,

    This isn’t correct. When 661 members of the Behavior Genetics Association, American Sociological Association, American Psychological Association & Cognitive Science Society, were polled on the heritability of black-white differences in IQ:

    14% declined to answer the question,

    24% voted that there was insufficient evidence to give an answer,

    1% voted that the gap was “due entirely to genetic variation”

    15% voted that it “due entirely to environmental variation”

    45% voted that it was a “product of genetic and environmental variation”.

    In other words, 3 times as many agreed with the Jensenist position that group differences are both genetic and environmental, as those who considered it purely environmental.

    Like


  136. @Schwartz
    You failed to provide the date that this poll was taken(1984 if this is the Snydermann & Rothman survey). I mean Wicherts work only came out in 2009, the Human Genome Project was completed in 2003, & there are several other recent studies on the environmental effects of IQ.

    I understand that you maintain your own position, but the date matters.

    Like


  137. @ The Cynic,

    It would be interesting to do an updated survey. The point is that claims of some “consensus” are unfounded. And to the extent there is consensus, it is not that group differences are purely environmental.

    Like


  138. But Swartzie, NOBODY has said that genetics play no role at all. Just about everyone who’s argued this (including Abagond) has said that there is SOME role for genetics, we just don’t believe that genetics is primary, or even fundamental to the observable differences.

    NOBODY has said that it is PURELY environmental. Genetics play some part, but since the genetics of both Whites and Blacks is not even consistent intra-ethnically, so it’s hard to see where it can be the dominant factor.

    Scientist who agree that genetics/heritability is a PART of the answer, are a far cry from backing the HBD claim that it is MOST of the answer.

    Like


  139. zek j evets

    “Oh, it tickles my over-educated cheeks ; )”

    Why don’t you use your over-educated brain to provide me with an educated critique of my points. Maybe you are used to dealing with HBD simpletons whom you can confuse with a barrage of obfuscations. I’m not one of them. Calling me a racist doesn’t hurt my feelings; I respect people that have a sense of race. There is nothing I find more distasteful than deracinated, ahistoric liberal milksops.

    With regards to your specific point above, my guess is that no one here has research experience in raceology or whatever we want to call the intersection of population genetics, psychometrics, and behavior genetics — yet that seems to stop no one from commenting on the issue.

    Olufemi
    @ Chuck

    “And your conclusion is?”

    My conclusions are:

    1. As I said: Within populations, there are socially significant, highly predictive, neurologically grounded, heritable differences in general cognitive ability.

    2a. Between US ethnoracial populations (self identifying Europeans, Hispanics, and African Americans) there are average socially significant, highly predictive, neurologically grounded, differences in general cognitive ability. (Notice I dropped heritable).

    2b. A rather complex argument — which I could explain if you want — leads me to conclude that there is some genotypic basis to the US Black-White gap.

    3. Between international ethnoracial populations there are psychometric differences (some of which are socially significant, highly predictive, and neurologically grounded — depending on the populations being discussed).

    4. It’s highly improbably the there are no socially significant (relative to post-industrial needs) genotypic IQ (g)* differences between any ethnoracial populations. (If, as of the 1900s, West SS Africans were genotypically on par with Europeans, then given the dysgenic breeding patters of the latter*, it statistically follows that they would now be genotypically superior with respect to general intelligence.

    5. With regards to SS. Africans IQ scores:

    a. It’s a big diverse place. Generalizing about “the average S.S African IQ” is like generalizing about the global IQ (average = 90, relative to the UK). It can be done, but I wouldn’t give much weight to this or that conclusion.

    b. The scholastic achievement scores are consistent with national IQs of ~70-80.** The IQ scores are consistent with national IQs* of ~75-85. It’s not clear what the 1 to 1.6 SD deficient in IQ means or what national IQs mean. It could be like the secular difference or it could be like the within population (g) difference.

    6. The question of global genotypic Global IQ (g) differences is distinct from that of local differences. (e.g New Guinean immigrants to the US could be genotypically “superior” to native born citizens simply by representing — on average –the smart fraction of the larger population; of course, presumably, later generations would regress towards the mean).

    7. On an esoteric socio-political philosophical level, I’d juxtapose three views when it comes to differences:

    1. Cultural (i.e racial) marxism: a) there are no genetic differences between populations (“this is pseudo science because Gould said so!”), b) there should be no genetic differences between populations (“this is disgusting because Jefferson said that all men are created equal!”), c) there will be no genetic differences between populations (“as Lewontin recently argued, races will merge into one anyways”) — and realizing this truth will lead to some post-racial utopia.

    2. Racial nationalism. The inverse of the above. Substitute racial arcadia for post-racial utopia.

    3. What I call culture Nietzscheanism: a) there are genetic differences, b) it would be more interesting if they weren’t so relatively insignificant, c) it’s inevitable that there will be large interesting differences — genetic or cybernetic, given the technology on the horizon, and human wille zur macht (i.e creative drive)

    I see 1) as degenerate, 2) as homely, and 3) as interesting.
    This view obviously influences my interpretation of the data (or willingness to interpret them as I do).

    *I’m following Flynn’s distinction between IQ and IQ (g) (i.e GQ). See: Flynn, 2010. The spectacles through which I see the race and IQ debate.
    **I’m using Rindermann’s terminology. National IQ differences can mean one of 2 things:

    “National cognitive-ability levels can have two meanings:(a) the means of individuals within those nations, (b) the levels of intelligence of the nations themselves (of institutions like rational bureaucracies, universities, etc.). (Rindermann, 2007).”

    ***For example, see:
    Vining, 1982. On the possibility of the reemergence of a dysgenic trend with respect to intelligence in American fertility differentials

    Meisenberg, 2010. The reproduction of intelligence

    Like


  140. @ Chuck

    “2a. Between US ethnoracial populations (self identifying Europeans, Hispanics, and African Americans) there are average socially significant, highly predictive, neurologically grounded, differences in general cognitive ability. (Notice I dropped heritable).”

    The word “ability” can mean at least two things.
    When you say “ability,” how do you mean it?

    1) I do not have the ability to bench press 250 pounds.

    2) I could never have the ability to bench 25,000 pounds.

    Like


  141. King

    “But Swartzie, NOBODY has said that genetics play no role at all.”

    Good, we’re making progress. Ok, let’s quantify this. What do you think the magnitude of the US B-W genotypic IQ gap is? What do you think the magnitude of the European (say French, German, N. Italian)-West SS African (say Endo, Ibo, Urhobo) genotypic IQ gap is?

    My semi-informed guess would be that the US B-W (adult) genotypic IQ gap* is most probably greater than .2 SD (The adult phenotypic gap, according to Flynn 2006, is 1.1 SD — 18 pts.). For perspective: Jensen and Gottfredson estimate a .5 to .9 SD gap. Flynn estimates a non-zero gap of indeterminable value. Nisbett estimates a zero SD gap. With regards to the European-West SS African gap, I would estimate > .3 SD** (4.5 IQ pts). For reference, Galton (1869) estimated a 1.3 SD genotypic gap. (a priori I wouldn’t rule out a genotypic gap of the same magnitude but opposite direction; the estimates that I have seen suggest that dysgenic fertility has decreases the White European genotypic IQ at least .2 SD; my guess is that selection is going in the positive direction in contemporaneousness Africa).

    *Let’s operantly define this as “a gap that would emerge if environments were equalized.”

    **This is complex. Here’s a slice of my logic: Odokuma, Igbigbi, Akpuaka, and Esigbenu (2010) found an average Endo, Ibo, Urhobo cranial volume (cv) of 1271 (for the sample studied), close to Rushton’s aggregated numbers. Based on this average and the aggregated European average, using the standard deviations provided, there’s a 1 SD difference in cv. There is a .2 correlation between cranial volume and IQ. (The heritability of cv, at least in industrialized nations, is about .9) Simple math gives me a .2 SD difference in IQ based on this alone. (As far as I am aware the only Africans country in which the IQ/cv correlation has been estimated was Sudan. A .2 correlation was found.)

    Flimsy logic, you might say, but less flimsy than “Lewontin (or Lynn) “said so.”

    chic noir

    “Chuck, you should be working on your girlfriend and practicing your alpha”

    I probably should. Married, though — multiracial. When my wife frustrates me, I like taking it out on SWPLs — jam my logic down their throats and all. Kind of Freudian. As for black folk (US at least), in general, they have a good sense of race. Not as clever as (German) Jews or SWPLs — but neither am I, and I like it that way. (None of these clever sillies).

    Like


  142. King
    @ Chuck

    “The word “ability” can mean at least two things When you say “ability,” how do you mean it?

    1) I do not have the ability to bench press 250 pounds.

    2) I could never have the ability to bench 25,000 pounds.”

    …….

    To say that your GCA or general intelligence is 130 — for example — is just to say that you perform at the upper 2.2 percentile of your population. Like a GRE score, the number itself is meaningless — so it would be:

    1) I do not have the ability to bench press like the top 2.2 percentile

    2) I could never have the ability to bench press like the top 2.2 percentile.

    Ok, but which is it? How malleable is the difference? It depends on the cause. Imagine you were assessed for bench pressing ability and it was found that you perform at the lower 2.2 percentile (relative to your population). The following causes for the measured difference would be plausible:

    …..
    1.cultural-non-cognitive
    (e.g. you weren’t trying; you were exhausted from a previous work out, etc.)

    2. cultural -cognitive
    (e.g. you had no experience so you didn’t get good grips on the bar, you haven’t yet developed a good sense of timing)

    3.biological-environmental
    (e.g. you haven’t worked out in a while and your muscles are flabby)

    4.biological gene-environmental
    (e.g. your not disposed to excersice, so you haven’t worked out in a while and your muscles are flabby)

    5.biological additive genetic
    (e.g. Your OXPHOS pathways aren’t particulary efficient)

    At this point, I think it’s fairly well established that within population differences are substantially 4 or 5. Let’s assume 5 — what does this mean? There are different interpretations (Sesardic 2005, argues that heritable differences are not modifiable in the local range of environment; others disagree. Mine is:

    “I could never have the ability to bench press like the top 2.2 percentile all things environmentally equal.”

    [I think it’s absolutely absurd to argue that high heritablility or genetic differences don’t constrict malleability (see for example: Velden, 2003. The heritability of mental traits in humans: A proposal for a more coherent discussion. Usually, after environmentalists admit genetic differences, they move to this line of defense).]

    Anyways, as I read the issue, individually one could work hard in spite of, say, one’s relatively inefficient OXPHOS pathways and overcompensate for natural ability (or take corrective supplements). I don’t know. The malleability issue has been an ongoing debate in the philosophy of biology. I’ll have to think about it some more.

    Like


  143. Chuck & Schwartz,

    Oh I already made my arguments regarding the issue, in spades. And like I said, there’s only so many extremely long comments on basic physical anthropology I’m willing to write when I have papers due.

    The sad thing is, I don’t believe either of you are likely to realize, maybe even for a very long time, how very, very wrong you are about these issues, and how much of a racist they make you.

    This isn’t a nature versus nurture argument, or some zero-sum game. This is about understanding the connections and complexities surrounding genes, IQ, and race. Sadly, you both lack the necessary training, and mental acuity to grasp this, as demonstrated by your comments on this blog time and again.

    The evidence given has been overwhelming; your responses have not refuted anything we all here have said, and the arguments you give when changing the subject are blatantly simplistic and ignorant regarding comprehensive concepts, from gene flow and genetic drift, to cultural constructs and the meaning of racism.

    You think neither of you are racists because what you believe is true. But consider: every racist on the planet has made the selfsame argument. Every racist on the planet has refused to believe that their prejudicial ideas and bigoted actions are anything other than justified and rational.

    I think you both have some serious issues, and while it might be funny (in the abstract over the net) to laugh at you, I also realize that the simple fact that people like you exist, who deny reality to such a degree as to ignore reality slapping you in the face is a telling thing in our supposedly “modern” day & age, when so many Americans like to pretend that racism is long gone.

    Sadly, this is not the case. Just like with anti-Semitism, sexism, and classism.

    You’re both racists for the fact that you believe negative things about people based on the color of their skin, on their eyes, on their nose, on where they were born and who their ancestors were. You base your logical, and rationalized bigotry on physiological features wrapped in a culturally constructed prejudice.

    To me, you are no better than the card-carrying skinheads and klansmen you so disparage and distance yourself from. Justifying your racism through false science is no different than planting a flaming cross or wearing a swastika.

    But you won’t read this and think, “maybe I should step back and look at this where they’re coming from?” You won’t because you can’t. You are incapable of letting go of your deep-seated need to stereotype people. For you, Black people *must* be stupider, and Asian people *must* be super-smart, and intelligence *must* be racially-based, and so everyone *must* be bound to this hierarchy you’ve constructed and validated through misinterpreting every scientist you’ve ever read, from Rushton to Gould to Darwin.

    And why? Well, I can’t say specifically why you need this. Why you need people to fit neatly into these essentialistic little boxes, especially when all the evidence says they’re not true and they don’t tell you anything in the first place. But if I had to guess, it’d be because your lives are so pathetic, that you need to degrade others to make yourselves feel better.

    But whatever your story is, the lies you tell will always be exposed through the lives we live.

    And that, at least, is a comfort to me =)

    Like


  144. My conclusions are:

    (I refrain from quoting your whole sermon.)

    Once again, what’s your conclusion to the “findings” and literature of all those other individuals you keep quoting? Is there anything in particular that should be done according to this?

    And once again I rephrase my previous question, which precisely are the genes that determine “IQ” with a high predictability?

    Like


  145. “As for black folk (US at least), in general, they have a good sense of race. Not as clever as (German) Jews”.
    😀 This chuckie is hilarious! I am not a racist, just race realist. Yeah, right…

    And he claims that he is married to a woman from a different race!😀

    “Married, though — multiracial. When my wife frustrates me, I like taking it out on SWPLs — jam my logic down their throats and all.”

    Oh, man, this is sooo crazy!!😀

    Like


  146. And he claims that he is married to a woman from a different race!

    Sam,

    I can’t deny that had me scratching my head a bit, but I’d still believe it. A while ago we had some born-again proselytizers on campus trying to say everyone’s basically going to h-e-double-hockey-sticks, and one of the guys was married to a Black woman who was also there, “preaching the good word”. Like that women should be getting married, having babies, and staying in the kitchen. No joke. She actually told some poor girl that.

    Internalized racism explains a lot, but sometimes people are just dumb =P

    Like


  147. zek j evets

    “the arguments you give when changing the subject”

    To clarify, I initially commented on African IQs. You, commented on my comment, saying: “It’s a little sad to see some people arguing about measured IQ differences.” I replied and this led to the present discussion. Other people (Olufemi and King) asked some interesting questions, which led me to clarify (and qualify) my position both here and to myself.

    As for me: So I’m a racist and antisemite. You caught me. Oh. racism schmacism; Joos schmooze. And so my racism drives me to construct internally consistent, empirically informed hypotheses that you’re unable to object to, except by saying that they’re objectionable. As an anthropologist in training, I’d think that you’d be interested in my exotic subcultural belief system. Instead of imposing your values on me — surely a colonial, ethnocentric act by your own definition — I’d think that you’d be open to understanding my subculture’s point of view. Delve into the heart of darkness. That’s white people for you; even when they’re anti-ethnocentric and antiracist, they’re ethnocentric and racist. Go figure.

    (Maybe, after you’re done with your papers, you could direct me to your arguments based on basic physical (and presumably cultural) anthropology so I can work out counterarguments. Or more reasonably, maybe we should just agree that our cultural differences preclude an understanding and end dialogue.)

    Olufemi

    “I refrain from quoting your whole sermon”

    We’re working from different paradigms. Given that, it’s difficult to write pithy replies without coming across too “blatantly simplistic and ignorant.”

    “And once again I rephrase my previous question, which precisely are the genes that determine “IQ” with a high predictability?”

    If this is meant as a critique:

    Genetic variance estimates don’t require specific knowledge of genes — in a parallel manner, environmental variance estimates don’t require specific knowledge of environmental factors. Can you name the specific environmental factors that determine IQ? No. You could name some factors that reliably “determine” some IQ differences. In the same manner, I could name some genetic factors that reliably “determine” some IQ differences (e.g. the rs1018381 and rs2619522 alleles of DTNBP1.). As I said, you can think of heritable differences as differences that would emerge if environments were equalized (i.e a difference that results from endogenous genetic factors), conversely, you can think of environmental differences as differences that would diminish if environments were equalized. The whole debate between nature and nurture is predicated on some concept of genetic and environmental causation; the very fact that we are having this debate, presupposes that we implicitly agree with this conception. Given this conception, genetic (and environmental) variance estimates can be made in absence of knowledge of specific factors.

    If this is meant as a good natured inquiry:

    1. When the results from the Beijing genomics institute (BGI) study are published, I image we will know more specific genetic factors.

    ” Is there anything in particular that should be done according to this?”

    Are you referring to the substantial 6 sigma within population gaps (70 IQ to 130 IQ), the average gap between any random individual (17 points), the average gap within families (12 points) — or are you referring to the between population gaps (maximum: 25 phenotypic IQ points (1.6 sigma) — most often much less? Obviously, I don’t care much about the between population gap because I’m a flaming racist . I do care about my increasing gap — (I’ve been battling an OXPHOS disease). On an individual level, while I’m waiting for a genetic breakthrough, I’ve found that exercising my brain helps as does taking mega doses of various supplements (e.g. DHA, COQ10 — try them). With respect to public policy and the between population gaps (whether stubbornly cognitive, biological, or genetic), I’d modify my “institutional racism” paradigm. (Which isn’t to say that I wouldn’t make opportunistic arguments based on it, giving SWPL nurture.)

    Like


  148. @ Chuck

    No, the answer is – you don’t know. And that is in fact because nobody knows.

    Like


  149. Chuck,

    Actually, I object to marginal, methodologically flawed studies being presented as significant research to construct entire generalizations about large, fluid populations of people based on misconceptions regarding race and genetics.

    I already gave you a whole host of my personal objections to your arguments, from the lack of a scientific definition for race that is taxonomically, biologically, and genetically consistent, to the inability for intelligence to be accurately measured, much less defined, across myriad cultures.

    But instead of presenting your own ideas, you continue to cite more sources that, when looked at with even a degree of knowledge in the subject matter, are being completely distorted, or purposefully distorting the subject themselves.

    Yet, there is an entire, global, academic community of physical anthropologists, geneticists, biologists, and other specialists on this issue who you’ve often ignored in your comments for less qualified, and less rigorous research.

    Whether I quote Gould’s refutations of Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence based on IQ tests in the early 20th century that do not correspond with the Flynn Effect, or whether I quote Cavalli-Sforza’s work on genetic-clusters, and how the genetic variation between humans is not significant enough to account for a permanent disparity between races based on a Western view of IQ, or whether I quote Montagu’s study on the cultural construction of race that is inconsistent with the biological and taxonomic requirements, or whether I quote Jarred Diamond’s examinations of the historical context that led to the creation of racial categories, and how Whites came to dominate the socio-political climate of our world, or whether I quote the important — yet oft forgotten — point that Lynn and Vanhanen made in 2002 that IQ correlates strongly with national wealth, or whether I quote the fact that race is not a consistent category, as races have changed over time, and will continue to change over time, due to evolutionary forces, from migration to drift to selection to mutation, because race does not stay the same over time, as any forensic anthropologist can tell you.

    But whether I quote *any* of these things is irrelevant to my points above where I question your expertise in the field to even understand the material you’re citing, and where I call you out on your prejudices, based on your admitted beliefs. And it is upon these points that I base my disgust with your arguments. Because you do not a racist to give an objective picture of race.

    So while you may laugh, and blow off my criticism because I call you what you are, that won’t really change either what you are, or the fallacy of what you believe.

    Like


  150. Correction: You do not ask a racist* to give an objective picture of race.

    Like


  151. ***whether I quote Cavalli-Sforza’s work on genetic-clusters, and how the genetic variation between humans is not significant enough to account for a permanent disparity between races based on a Western view of IQ***

    I don’t see how you can confidently say this on the evidence at this stage. For instance, Hsu suggested you’d have to be able to rule out the following:

    0) intelligence is partially heritable

    1) there is plenty of extant genetic variation, probably due to a large number of genes of individually small effect — no additional mutations are required

    2) selection can act if reproductive rates are impacted by these genes (i.e., by intelligence)

    3) simple estimates suggest that 50,000 *could have* been enough time to produce .5 SD (genetic) group differences

    The simplest model would be that time since development of agriculture varies between groups, and this variation leads to different levels of selection for traits which might be more useful for agriculturalists than for hunter gatherers.

    Like


  152. Schwartz,

    Oy vey, okay… From the top!

    0) Intelligence IS partly heritable, but not based on race. It’s based on your individual genetics, and even that is disputed because no one can prove it definitively. There are only correlations.

    1) If by “plenty of genetic variation” you mean that the variance between you and me is — statistically speaking — smaller than between my brother and I. When you say words like “probably”, then I know you’re guessing. As it is, humans exhibit very little genetic variation, despite have a widespread population. This point has been proven ad infinitum by the Human Genome Project and other studies, so please, can we just agree that you don’t get it?

    2) What type of selection? Natural selection? Positive selection? Cultural selection? I assume you mean natural selection, since that’s the common association. Reproductive rates are not impacted by intelligence, because people don’t choose mates based on intelligence! Reproductive fitness would be a more appropriate concern regarding rates of reproduction. No one’s reproductive fitness is impact by being stupid, unless being stupid makes them less likely to survive long enough to have sex and get someone pregnant. While that happens, it hasn’t been documented as a particularly frequent occurrence.

    3) Simple estimates are just that — simple. These are complex traits you’re talking about. Evolutionary forces are constantly pushing and pulling against each other. A mutation may disappear because of genetic drift. Natural selection may increase the frequency of a certain allele, but then gene flow reduces it.

    50k years has produced variation though. That much is obvious when you compare skeletons from then to now, and even in the middle. We can see physiological changes that are affected by environment and some that are affected by genetics. Yet, intelligence is not linked to a population’s genetics, as I explained earlier. It is based on an individual’s genetics.

    Your example about the different time-periods for the development of agriculture being the cause of variation of certain traits, specifically intelligence is wrong based on your own evidence. Biased IQ tests hold that the first civilizations to use widespread agriculture — Sumerian, Western Asian, Egyptian (which included Black people, Nubians) India, Sahel (which is Sub-Saharan Africa), New Guinea, and some regions of the Americas.

    None of those areas were where White people (meaning the current racial classification of Caucasians) lived in large numbers.

    And let’s not forget that many cultures, specifically the people of New Guinea practiced agriculture as early as any other group, yet many of these tribes have not moved into a western concept of civilization. Why? Are they not smart enough to build skyscrapers, but dumb enough to plant sustainable crops? Lest we forget, Europeans came late to the “civilization” game. In this regard I’m basing my conclusions of the rather strong arguments of Jarred Diamond and other researchers who note that Europeans developed much of what they call “civilization” chronologically late compared to other groups, yet came to domination through a combination of (to quote Diamond) “guns, germs, and steel”.

    Yet, conquest is not considered civilized in polite conversation. Nor are warlike people, in polite conversation. But there it is nonetheless: hypocrisy wrapped in contradiction.

    Seriously, there’s so much wrong in your comments, that it takes me twice as long to explain why and how you’re wrong than it took you to write the comment in the first place! Haha =(

    Like


  153. ***0) Intelligence IS partly heritable, but not based on race. It’s based on your individual genetics, and even that is disputed because no one can prove it definitively. There are only correlations.***

    Who really disputes this? The research on this point is getting pretty overwhelming.

    “The research team, which included scientists at the Universities of Queensland and Cambridge, UK, compared the brain scans of 38 identical and 26 non-identical twins. Using new techniques, they were able to construct detailed maps of each person’s brain network and measured the cost-efficiency of network connections for the entire brain, as well as for specific brain regions.

    “While we observed strong genetic effects on cost-efficiency of the entire brain, we also found that specific parts of the brain varied considerably in the degree to which their wiring was under genetic control.” said Fornito.

    “We found some of the strongest effects in the prefrontal cortex, where up to 80% of the differences between people were attributable to genes. The prefrontal cortex plays a vital role in planning, strategic thinking, decision-making and memory.”

    (see Brain cost-efficiency linked to family genes 11 March 2011, Cosmos Magazine)

    ***1) If by “plenty of genetic variation” you mean that the variance between you and me is — statistically speaking — smaller than between my brother and I. When you say words like “probably”, then I know you’re guessing. As it is, humans exhibit very little genetic variation, despite have a widespread population. This point has been proven ad infinitum by the Human Genome Project ***

    What I mean is that there is plenty of genes likely to be responsible for variation in cognitive abilities (possibly thousands of small effect size). Over generations you can get a change in allele frequencies. Chuck mentioned the BGI research which might shed some light on this in the future.

    ***2) What type of selection? Natural selection? Positive selection? Cultural selection? I assume you mean natural selection, since that’s the common association. Reproductive rates are not impacted by intelligence, because people don’t choose mates based on intelligence***

    Greg Clark provides an example with his data showing wealth robustly predicted reproductive success in England pre-industrial revolution (his faculty page has links to some of his recent papers under ‘A Farewell to Alms’). Hsu comments on this as follows:

    “Here’s a very crude back of the envelope calculation: if, in a brutal Malthusian setting, the top 10% in wealth were to out-reproduce the average by 20% per generation, then after only 10 generations or so (say 2-300 years), essentially everyone in the population would trace their heritage in some way to this group. In our population the average IQ of the high income group is about +.5 SD relative to the average. If the heritability of IQ is .5, then in an ideal case we could see a selection-driven increase of +.25 SD every 2-300 years, or +1 SD per millenium…

    If the estimate is too high by an order of magnitude (the rich group doesn’t directly replace the others; there is inevitably a lot of intermarriage between descendants of the rich and non-rich), a change of +1 SD per 10,000 years would still be possible. There’s clearly no shortage in genetic variation affecting intelligence: we see 1 SD variations not just within populations but commonly in individual families!”

    ***Europeans came late to the “civilization” game…my conclusions of the rather strong arguments of Jarred Diamond and other researchers who note that Europeans developed much of what they call “civilization” chronologically late compared to other groups, yet came to domination through a combination of (to quote Diamond) “guns, germs, and steel”.***

    Right, but this is something that the authors of the ‘10,000 Year Explosion’ don’t really dispute either. They suggest though that the rise of state control, increased population density & demands on male farmers also created new selection pressures. Do you think that female farming economies where the women do most of the work select for fewer ‘nerd’ or ‘beta’ traits?

    Like


  154. What a bunch of BS — my own observations tell me this is a bunch of crap!!!

    Like


  155. @ Zek

    I have noticed that whenever certain facts that are brought up, which people like Schwartz and Chuck can’t answer with a copy and paste, they completely ignore it. For example, the whole thing about “race” never being static (as both history and science tells us) is never addressed.

    It also seems as if you are repeating yourself a lot for these people. With the same points that consistently go unanswered. I have yet to determine whether this is because of selective reading or a total disregard of facts, on their part.

    Like


  156. @Franklin
    “It also seems as if you are repeating yourself a lot for these people.”

    Yeah, that’s the exact reason why I quit arguing. When I engage in these debates I nv do it to change the mentalities of HDBers. I am aware that their ideologies are mostly fixed, so I come to forums like these to share information w/ innocent on-lookers who aren’t so ideologically driven.

    Like


  157. ***For example, the whole thing about “race” never being static (as both history and science tells us) is never addressed.***

    @ Franklin,

    Did you read the comment about human genetic change accelerating? Zek is the one who questioned this, not me.

    Logically for humans and groups to develop genetic differences they can’t have been static.

    Like


  158. ***I am aware that their ideologies are mostly fixed***

    @ the Cynic,

    You won’t believe this, but that is what HBD’ers think about those on the other side too🙂

    Like


  159. @Schwartz

    So if that’s the case, then why do scientists now think that they can put a marker down, and say “There! These are races” as if humans have stopped evolving?

    Like


  160. @Schwartz
    That’s nice, but I have no politically motivated ideologies based on race. From what I can tell most HDBers do in one way or the other.

    I might add that their is no hatred component to my arguments. Not saying this is all HDBers, but most of them…

    Like


  161. Franklin,

    Yeah, I am kind of starting to sound like a broken record here. They just don’t seem to be listening, and each comment of theirs only sparks a sudden foray into racist fantasy land =/

    I think it’s partially selective reading, and partially because they can’t, or don’t know how to answer many of my assertions.

    Schwartz,

    Steve Hsu is an astrophysicist. NOT a geneticist. Please stop quoting him. He has no idea what he’s talking about.

    And you cherry-picked two contradictory points from the twin-study. “specific parts of the brain varied considerably in the degree to which their wiring was under genetic control… up to 80% of the differences between people were attributable to genes.” Twins, even fraternal twins, share the same genes, and so having them have differences in intelligence (as observed through their “wiring”) kinda defeats your argument.

    The BGI research you mention does not change the fact that nearly every significant study on genetic variation among humans has shown numerically, statistically, and in all other ways, empirically that human variation is not significant, especially compared to other organisms, and cannot account for the ambiguous nature of race or IQ. How many times do I need to say this?? It’s like you can’t read man…

    Your use of “beta” and “nerd traits” sounds waaaay too PUA for me to even believe, but the fact is “beta” and “nerd” are subjective categories, not scientific, and also the 10k Explosion does not take into account how these selective pressures work like a pressure cooker to make people smarter in less than a punctuated equilibrium evolutionary timescale. Simply put, they use environmental factors that they originally say has nothing to do with IQ, as an excuse why Europeans didn’t demonstrate any of their advanced IQ until everyone else had already gotten themselves civilized! Can anybody say “circular argument”?

    Face it Schwartz, we’ve tangled over these issues a dozen times and every time you’ve yet to adequately address a single thing I’ve said with peer-reviewed science that hasn’t been discredited for flawed methodology, or even quote a legitimate study, or talk about the fact that all the terminology you’ve been using is undefined and distorted.

    Seriously, you need to let it go and just accept that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    Like


  162. P.S. Schwartz,

    You were talking about evolution, not change — those are VERY different concepts — and you argued that evolution is speeding up, yet most scientists follow the concept of punctuated equilibrium (something I mention quite a lot) which shows that evolution follows stasis, with rare moments of explosion in which species split into different species. Now, if you wish to argue that different races are turning into different species of humans… Haha, go right ahead.

    Like


  163. @zek: these guys do not understand. They are so deep in their on holes that they can not look around. I have noticed that they do not dicuss anything, they just repeat their mantra.

    I assume that is for propaganda purposes, just to try to influence on somebody reading these babblings. Some one who just happen to look at these might happen to believe that those guys are about “science” instead of racism. And promoting and advancing racism is in reality their agenda.

    Sometimes they just are soo crazy that it goes beyond comedy, it is pure absurd!😀

    Like


  164. ***So if that’s the case, then why do scientists now think that they can put a marker down, and say “There! These are races” as if humans have stopped evolving?***

    @ Franklin,

    The existence of groups of people who have been relatively isolated and have thus accumulated different sets of genetic variants over time, doesn’t mean people have stopped evolving.

    Who knows what there groups will be in 1000 years. By that stage genetic engineering will probably have changed humanity quite significantly.

    Like


  165. Some of you have gotten Chuck on this post mixed up with Chuck from Gucci Little Piggy. They are not the same person. Realize that some of your digs and references aimed at the other Chuck have not made any sense directed at the Chuck that has posted here.

    Like


  166. ***Steve Hsu is an astrophysicist. NOT a geneticist. Please stop quoting him. He has no idea what he’s talking about.***

    You’re not a geneticist either. Razib Khan has noted on a number of occasions that Hsu does indeed know what he is talking about.

    Also, Hsu has been involved with the BGI recently researching the genetic basis for human intelligence.* It’s ridiculous for you to suggest he has no idea what he’s talking about.

    *(‘Scientists seek to unravel the mystery of IQ: Hong Kong supercomputers will power unique genetic study of students’, South China Morning Post 4 December 2010)

    ***The BGI research you mention does not change the fact that nearly every significant study on genetic variation among humans has shown numerically, statistically, and in all other ways, empirically that human variation is not significant, especially compared to other organisms, and cannot account for the ambiguous nature of race or IQ.***

    What studies show that human variation is not significant enough to account for iq differences? At this stage researchers have identified several candidate genes that may relate to IQ. That’s what the research at BGI hopes to better identify.

    ***Your use of “beta” and “nerd traits” sounds waaaay too PUA for me to even believe, but the fact is “beta” and “nerd” are subjective categories, not scientific,***

    Heh, true but I think those terms roughly capture the kind of traits that might be favoured (or not) in some situations. I think Richard Dawkins makes a comment in the Selfish Gene about some traits being favoured in a Chicago mafia family. Anyway, have a look at the human diversity discussion on the 10,000 Year Explosion site. In the deleted scenes section they discuss this in a bit more detail.

    ***Simply put, they use environmental factors that they originally say has nothing to do with IQ, as an excuse why Europeans didn’t demonstrate any of their advanced IQ until everyone else had already gotten themselves civilized!***

    I’m not sure this actually what they say. From memory they do say that the environment and culture was influencing selection.

    Like


  167. ***nd you cherry-picked two contradictory points from the twin-study. “specific parts of the brain varied considerably in the degree to which their wiring was under genetic control… up to 80% of the differences between people were attributable to genes.” Twins, even fraternal twins, share the same genes, and so having them have differences in intelligence (as observed through their “wiring”) kinda defeats your argument.***

    Steven Pinker says this about various twin, adoption studies:

    “The most prominent finding of behavioral genetics has been summarized by the psychologist Eric Turkheimer: “The nature-nurture debate is over. . . . All human behavioral traits are heritable.” By this he meant that a substantial fraction of the variation among individuals within a culture can be linked to variation in their genes. Whether you measure intelligence or personality, religiosity or political orientation, television watching or cigarette smoking, the outcome is the same. Identical twins (who share all their genes) are more similar than fraternal twins (who share half their genes that vary among people). Biological siblings (who share half those genes too) are more similar than adopted siblings (who share no more genes than do strangers). And identical twins separated at birth and raised in different adoptive homes (who share their genes but not their environments) are uncannily similar.” (My Genome, My Self, NY Times 7 Jan 2009).

    ***we’ve tangled over these issues a dozen times and every time you’ve yet to adequately address a single thing I’ve said with peer-reviewed science that hasn’t been discredited for flawed methodology,***

    You haven’t provided any studies to back up your claim there is too little variation to explain iq differences across groups.

    Like


  168. on Thu 17 Mar 2011 at 09:44:06 Student of the World

    @ Sagat
    Yes it is the same Chuck because on his blog he has posts similiar to the comments he’s making here.

    And if you click his name it goes right back to his blog thats how we know it’s him.

    Like


  169. @ Schwartz

    That wasn’t even a real response to what I had asked…

    Now, I will be the FIRST to admit that I’m not as knowledgeable as others when it comes to this topic, but you even answered/dodged my simple question with a half-Red Herring. Only “addressing” the latter half of what I asked, and not the important segment of it. Now, I hope that you didn’t intentionally misinterpet it so you can engage in some twistable semantics, as you’ve done with Zek. But just in case…

    Given the context of my post, it would be obvious that I was strictly talking about the scientists who’s arguments you support. Not all scientists as you interpreted me saying. Given your answer.

    So I ask you again, isn’t it premature for scientists to engage in slapping permanent stamps on people, and “proving” that certain groups have a biological mental threshold that differs from others; since…we’ve always evolved, are we’re still evolving, and probably (yes, that was a guess) won’t ever stop evolving? Putting people into boxes, while we’re all still growing seems quite foolish. Seems like it’s being done for reasons other than science.

    Like


  170. Sagat said:

    Some of you have gotten Chuck on this post mixed up with Chuck from Gucci Little Piggy. They are not the same person. Realize that some of your digs and references aimed at the other Chuck have not made any sense directed at the Chuck that has posted here.

    I agree that the two Chucks are probably not the same person. They have different websites, different avatars and do not quote other commenters the same way. And checking IP addresses they fail the sock puppet test.

    Like


  171. @ Chuck with the blue hippo avatar:

    If you are the same Chuck who runs this website:

    http://glpiggy.net/

    Then tell us so. Otherwise, please change your name somehow (like use Chuck R or something) to prevent future confusion.

    Thank you.

    Like


  172. I know both Chucks. They are definitely not one in the same. This confusion has happened on other sites, but their completely different writing styles should’ve given away that they are two different people. I doubt Chuck(w/the hippo) would want to change his handle just for the sake of posting here, but that’s really up to him.

    Like


  173. @Schwartz
    “The most prominent finding of behavioral genetics has been summarized by the psychologist Eric Turkheimer: “The nature-nurture debate is over. . . . All human behavioral traits are heritable.”

    Pause.

    Is this is the same Eric Turkheimer that tested thousands of 7yr old twins in a low SES environmental(57% of whom were Black) and found a IQ heritability of only 10%?

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u81/Turkheimer_et_al___2003_.pdf

    http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/297.html

    Like


  174. Cynic said:

    Is this is the same Eric Turkheimer that tested thousands of 7yr old twins in a low SES environmental(57% of whom were Black) and found a IQ heritability of only 10%?

    Yeah. This has been suggested as one of the reasons behind the Flynn effect. Basically, those in low SES environments have varying degrees of mental stimulation and nutrition, so they are not reaching their genetic potential. I also think there’s an important aspect of the study not discussed much. One third of those children in low SES environments also lived in fatherless homes. I wonder how much having a father around in early childhood helps increase IQ, since the emotional stimulation of a two parent home probably affects development of intelligence as well.

    Like


  175. ***So I ask you again, isn’t it premature for scientists to engage in slapping permanent stamps on people, …Putting people into boxes, while we’re all still growing seems quite foolish. ***

    @ Franklin,

    That’s a fair point. I don’t think people are meaning to put permanent stamps on people, they’re trying to explain things as they are at the moment & possibly improve them. Lynn & Vanhannen actually suggest the provision of micronutrients, such as iodine, to boost cognitive functioning in third world countries.

    Longer term I suspect there will probably be efforts to create some type of ‘gene therapies’ for people generally.

    Like


  176. In case anybody is seriously interested in going back to basics.

    There’s still quite a bit of lack of knowledge and controversy about the precise physiological implications in the brain during a cognitive process. Not even the structural blueprint, the “thinking architecture” so to speak, can be drafted beyond all doubt. Attempting to explain the cause without fully understanding the effect is like trying to explain what makes matter combust without fully understanding what fire is.

    There is one simplistic hypothesis which appears to make the deterministic genetic model for intelligence more plausible to confirm. The hypothesis is that there is precisely one part of the brain which controls cognitive processes and that also its size plays a predominant role in raw cognitive performance. However, this has been contradicted by experimental evidence.

    There were experiments made in France measuring brain activity when a test person is asked to think of as many words as possible beginning with the letter L, for instance. A seemingly simple test but apart from two nonadjacent and individually differing areas of the brain they also recorded increased activity in the cerebellum, in an area that is known to usually control movement and muscular activity. Experimental evidence shows that cognitive activity is not centralised or at least not confined to one specific area of the brain. The brain is able to rewire itself in changing cognitive situations according to physiological mechanisms which are not yet fully understood. However, there is more and more experimental evidence coming up which confirms the hypothesis of iterative rewiring, selectively but non-destructively, according to its usefulness in a given environment. The keyword is “structural plasticity” which is very real as its existence can be experimentally reproduced.

    For those interested here is some reading on the topic.

    Neurobiologist Jean-Pierre Changeux offered a possible solution to the riddle of recombining synapses. In his book L’Homme Neuronal (The Neuronal Man), Changeux proposed a “Darwinism of the synapses” to account for the development of the brain and the learning it undergoes within its cultural environment. He remarked that “the Darwinism of synapses replaces the Darwinism of genes.”

    The brain is the most complex and most nutrition-demanding organ in the human body. Any attempt to reduce the human mind to a bunch of coarse (and quite possibly dodgy) statistical numbers is like putting a chimp in front of a supercomputer to debug it in a competent manner.

    Like


  177. Olufemi,

    Excellent points, sir!

    And it should be noted, that many twin and familial studies are done to see how much genetics and environment impact our Western-definition of intelligence. What most studies realize (particularly Neisser et al) is that while the effects of an adolescent environment do not have long-term effects on intelligence, according to the statistical correlations, that at the same time low-income and non-white families aren’t very well represented in existing adoption studies and twin studies. Therefore it’s difficult for most of these studies to apply to their populations as a whole.

    Even more important is that ALL of these studies measure correlation, never causation. There hasn’t yet been a study that directly connects genetics to intelligence, because there’s no way for any scientist to manipulate a specific gene and then measure how it changes a person’s intelligence without the experiment being contaminated by other factors.

    Which means no matter how high the correlation, it still proves nothing.

    And judging from our HBD friends, it doesn’t matter how flawed or low the correlation, because to them it still proves causation ; )

    Like


  178. Olufemi:

    Best post of them all.

    Zek: As someone with an undergrad in biology , I’m easily as qualified as you are to discuss this subject. I will say you often have no idea what you are talking about and have consistently relied on emotion and not facts just as much as any of the people you were accusing -particularly poor Chuck.

    I will tell you this in relation to the last sentence of your last post: Experiments involving neuronal development and nueron networks could prove some of this to any reasonable person, and indeed, some of those experiments are starting to be done. I’m going to bet against you.

    Of course since humans are evolving (it’s amazing you speak of genetic flows but don’t seem to understand basic population genetics – it is impossible mathematically for evolution to stop) this all doesn’t mean as much as the HBD’er’s and “anti racists” like yourself seem to think it does. Personally, I look forward to the breeding of the first genetically engineered human, and over the longer run I suspect transhumanism is the way things will go.

    Like


  179. On genetics: The argument is largely pointless.

    Even if black people were statistically dumber than anyone else, maybe even retarded, with IQs of 20, barely smarter than dogs, they’d still be human.

    A child of 2 is obviously less bright than some animals. And yet, that child has rights. I’m not nearly as smart as a professor of physics I know – but I have the same rights. My sister is a bitch. But she has the same rights as me.

    There’s no issue with according people rights based on smarts. All people get the same rights. They should. It’s one of the cornerstones, the foundation of what it is that makes our societies work. Without this, all would be hopelessly arbitrary and negotiating a social order would be near-next to impossible.

    But the case for there being statistically observable differences between populations – be they Eskimo or Nigerian or Malay or Polish – is extremely strong. And this comes from evolutionary theory.

    I’m taking this back to first principles, to show that the “all groups must be equal” notion is actually extremely radical and is the position that requires radical proof.

    Heritability

    Obviously, heritability plays a massive role in some abilities: we’re not dogs or ducks. All traits humans express is a result of some genetic effect. This is the nature of every living thing on Earth. All human traits of any kind are fully genetic in every possible way.

    Learned behaviors are variable, but the ability to learn is highly encoded, as are our responses to learning. We’re not Ineffably Sublime Spirits of Infinite Malleability. We’re highly adaptable biological machines, programmed from the cellular-metabolic level up to every higher-order function.

    WE ARE PROGRAMMED MACHINES. Just bear that in mind at all times. Our minds recoil from this and refuse to integrate it into the rest of our philosophical approach. But it’s true, nevertheless.

    That reminder in place, …

    What we’re talking about is the variability between different subset human populations.

    First, there are obvious subset populations, with differing social and biological histories. Eskimos have a secondary layer of skin and fat; Austronesians are obviously genetically distinct from people anywhere else, either in Africa or Asia or Europe; and different histories have literally made different peoples, due to separation and barriers to large-scale breeding.

    We have always recognized this. It was true 10,000 years ago; it’s still true today, even with large-scale genetic mixing. Remember, humans select mates primarily on the basis of proximity. It’s the overriding factor. Other factors intervene only after proximity has been calculated for. This will engender regional variation among all animals and provides the fuel (variation) for evolution.

    Evolutionary theory practically *DEMANDS* that statistically observable and fully expressed variation between distinct breeding populations occurs. A priori, before we discuss any specific trait, we must acknowledge this: The moment you introduce a barrier to breeding (environment/class/distance/social segmentation) and variation in sexual selection, especially sexual selection, you’re going to get inter-group differences. These will be hard-wired and genetic, in that the *statistical distribution* of traits will shift or change in each group.

    This doesn’t mean that Trait A disappears from one group. Its statistical distribution shifts.

    Select out the people with musical ability, and after 3 generations, you’re still going to get people with some musical ability. Maybe even virtuosos. But you’re going to get a lot less.

    Raw mathematics and musical talent clearly runs in family lines. Long before Mendel or Watson and Crick, this was obvious and understood. Why? Because at the extreme high-end of ability, family lines most definitely transmit these skills. It’s not fair, but fairness has no place whatsoever in biology.

    Some people are just born talented in a field; others aren’t. With little work, one person will excel; with all the work in the world, another might still be mediocre or awful. And that’s the truth of human – or all – life. Live with it.

    The ability to perform certain abstract modes of thought is also quite likely highly genetic. Moreover, lots of other traits are clearly genetic. It’s said that you learn violence from your parents; it’s also possible, of not actually likely, that you acquire it genetically. How you respond to being slapped in the face or randomly attacked will be a complex behavior that is, at its core, influenced by your genetic makeup.

    I’m not saying environment is irrelevant – far from it. Just that genetics set the basic rules. Environment plays within those rules. And several mechanisms may be at work to get the same result – why and how you lash out after being attacked will depend on which mechanism your brain has decided to activate. You could have a vast range of responses. But make no mistake: Which response you take will, on some level, be genetically influenced.

    None of this is remarkable. Making loud cases for or against either “Heritability” or “Environment” is just absurd. Science will answer these questions, as it’s doing right now.

    Men and Women

    For example, in developmental psychology circles, it’s no longer remotely controversial to say that men are clearly far better at spatial-orientation tasks and creating and maintaining mental maps of their environment than women are. They’re also, on the right-end of the curve, much better than women at doing higher math and manipulating abstract concepts. HOWEVER, they’re also *worse* than women at these tasks. What’s going on? That’s a good debate right there.

    The point: The statistical distribution of these skills in males is different. The bell curve is flatter, and extended further to both the right and left. The shift is pronounced.

    Females have complementary but different skillsets. They tend to fill out the mushy-middle of every bell curve. There are fewer failures, but fewer successes. Again, this is predictable: Evolutionary biology would suggest this as inevitable. Males have no wombs. They need to compete for access. This competition will push them to riskier, more aggressively competitive efforts. Females know where their kids come from.

    Biology is very tuned to economic costs. Cellular biology is all about finely-tuned cost/input/output calculations. Biologists back to Darwin have noticed that nature rarely endows individuals with more than they need to successfully complete a task. Need to go fast? You go just as fast as you need to to get away from the cheetah. You don’t move 2x faster. Metabolism is all about economics. The same logical process applies to evolution.

    None of this is controversial, and it’s not just-so stories. Like physics, like the theory of gravity, evolution makes some very clear predictions. They all bear up in real life. Almost all of them make human ideologies (universalist/left/right/equalist/racist/sexists/gender-neutralist) uncomfortable.

    The Modular Brain

    Much of the human brain and skillset appears to be modular in function. Far form being a mushy “mind”, we’re almost certainly composed of a vast array of “modules”, each of which provides one or more available traits or skills that can be used, integrated with others, expanded upon, expressed or repressed.

    Some of these behaviors likely correlate with each other. Taken together, as subgroups of behaviors, what you get is grounds for specialization. This can work very well for genetic lines. Remember, your genes don’t give a damn about equality: they care about continuing to exist. Equality is irrelevant. Specialization between genders makes a lot of sense for social animals. Introduce social behaviors, as with mammals, and suddenly the raw game changes. This invention – social behavior – radically altered gender-specialization. Now, there are clear advantages to having the same gene do one thing in males and either shut off or do a completely different thing in females. We’re not equal. We were never meant to be.

    The radical position is to assume equality. Instead of proving that we’re *actually* very different, the way science is having to do today, the default position should be having to prove that we’re the same.

    This applies to all feminist arguments. For them to be based in science and for them to make biological sense, the default position shouldn’t be that we’re exactly the same except where we’re shown to be different.

    Genetics and gender:

    For a womb-less gender (males), gaining access to wombs is more or less the point of existence. Most of the political structure of *that* gender will be geared to acquiring as much access as possible to this resource, and therefore to the next generation, as possible. On the other hand, the gender with wombs needs access to any male. The focus for females will therefore be on helping the maximum number of offspring survive and breed; therefore, *selection* of mate becomes crucial.

    This one simple example, using logic that demonstrably applies to monkeys as well as people, accounts for much human sexual politics and social structure. It’s going to be as true for all kinds of related species as it is for us.

    Fairness has no place in this analysis. Neither does justice or order or honesty or dishonesty or any other higher-order ideal.

    IQ and equality

    So traits that code for behavior aren’t distributed equally. Nothing ever is. Obviously, we all have hearts and spines; some things are architectural. We share backbones with other vertebrates going back as far as the Cambrian. Cellular structures go back into even deeper time: All animals are descendants of what was a symbiosis of mitochondrial ancestors and other ancestral cells.

    So if eye color is encoded, and height variations are encoded, and some of these traits vary statistically by sub-group-

    the radical claim is not that different groups have different levels of intelligence/insert trait here. The radical claim is that there AREN’T statistically relevant differences between subgroups of humans.

    Evolutionary predictions almost demand that *that* be the case to prove.

    We should see statistical differences between groups. If we don’t, that’s very, very interesting.

    IQ measures a very specific thing. measure it across individuals and groups, and you’re going to see major variation – between both individuals and groups.

    I don’t see why this is controversial, except when it seems to pander to racism.

    *IF* Africans have lower IQs than, say, northern Europeans, on average, how does this impact your treatment of an particular individual African? You’re still going to get very smart Africans, the same way you’ll get very stupid Northern Europeans.

    Evolution and social selection will have produced other changes, too. I’m more interested in the differences in female/male attractiveness. That’s going to be MUCH more influenced by short-term changes in selective pressure than even intelligence, because it’s governing this pressure.

    For example, it stuns me that black guys are consistently attracted to women that I find simply fat. Other white guys mostly agree with me.

    It’s entirely plausible that there’s a difference in the hard-wired encoded pattern that black men specifically from West and S-W Africa find attractive – a different H/W ratio. Same for Asian men and Western men. Asians seem to like more boyish figures in their women, consistently. That’s fascinating to me.

    Is this encoded? This is more interesting to do research on than differences in IQ. There are tons of others, too.

    IQ impacts success in school and work in an industrial economy. It’s entirely possible – if unfortunate – that statistical differences make some groups more successful than others.

    But like glasses correcting bad eyesight, education may be able to correct – to some level – bad genes.

    A little hard fact can make the world a better place, if everyone can be honest about these facts.

    Racists use things like average IQ differences as a hammering point to push a given agenda. Equalists are becoming more and more like Church Authorities denying science and reality because they don’t like the implications.

    The mature thing to do is stop the invective on all sides and just let the data flow in.

    The Bell Curve was a highly charged and biased book. Its research was sloppy. Its conclusions weren’t: the authors had them as a priori assumptions before they started, and so they accepted poor data and bad analysis to arrive where they wanted to be.

    However, clearly, their larger point is still strong. My guy instinct says that 33% is about the right level, or between 33% and 50%, for the direct heritability of IQ and abstract and rational thinking abilities.

    I’m more interested in the transmission of what, for lack of a more precise term, are more salient features. Criminality, for example, and general social rebelliousness, as well as tendency to cheat and break social conventions and codes – not all of these the same, but some related – seem to be only loosely cultural. A lot of them appear to be genetic.

    That’s research that should be done.

    (what astounds me is when I hear people talk about not wanting, say, sons by X man because they’ll be violent like him; they forget that f they have a daughter, she has the same genes, and she may go on to have sons who have the same traits.
    We’re passing on the same sets of genes – how they get used in males and females is irrelevant to the passing between generations.
    A violent male can make with a female and 5 generations of *women* later perhaps the genes that make a violent male combine properly and you get another one. Lines run through both males and females.
    There’s no “femaleness” and “maleness” about any specific gene outside of the Y chromosome – remember, the X is required by males, too; of all genes, only the Y gene is not transmitted by both genders).

    Like


  180. Sorry for the long comment.

    I’m trying to limit myself these days.

    Point is: Even if there is a statistical difference in IQ distribution for West Africans, say, this can’t influence our opinion of any particular African. It may help predict the overall fortunes of a given African country – a country with fewer “managerial talent” and R&D ability will perform less well, overall, than a country with more talent – so it could affect where you feel like investing your cash.

    But even on the face of it, I can’t believe the average IQ of any country in Africa is 70. That’s borderline retarded. We’d be talking sub-humans, here. A family of retards? Okay. But at that level, 70-IQ people are easily outmatched by otherwise inferior but smarter people – even at an IQ of 90.

    Intelligence is one of those things that’s going to get chosen for unless there’s some reason it’s not useful.

    Ashkenazi Jews had massive social pressure to be smart in a certain way. Jews who couldn’t fit in married out and became part of the background noise in the general Eastern European gene pool. In-group Jews who remained grew smarter and smarter.

    The grotesque difference between Ashkenazi Jews (specifically – not including Jews from any other background, who are typical for their non-Jewish subgroups) and virtually everyone else everywhere is FAR more interesting than the apparent limitations of Africans. Obviously, there was massive in-group selection going on for many generations.

    Presumably, they started with the same genetic stock as, say, Palestinian Arabs (descendants of Jews/Greeks/Christians/Bedouin, by and large, regardless of language or religion). They interbred wherever they went – just look at them, typical Europeans. And yet, their skillset and contributions outshine almost any other group anywhere on Earth in virtually every intellectual field of any note.

    They practically invented the Enlightenment.

    Culture isn’t the only source here, obviously. It’s in a feedback loop with some selective-genetic pressure.

    The implication by racists is this: Blacks are stupid, don’t bother educating them, forget AA, we’re stuck with these retards.

    You can take that from the science, or you can take this:
    Blacks need more help at school, maybe a more focused school environment, and expect fewer mathematicians and physicists than you would from the local Jewish community.

    Does this make them useless citizens? No.

    It’s possible that our social structures could be re-structured to take account of statistical differences without impacting individual rights.

    That is, if there are even any differences at all.

    If we’re going to talk about this from the background of science, then the whole “what are the implications of asking these questions” thing has to be chucked.

    The problem is that the racists approach this only looking to find fuel for their opinions. They’re as unable to see the general facts as those trying to deny them.

    There’s clearly something going on.

    Maybe the Flynn Effect will grab hold of some otherwise blighted African population and catapult it up to average average. It’s entirely possible. For that matter, 5 generations of marginally selective breeding could radically alter the statistical distribution of traits. Humans change this distribution all the time by changing what they find attractive in mates, by choosing different mates, or by experiencing different social conditions.

    The Middle Ages were devastating and likely introduced huge social change, changing mating patterns immensely for short times. My body is naturally resistant to some diseases because millions of my non-direct-ancestors died from earlier versions of these diseases. That’s hard evolution right there.

    We fool ourselves if we think that other aspects of our bodies and characters can’t be just as affected by small and medium-scale evolutionary pressures.

    Example:

    We imported random Africans and the smart ones weren’t favored. It’s possible we actually dumbed down the black population in slave-owning countries. I have no idea if this is the case – maybe the opposite was true – but I’ll bet our “immigration” policy had an effect on results today.

    Take a country like Canada. They have some Africans, but their whole immigration policy is practically Eugenic in nature. I’ll bet you cash that in 5 generations, an immigration policy that favored smarts and skills will produce a smarter black Canadian population than our immigration policy did.

    We can do insane things to dogs in 3 generations. Given 10, we can turn big scary dogs into something resembling a rat.

    Human are just as manipulable, even if the manipulation isn’t directly conscious. Every time we choose to mate, we’re making eugenic decisions. Do it on a mass scale (“I like fat chicks!”), and kaBAM, in short order, you’ll start to see changes.

    Half the problem in these debates about IQ and race is that people don’t know what they’re really debating.

    Fighting racism by fighting science is like honest Catholics fighting Galileo’s support of Copernicus’ Earth Is Not The Center Of The Solar System theory. You can do it as much as you want, but you’re screaming into the facts.

    That said, then, the point of this article – to suggest that there are *facts* that may support variant positions – is great. Unfortunately, the commentary always gets bogged down in the details because of emotional investments in a particular position.

    Obsidian had it partly right – it doesn’t make a difference when you see some guy and want to know how to relate to him.

    Like


  181. (abagond — I appreciate you allowing me to post these posts. I accidentally posted this elsewhere. Apologies for the duplicate)

    ek j evets

    General note: I think that I have established the internal consistency and social meaningfulness of the statement: “within populations there are heritable differences in general intelligence.” Here I hope to finish establishing the internal consistency and social meaningfulness of the statement: “between ancestral populations (read: racial) there could be heritable differences in general intelligence”; specifically, I wish to show that your objections below fail to undermine this statement.

    “I already gave you a whole host of my personal objections to your arguments… But instead of presenting your own ideas”

    You present some new objections, which I appreciate. I will critique them. If my critique does not get to the heart of your points, please feel free to redirect to your more elaborate discussions of them.

    Let me first note that I find it odd that you criticize my expertise and yet demand that I do not cite experts but rather present my own ideas. This is similar to your request that I write concisely and your criticism that my points are too simplistic. I will try to meet your dual demands nonetheless.

    Let me summarize your points:

    1. According to Global consensus, human subspecies don’t exist

    Chuck: This is patently false and irrelevant [1].

    2. Cavalli-Sforza and Lewontin said, respectively, that the genetic differences between continental races and continental races + populations are too small to allow for significant genetically mediated psychometric differences.

    Chuck: Cavalli-Sforza and Lewontin were wrong [2

    3. The inconsistent and incoherent social construct called race is inconsistent with the biological and taxonomic requirements for significant genetic variation in general intelligence..

    Chuck: Saying that there is not enough genetic variance between continental races and continental races + populations (refer back to 2) obviously presupposes consistent, coherent scientific concepts of continental races and continental races + populations. To put this another way, the “race is an inconsistent, incoherent concept” argument only applies to the ordinary or legal concept of race (i.e race as understood by the layman or as defined by a governing institute of a particular state).

    As I pointed out before, it’s plausible that there are heritable differences between numerous socially or legally defined and delineated populations. Fulfilling taxonomic criteria is not a prerequisite for this. Fulfilling semantic criteria is not a prerequisite for this; the concepts can be fuzzy. For example: there could be heritable IQ (g) differences between the fuzzy, socially constructed populations called SES groups; accordingly to you, there are environmental differences; that the SES concept is often fuzzy and often inconsistent doesn’t preclude there being either heritable or environmental differences.

    That said, for a heritable difference between socially defined racial groups to be due to differential continental and continental + population genetics, there obviously must be a relation between the two.
    Both semantic analysis (see 4) and population genetic research establishes that there is such a relation. (As for the latter, refer to: Beckman, 2006. The Race for Ancestral Genetics in Clinical Trials; Mountain and Risch, 2004. Assessing Genomic contribuRotimi, 2005. Understanding and Using Human Genetic Variation Knowledge in the Design and Conduct of Biomedical Research.

    4. The ordinary concept of race is incoherent

    Chuck: Assuming that we are not talking about a straw man version of the ordinary concept, semantic analysis shows that this is not the case [3].

    5. National IQs correlate strongly with national wealth which either implies that national IQ are just measures of wealth or that the causality runs from Wealth to IQ.

    As for national IQs just being a measure of national wealth, refer to Rindermann’s discussion of this [4]. As for the causality of national IQs running from Wealth to IQ, refer to Jones and Schneider (2009). Jones and Schneider, 2009. IQ in the production function: Evidence from immigrant earnings.

    Wealth is not the full explanation.

    6. Chuck’s a racist

    Chuck: This is irrelevant [5].

    Notes:

    [1] There is no global consensus, specifically in physical anthropology, on the taxonomic status of various human populations (i.e. whether or not there are human subspecies.) In many parts of the world,, the taxonomic race concept has wide currency; see: Lieberman et al., 2004. The race concept in six regions: variation without consensus.

    Regardless, as I am sure you will concede, the question of whether there are human subspecies is independent from that of whether or not the phenotypic variance in a given trait between any two populations is heritable.

    [2] This is an important point, so let’s clarify it. Cavalli-Sforza and Lewontin claim, respectively, that the total genetic variance between continental races (CR) and continental races + populations (CR+P) is insufficient to allow for socially significant differences in general intelligence. Obviously, to say that there can’t be such differences with any certainty presupposes that we’re using a coherent concept of CR and CR+P. (You can’t argue Montagu and this point at the same time.) Neither Lewontin or .Cavalli-Sforza explain their reasoning. Here’s mine:

    To determine how much between variance in genotypic IQ the total between genetic variance can allow for, we have to make an assumption about the distribution of IQ genes within the total variance. For now, let’s assume that IQ genes are randomly distributed throughout the total genetic variances. Under this assumption, how much between genotypic IQ variance would we predict? Using Cavalli-Sforza’s estimates (in Barbujani et al., 1997), the total between genetic CR and CR+P variance is 10.8% and 15.5% respectively.

    Now there’s a caveat. When we’re talk about genotypic IQ variance between CR and CR + P, we’re talking about variance between populations of individuals. Likewise, when we’re inquiring about the amount of genotypic IQ variance that the total between genetic variance would predict (given our assumption), the relevant total between genetic variance is the total between individual, between CR and CR + P genetic variance. Since we are diploid organisms, Cavalli-Sforza’s estimates refer to a) the between CR and CR + P genetic variance, b) the between individual within CR and CR + P genetic variance, and c) the within individual genetic variance. As the later component is not relevant to us, we have to extract it. Roughly, the within population variance should spit equally between inter-individual variance (CR= 44.6%; CR + P = 42.25%) and intra-individual variance (CR= 44.6%; CR + P = 42.25%). Adjusting accordingly, the between individual, between CR and CR + P total variance is 24% and 36%.

    How much between CR and CR + P genotypic IQ variance (in Sds) would this predict? Assuming within population SDs of 15 (variance = 225), the predicted between population SDs would be roughly CR= 1.1 SD and CR+P =1.5 SD [.24/.36 = between variance for IQ/(225 + between variance for IQ); solve for between group variance = 68/127. Assuming equally numerous populations, (Sqrt (between group variance)) = [(Mean population A – joint mean)^2 + (Mean population B – joint mean)]^2/N =2. Solve for Mean A + B =16.5/22.5; 16.5/15 = 1.1 SD, 22./15 = 1.5 SD. This statistical prediction coheres with the finding of Jensen (1980): the between race IQ variance in the sample was 14% and the within race variance was 86%; the between race difference was 12 points.

    Of course, this follows from the assumption that IQ genes are randomly distributed throughout the total genetic variances. (Presumably, this is why you make the point about genetic drift.). As it is, we don’t know how they are distributed. That said, I’d make the following points:

    1. Your point about genetic drift is valid; balancing that, however, is the evidence that there has been positive selection for neurological effecting genes. See: Pickrell, Coop, Novembre, et al., 2009. Signals of recent positive selection in a worldwide sample of human populations; Wu and Zhang, 2011. Different levels of population differentiation among human genes.

    2. The often made argument that populations would not differ in IQ (g) because IQ (g) is evolutionarily important is absurd as there are much more significant differences within populations; were IQ (g) as evolutionarily important as suggested by this argument, the within population variance would be less than it is. (See: Brace, 1999: “Human cognitive capacity, founded on the ability to learn a language, is of equal survival value to all human groups, and consequently there is no valid reason to expect that there should be average differences in intellectual ability among living human populations”)

    3. The often made claim that there were no mechanisms of selection for between group cognitive differences is patently false. Off the top of my head, I can name six for which there is either substantial direct or indirect support: climate, disease, population density, culture, geographic novelty, and introgression.

    My verdict is that population differences in IQ (g) are a priori plausible. If you disagree, I await your rebuttal.

    [3]

    Chuck: Race and family resemblance. There have been several related but independent conceptions called “race.” These conceptions of human races (taxonomic lineage, continental ancestry, breeding population, genealogy, Ur myth, etc) are related in that they deal with populations that are genetically (whether in the classical Greek sense of “origin“ — genetikos — or the modern sense of DNA) related, giving these conceptions a family resemblance. This should not be surprising as etymological analysis shows that the root or the term “race” is “ancestry” or “origin.” That said, generally speaking, showing that a word refers to several concepts does not imply that the particular concepts denoted by the word lack coherence or are inconsistent. Evolution (L. evolvere) is a word that can mean progress and it a word that can means adaptation. Do the multiple meanings imply that “evolution” is incoherent ? No.

    In the context of our discussion, we are talking about a particular conception of race. With regards to this concept, if you want to discuss semantics and Montagu’s claim about race being the phlogiston of our time or discuss population genetics and Cavalli-Sforza’s assertion that “the major stereotypes, all based on skin color, hair color and form, and facial traits, reflect superficial differences that are not confirmed by a deeper analysis,” I will be happy to.

    Briefly there are two points to make. As noted above, Cavalli-Sforza’s claim is an empirical one concerning genetic mediated phenotypic variance between continental populations (see 3). It is distinct from Montagu’s assertion, which is a philosophical claim concerning the conceptual coherence of the concept that we are referring to. Again, the latter is important only for the claim that heritable difference between socially defined racial groups to be due to differential continental and continental + population genetics.

    Conceptual coherence of the ordinary definition of race, race as clades, and why Montagu was wrong. With regards to the conceptual coherence of race, it should be first noted that “race” (R1, R2, R3..) is a set of classes (i.e a system of classification). Whether classifications really exist is an interesting question, but not one germane to the topic. The issue we are concerned with is not whether classes called “races” are real, but whether — as you note — the system of classification is coherent. It’s generally accepted that for a system of classification to be coherent, there must be a criterion for distinguishing classes (R1/R2/…), the classes must differ in some way in addition to the criterion used to distinguish them, and some of the classes must contain more that 0 members (Jointly the last two establish that the classes have content).

    With regards to the race concept that we are discussing — which is the ordinary concept of race (sometimes called “folk“ concept“) — the criterions is simple: regional ancestry, where ancestry means: the region where most of your ancestors lived X to Y years ago.* (e.g Black/Negro/ =African-American). To clarify, the criterion is not “different essences,” “unique genes,” “unique alleles,” or “discrete groups.” These are criterion used to set up straw man definitions of the ordinary concept of “race” so that they can be knocked down. When Cavalli-Sforza claims that there are no human populations marked by unique genes and concludes that there are no races (or more properly, that no human racial classifications have more than 0 members), he obviously is not talking about the conception above.

    Now, not everyone fits in a race classification delineated accordingly — in this case they are called multiracial. As for our (requirements of) additional differences, they would be, at very least, Cavalli-Sforza‘s patterns of “skin color, hair color and form, and facial traits, reflect superficial differences.” It could be objected that 0 members belong to the class R1/R2.. and share a common additional difference. This objection fails since it’s sufficient that there are patters of differences between R1/R2/R3…

    To clarify, the criterion is regional ancestry; the additional differences are phenotypic patterns. Now it’s trivially true that races, as we ordinarily qualify “region”/“most”/and “ancestry” in this context, have some members; as such, we can conclude that the ordinary concept of race is coherent. This concept is not open to the common objections that the gene-frequency differences between regional ancestries are minimal, that differences between regional ancestries are continual, or that races are phenotypically arbitrary groups (e.g. “races without color“) . (For reference, a similar conception was presented by Hardimon, 2009. “Wallis Simpson was Wrong“).

    *”Region“ and “Most” is open to qualification — as is the time frame. The point of this exercise is to just establish the conceptual coherence of the ordinary concept of “race” as we use the term.

    [4]Rindrmann, 2007. The g-Factor of International Cognitive Ability Comparisons: The Homogeneity of Results in PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS and IQ-Tests Across Nations: Author’s Response:

    “Easily testable is the suspicion of Brunner & Romain that the national G-factor and cognitive-ability levels are indicators of national prosperity. First, the correlations between cognitive and educational levels are higher (r ¼.78) than between intelligence and wealth (r ¼.63) or education and wealth (r ¼.60). Second, the correlation between intelligence tests and student assessment tests (r ¼.86) remains after partialing out GNP (rp ¼ .76). Third, the positive manifold still exists after partialing out GNP. The first unrotated factor explains 81.8% of the variance, factor loadings on the G-factor are still high (see Figure 4). Fourth, wealth, politics, and cognitive abilities load on different factors (Sternberg; see Table 1). Fifth, there are reciprocal causes between intelligence and wealth (as expected by Brunner & Romain) but longitudinal studies show stronger effects of cognitive ability on wealth than of wealth on intelligence (Rindermann, 2007b). A little bit odd is this assertion formulated by researchers in Luxembourg: Luxembourg has the highest level in GNP worldwide but to this day is not famous for very good results in tests of cognitive competence or other indicators for particularly high cognitive abilities. The longitudinal results (Rindermann, 2007b) offer strong support for the human capital theory (Hunt): ‘Consider Japan and South Korea. In less than half a century both countries rose from the devastation of war to become two of the most prosperous countries on the globe, virtually entirely on the ingenuity of their people, for neither country is rich in natural resources’. With all due modesty, the two Germanies and other countries of Europe destroyed in the Second World War or Singapore and Taiwan could be examples too. In historical economic research the comparison between Ghana and South Korea is often used as an example (see Landes, 1998).
    heritability studies rely on a flawed model”

    [5] It’s interesting that you trust the analysis of self proclaimed anti-racists and marxists (e.g., Gould, Lewontin — in his work, “Not in Our Genes,” Lewontin even baldly states that science is a means of creating “a more socially just—socialist—society,” Flynn — who admits to being a socialist, etc.). I suppose this is similar to how you have no problem deducing causality from correlation, except when doing so leads to interpretations inconsistent with your paradigm.

    As for racism — some clarifications. Racism is a rather loaded term. If by racism you mean having racial and ethnic favoritisms, I’m admittedly a racist ceteris paribus; being so is natural for some people — I can point out heritability studies to back up that assertion — and I’m one of those people. If by racism you mean acknowledging or posting socially relevant genetic differences between populations, I’m also a racist; racism in that sense is equivalent to being empirically informed. If by racism you mean thinking that some ethnic, cultural, or racial populations are inferior in some specific manner to others, I may or may not be, depending on what trait we are talking about and depending on if we are using the appropriate mode of analysis (e.g. statistical averages). If by racism you mean thinking that genes and biology influence culture to some extent, I am also a racist as I am familiar with the research on gene-culture co-evolution and cultural neuroscience. If by racist you mean not going out of one’s way to not offend “people of color,” I’m surely a racist; I have to much respect for them and, more importantly, myself to indulge in such hypersensitivity. If by racism you mean having a sense of history and tradition, I surely am; as it is I find rootless cultural cosmopolitans — to resurrect that term — distasteful. If by racism you mean contending that there are human subspecies, I’m not, since I am agnostic on that issue. If by racism you mean thinking white people are the cat‘s meow, I’m not; I’m constantly reminded of their cultural degeneracy as noted above. If by racist you mean being a purple marshmallow, I contend that I am not but whether you believe me or not is rather irrelevant to me.

    My point here is that calling me a racist is not adding to the discussion and say that my racism biases my opinions doesn’t help you position, since you rely on the opinions of self proclaimed anti-racists and Marxists, some of whom admit to using science for political ends.

    Like


  182. Clarence,

    I’m going to bet against you.

    So, you don’t have any proof other than experiments which are currently underway…? Is that right? You have absolutely no proof other than experiments which have yet to submit their findings to peer-review?

    Am I correct? Because while gambling is all well and good, I personally find scientific gambles to be less about science, and more about winning in some obscure way.

    I’ve never said evolution stops, I asked Schwartz to prove that it is speeding up.

    And also, you seem to object when I use points that are outside of a purely biological perspective and instead rely on holistic approach to the issue. This is a flaw lots of HBDers make — apparently you do this too — because while geneticists have yet to conclusively link genetics, intelligence and race, people seem to think the correlation must always be genetically-based, and tend to know very little about race or intelligence in reality.

    Which is why you fail! Haha, I mean pretty much. If you box yourself in with a single pretending-to-be objective perspective, you’ll miss quite a lot. And there is more to the issue, than a statistical correlation that was methodologically flawed.

    So while I’m sure you’re a great biologist, the fact is that my arguments haven’t really been refuted, or disproved in a single instance during these comments. The only factual objection anyone has actually made, is that they don’t like my arguments, which, haha, is fine by me, as long as you don’t misconstrue your personal feelings for a scientific observation.

    Like


  183. on Sat 19 Mar 2011 at 04:07:08 Chuckwiththehippo

    Franklin
    @ Zek

    “I have noticed that whenever certain facts that are brought up, which people like Schwartz and Chuck can’t answer…For example, the whole thing about “race” never being static (as both history and science tells us) is never addressed.”

    I’m trying to reply to all the objections. I think I took care of the general intelligence ones and the race ones. Perhaps you could list any that I have missed — with regards to the prior plausibility of between race differences in IQ (g).

    Like


  184. Chuckwiththehippo?

    There are too many Chucks! Which one is riding the hippo and why?

    Like


  185. Race not being static:

    How is this a peroblem? There was a clear breeding population in the UK (Britain) before the various waves of migrants arrived. it all blended together. Danes, Angles, Jutes, etc. franks, Norse, celts galore, romans – what’s the British race?

    The point is: There are overall categofies that hold true in a “general” sense. These will shift and change with time.

    No surprise there.

    You’re looking for “absolutes” – “Blackness”, “Whiteness”, etc. It’s essentialism.

    Biology is all fuzzy borders. There is no “essence of blackness”, or “White pure blood” that flows between generations. The best way to think about populations and population genetics is as a statistical curve. Imagine fuzzy balls all jostling around with each other.

    They intersect and merge and then split apart. You can still yalk about species and sub-species. But foxes can still breed with other anines – though it’s rare and unusual. Big cats can be forcibly bred with little cats. There are obvious mechanism problems, but when they’re overcome, you get some pretty damned frightening housecats.

    Wolves and coyotes.

    Etc.

    So : there’s no problem with the fuzzy borders surrounding race.

    Remember:

    We’re not talking about absolute qualities. We’re talking about different statistical distributions of traits you can’t think in categories. It’s not neat and clean. You need to think in fuzzy groups of statistical samples.

    It’s entirely possible that a much smarter population of humans is living somewhere in Africa waiting to discover modern technology. Unlikely, at this point, but possible.

    You can also breed it. Exactly like you’d breed dogs.

    5000 years of agricultural civilization in Europe would make a huge difference.

    It’s not a racialist cause. It’s what biology predicts, and what seemt to be borne out by reality.

    Smart black people all over need pay no attention.

    Losers still have no excuse.

    Whitesshould stop looking for excuses.

    And there are plenty of white retards to go around.

    I’ve lived in China and other Asian countries, too. Lots of stupid people there.

    No reason for racial pride or racial shame.

    But a few presumptions would be profitably ditched.

    Like


  186. Humans can breed with pigs I tell You:

    Take a ride on this:

    This is what happens when she- horses are molested by humans!:

    I don’t even want to speculate as to how this came about!:

    Like


  187. Centaurs are cool.

    Sexy. So sexy.

    Like


  188. For all this talk of low IQs, I have this to say.

    When I was in Africa, I found that the kids in schools were among the most polite, charming, respectful and quiet I’ve eve seen. They were studious, too.

    In the US, we all know what schools in inner cities are like – and what ethnic mixes make them dangerous;violent/scary;

    But having been to southern Africa and seen the serious attitudes in schools there, often without the amenities we take for granted, and the bright eyes of the kids and the sharp wit and tongues they had –

    I just wonder, is it a racial thing – or is there (also?) a massive cultural component involved?

    Africans who immigrate to the US grotesquely outperform American blacks, as a rule. Specifically, East Africans (non-Somali) and South Africans. They tend to be well-off, as well, and have near-zero levels of criminal behavior.

    I witnessed schools in Africa that rivaled anything in Korea or Japan. It happens. Seriously, when I was introduced to one group, I was mobbed by the most respectful bunch of poor but dedicated students I’ve ever seen. And not one question was inane, PC or anything but clever. Curious, intellectually hungry young people.

    Then you get back here and see the blight we have for students. The schools could get a million dollars a year for some of the students we get – and still be hopelessly awful.

    I say that there may be a difference in average IQs. But we haven’t even begun to address the sociopathic American culture – more sociopathic for American blacks than whites, but the lower class whites are no great shakes, either, white racial pride types should be cautious where they place that pride – the culture that, while powerful, seems to be bent on self-destruction.

    Seriously. Check out Botswana. I’m not saying there are classes of nuclear physicists littering the ground in every village. But the students aren’t wholesale dicks and pregnant at 14, either.

    Race may have less to do with it than we think.

    We haven’t scoured out the toxic culture yet. In fact, we can’t even discuss it without being branded.

    I think a major anti-intellectual poison infects black American culture. I saw this in France, too – non-Muslim blacks are basically French. I dated one for over a year. They run the gamut from truck drivers to university professors – and black French culture has none of the toxic attitudes or violence or any of the social pathologies of American culture.

    If we could discuss the culture freely and openly, and counter the worst effects of it, it might take much of the steam out of this racial attributes debate.

    Getting out and abroad really changes your perspective. I find much to admire here in the US; but I no longer suffer from the blindness I used to, and most Americans (black and white) seem to delude themselves with.

    We talk about black and white as if American blacks and American whites are he only metrics we need to use. And then we talk about “Africans” – and I can assure you, Ethiopians have about as much to do with Nigerians, ethni cally or even racially, as Pygmies do with Koreans. Africa is a world unto itself. There’s more diversity there than the rest of the world combined, genetically, too. Makes sense: that’s where we originate.

    So admitting there are differences between subgroups and that average IQs may vary and then measuring them is cool and all, but basing conclusions on American blacks and low IQs is awfully dangerous. There are some cultural factors that need to be taken into consideration.

    Like


  189. “We imported random Africans and the smart ones weren’t favored. It’s possible we actually dumbed down the black population in slave-owning countries.”

    Zeesas oll mity!! This is really getting weird. Is this gorbachev guy for real??😀

    “We’re not talking about absolute qualities. We’re talking about different statistical distributions of traits you can’t think in categories. It’s not neat and clean. You need to think in fuzzy groups of statistical samples.

    It’s entirely possible that a much smarter population of humans is living somewhere in Africa waiting to discover modern technology. Unlikely, at this point, but possible.

    You can also breed it. Exactly like you’d breed dogs.

    5000 years of agricultural civilization in Europe would make a huge difference.

    It’s not a racialist cause. It’s what biology predicts, and what seemt to be borne out by reality.

    Smart black people all over need pay no attention.

    Losers still have no excuse.

    Whitesshould stop looking for excuses.

    And there are plenty of white retards to go around.”

    Breed humans just like dogs??

    White retards??

    Losers still have no excuse???

    What are you? Super human? Über Man??😀

    This is really getting crazy. I knew that there are loads of nuts but this guy, both chucks and some others have proven that the world still has a long way to go. Unless these guy are dragged screaming and kicking from their caves to the present day, racism and fascism will do just fine. Wow!

    Like


  190. Let me say that I’m uncertain about the nature and extent of genetically-based racial differences. Coming from the background that I do (biracial) I’ve been socialized to not think of races as fundamentally different. However, there certainly seems to be a pervasive belief (and in many quarters fear) in American society that these groups, in particular blacks and whites, differ substantially in heritable factors which affect intelligence and personality. However, most are not willing to admit it publicly. I’ve noticed that when criticizing inquiry into or commentary on “human biodiversity” some liberal white people get noticeably angry or upset, suggesting that they too are secretly worried that the claims are accurate.

    James Watson predicted at one point that scientists will determine whether the races differ in innate intelligence within the next couple of decades. I’m curious about this and would love to find out, but am also concerned about the social repercussions. Would the results shatter the self-esteem of people belonging to groups not favored by genetics? If current inequalities are indeed found to be a reflection of underlying biology, I guess people who aren’t members of one of the high flying races (e.g. Western Europeans, Northeast Asians, Jews, Lebanese, etc.) can take solace in the fact that majority of the world’s population is in the same situation as they are. If current demographic projections are right, the majority of the US population will be as well within the next few decades.

    Like


  191. “However, there certainly seems to be a pervasive belief (and in many quarters fear) in American society that these groups, in particular blacks and whites, differ substantially in heritable factors which affect intelligence and personality. However, most are not willing to admit it publicly.”

    Your logic seems somewhat flawed.

    1) this belief is “pervasive”
    2) but most people will not publicly admit this

    So, how do you know that the belief is widespread if people won’t even admit they they hold it?

    “I’ve noticed that when criticizing inquiry into or commentary on “human biodiversity” some liberal white people get noticeably angry or upset, suggesting that they too are secretly worried that the claims are accurate.”

    Again… terrible logic. How do you determine that when somebody is upset about something, that the best explanation for it is that what they are upset about must be true?

    HBD theory is FULL of holes (as has been demonstrated ad nauseam above)

    Like


  192. @ FG
    “secretly worried that the claims are accurate”

    Why would that be?

    Experimental evidence (ie. reproducible anywhere in the world) prove the opposite. Nothing to be “worried” about.

    Like


  193. @FG

    Your concerns are very apt. Actually, this isn’t a small issue. Socially, it’s huge. But we need to remove the science from the social controversy.

    – Left types want to deny the truth, if it’s true, or prove that it’s not true at all. It’s crucial to the “equalist” notion (note that this isn’t related to actual “equality” = which suffers not at all from inconvenient facts.

    – Racist types want to prove that this is true because they need to shore up their preconceived beliefs with something, they need justification, and they look to science. Before, they looked to religion. They’ll look to anything.

    Ditch both and see science for its own sake. I know lefties will say this is dangerous, but in 1550 it was dangerous to talk about the Earth not being the center of the universe.

    So onward:
    I’ve been socialized to not think of races as fundamentally different.

    I didn’t have this, but was raised in the “all people deserve equal treatment” ideal, regardless of background.

    However, there certainly seems to be a pervasive belief (and in many quarters fear) in American society that these groups, in particular blacks and whites, differ substantially in heritable factors which affect intelligence and personality.

    Note that almost all people actually believe this. Some put it down to culture, but most believe this is true, both black and white. They go to great efforts to contort themselves into believing that it’s not true.

    However, most are not willing to admit it publicly.

    But even liberals believe this, deep down; it’s obvious in their reactions.

    I’ve noticed that when criticizing inquiry into or commentary on “human biodiversity” some liberal white people get noticeably angry or upset, suggesting that they too are secretly worried that the claims are accurate.

    And this is where there’s the rub.

    …but am also concerned about the social repercussions.

    This is not a null issue, but not talking about it is no longer an answer, either.

    Would the results shatter the self-esteem of people belonging to groups not favored by genetics? If current inequalities are indeed found to be a reflection of underlying biology, I guess people who aren’t members of one of the high flying races (e.g. Western Europeans, Northeast Asians, Jews, Lebanese, etc.) can take solace in the fact that majority of the world’s population is in the same situation as they are. If current demographic projections are right, the majority of the US population will be as well within the next few decades.

    So expect some agitation by (especially lower-class) whites.

    Here it is:

    If clydesdales are big, strong work-horses, and the descendants of Northern Dancer are all faster-than-light racehorses but severely delicate, would it offend the Clydesdales to find out that they’re *born* not as good a racing horse?

    You know, I have no musical talent. None. But if someone tells me I was born this way, should I be offended?

    This whole thing about being offended at science is silly. If humans are like other animals – and we are – then we should EXPECT there to be differences like this between groups.

    I’d point out that:

    – West Africans make some very good athletes, especially for sprinting. It’s clearly genetic. Long-distance, not as much.

    – East Africans easily make the best long-distance runners. There’s no debate. There are East Africans who can literally run for days.

    This is obviously racial/genetic/hereditary whatever you want to call it. Do West Africans complain about this insult? White people?

    Other inherent / group / racial / inherited differences:

    – The barrel-chested Andes Mountains peoples. They’re actually evolutionarily designed to survive at high altitudes. They have much more lung volume. This is natural selection.

    – Double-fat/skin layers among the Eskimo and many North American natives. Same: Adaptation. Genetic.

    – Shortness/appearance/occasional blonde hair among boys in Austronesian Aborigines. Separated from the rest of the human race for 30-50,000 years.

    Look, there’s actually no debate. None at all. The Environment vs Genetics debate was lost as soon as the ideological blinkers was removed.

    It’s environment AND heredity.

    And on the Heredity side, whatever % it represents, MUCH OF THAT CAN BE ACCOUNTED FOR BY SUB-GROUPS, like “race”.

    This is non-controversial, in a scientific sense. It’s exactly how every animal in the world operates. It’s facile, in fact. It’s a truism of modern biology.

    The entire “races do not exist/we’re all equal” notion is so radical, so out-in-left-field, that the only way to believe it is to have contempt for what science has discovered over the last 150 years.

    This says nothing about being fair or having equal treatment or cops not beating the shit out of black guys or whether X person is appropriate for Y job.

    Racists claim this is true: their claim is groundless on its face. An individual is unique, and may or may not represent any statistical trend.

    So both the racists and the “race doesn’t exist” ideologues are wrong.

    What we’re talking about here is statistics and distributions of traits.

    A cursory examination of history, social patterns, development and biology would tend to indicate the following:

    – The self-domesticating tendencies of Eurasian societies largely didn’t affect Africa. But they *DID* affect some areas.

    – Africa is very diverse. There’s more diversity there, genetically, than the rest of the world combined. Conclusions are dangerous to make without qualifying them properly.

    – Africans, as a rule, still represent the full range of Human behaviors; they’re not “sub-human”, like many racists claim the science suggests. It doesn’t say that AT ALL. Far from it.

    We’re not separate species, or even sub-species. At most, we’re different varieties, like different colors of roses (which may or may not have other differences) or different varieties of squirrels (some red, some brown, some gray, some big, some small, some make one noise, some make another).

    That said, there are some big divergences. Austronesian peoples (along with the “aboriginal” people of India, possibly related) are obviously an early off-shoot, a near-case for extreme divergence.

    Neanderthals were a *very* early example of a very extreme form of this. They’re gone, even if some of their genes are still around.

    The “gracile” humans are the ones that survived.

    Eskimos are pretty different.

    North/South American Natives represent an early offshoot of Asian types of people; same basic stock, obviously. Christopher Columbus honestly thought he might be near Japan/”the Indies” – the people matched descriptions.

    – Modern trends:
    – Ashenazi Jews, who represent an extreme adaptation to a particular life, and who appear to be genetically smarter than general white people;on the far-right of the curve, they’re absurdly over-represented

    Note how much blacks contributed to music. I suspect there’s something there. Also, if you check, I think you’ll find that the music that comes “naturally” to blacks/some other blacks/Asians/whites is different. Consistently. I suspect this because I suspect music is a massive part of sexual selection. Same for art (the ability to produce it, and the reciprocal ability to appreciate it).

    YET

    Note that racial boundaries are not absolute. They’re as porous as sieves. People fuck all kinds of people. Genes really get around. Sometimes, it’s slow; sometimes, warp speed.

    But if you want to engineer some cool eugenic experiments, there’s a lot of human biodiversity out there to play with.

    I personally find the idea of blacks being less bright on average appalling, but reasonable, and testable. Also correctable, to some degree. Also IRRELEVANT for any particular individual.

    Naked truths are hard to deal with.

    The truth is that we don’t want to think of ourselves as subject to natural rules. We want to be special. Unique. The Left doesn’t see us as “part” of nature. On the extreme, they go as far as to advocate for our elimination, because we do “artificial” things. Well, this world produced us – we’re animals in the same way as elk or dinosaurs or mice or cockroaches. This is our home.

    The right want to ascribe universals to behavior – All Blacks Are X. They have a social agenda they need to reinforce. They misuse the science. There’s no black “essence” that Blackifies you.

    Same for “whiteness”.

    Just statistical distributions of traits that vary by population, mating in-group and population sub-group. Separate two statistical curves long enough, and you get two species.

    Eskimos can breed with Australian Aboriginals. We’re one species, yet.

    Might not always be true.

    If you think there are lots of varieties now, imagine 90,000 or 300,000 years ago. Imagine Homo Erectus meeting Homo Sapiens in China. Imagine a Neanderthal, separated by 500,000 years of history, last of its kind, meeting a new “human”, freshly arrived from North Africa, in a cave in Spain.

    You think it’s complicated having blacks/E Africans/S Africans/Bushmen/Eskimos/Chinese/Indians/Aboriginals/NA Indians/S Europeans/N Europeans?

    Imagine if there were still Homo Erectuses around. Semi-humans. Different kinds of semi-humans.

    Are they human or not? If they don’t have language? Art, but no music? Very violent? 3x stronger than us? Prone to disease? Resistant to disease? What if they had a different linguistic architecture – a separately evolved language module in the brain, resulting in different “natural grammar”?

    Imagine the fun a Chomsky or generative grammarians would have with that.

    Biology doesn’t play ball with any of our ideologies.

    It just is.

    Hornshoeing it into ideological walls doesn’t serve anyone.

    Like


  194. @ Gorbachev

    The scientific definition of “races” in humans doesn’t exist. That’s the issue which invalids all those claims up front.

    Like


  195. “Note that almost all people actually believe this. Some put it down to culture, but most believe this is true, both black and white. They go to great efforts to contort themselves into believing that it’s not true.”

    Anyone who begins a approaches a subject, this controversial with the statement that “almost all people actually believe this” has lost all credibility.

    “This whole thing about being offended at science is silly. If humans are like other animals – and we are – then we should EXPECT there to be differences like this between groups.”

    Except that we actually ARE different than other animals— There is only ONE human species, not 20. Additionally, human cognition is much more complex than that of any other animal, by many factors.

    “West Africans make some very good athletes, especially for sprinting. It’s clearly genetic. Long-distance, not as much.”

    Really? How about the fat West African merchant who sells yams at the market every day? Just because West Africa produces elite Athletes doesn’t mean that superior athletics is a genetic characteristic of MOST West Africans.

    When I was in High School the fastest sprinters were Black. However, that didn’t mean that if you lined up every student in the school, and had them run the 100 dash at once, that most of the Black students would finish ahead of the White students.

    “- The barrel-chested Andes Mountains peoples. They’re actually evolutionarily designed to survive at high altitudes. They have much more lung volume. This is natural selection.”

    Actually, you are just assuming that evolution is responsible. It is at least as likely that this is simply one of many human adaptations that could occur, within several generations, to any group of humans who took to those high elevations, rather than special evolutionary genetics.

    etc. etc.

    Like


  196. … invalidates all those claims… I meant to say.

    Like


  197. @gorba: “Ditch both and see science for its own sake. I know lefties will say this is dangerous, but in 1550 it was dangerous to talk about the Earth not being the center of the universe.”

    Actually, it has been the conservatives who have always been trying to deny science on some excuse, such as HBD or, as it was in 1550, because of religion.😀

    In USA it is the religious right which still denies evolution and whole load of science because of their beliefs, a bit like you and others who do the same. And, just like those nutters who believe that first humans walked this earth among the dinosaurs, you try the damnest to portray your racist humbug as a science.

    The world is very lucky that science is not religion and that it is science. Because of that fact we know that HBD and all other racist doodoo is not science but something else, belief perhaps or somekind of psychological perversion.

    “However, there certainly seems to be a pervasive belief (and in many quarters fear) in American society that these groups, in particular blacks and whites, differ substantially in heritable factors which affect intelligence and personality.

    Note that almost all people actually believe this. Some put it down to culture, but most believe this is true, both black and white. They go to great efforts to contort themselves into believing that it’s not true.”

    No. You belive that. But since you want to be right in your racist ideas, you try to convince yourself that everybody else shares your convictions. Which they do not.

    “But even liberals believe this, deep down; it’s obvious in their reactions.”

    Öööhh… How do you see this in their “reactions” if they deny this doodoo??

    “There are East Africans who can literally run for days.”

    Really?😀 Name one.

    “Double-fat/skin layers among the Eskimo and many North American natives. Same: Adaptation. Genetic.”

    So I guess the quadruble fat layers among texans are also genetic??😀 You do know that texans are the fatest people on earth, right??😀

    “Look, there’s actually no debate. None at all. The Environment vs Genetics debate was lost as soon as the ideological blinkers was removed.”

    There is no debate among the scientists. There are only some racists who try to argue their doodoo is science. And that is because you have an ideological sack over your head.

    “The entire “races do not exist/we’re all equal” notion is so radical, so out-in-left-field, that the only way to believe it is to have contempt for what science has discovered over the last 150 years.”

    Say what? You mean what science said before 150 years ago, right? You do know that science today presents the fact that there is only one human race? You don’t?? Well, check what science has done for the last 150 years instead of dreaming doodoo. You’ll be surprised!!😀

    “Note how much blacks contributed to music. I suspect there’s something there. Also, if you check, I think you’ll find that the music that comes “naturally” to blacks/some other blacks/Asians/whites is different. Consistently. I suspect this because I suspect music is a massive part of sexual selection. Same for art (the ability to produce it, and the reciprocal ability to appreciate it).”
    😀😀😀 This is really hilarious, man! Classic stand up stuff!! You mean that Jimmie Hendrix was a freak when he played rock and Steve Winwood and some other whites are freaks because they had soul??😀 Eminem must be a white N****r then, huh??😀

    “The truth is that we don’t want to think of ourselves as subject to natural rules. We want to be special. Unique. The Left doesn’t see us as “part” of nature. On the extreme, they go as far as to advocate for our elimination, because we do “artificial” things. Well, this world produced us – we’re animals in the same way as elk or dinosaurs or mice or cockroaches. This is our home.”

    Wrong again!😀 You just do not know doodoo, do you? It has been the left and, yes, the dreaded commies who have said all the time that humanbeings are just animals among the animals. It has been the religious conservatives who have said all the time that we are special because “God has a plan for us”. But I guess that this just shows what your “science” is all about. You do not know a squat what you are talking about.😀

    “Eskimos can breed with Australian Aboriginals. We’re one species, yet.

    Might not always be true.”

    Yes, abos can sing that chanting from the movie Full Metal Jacket and check it out and realize that it is not cold. And because they can “breed” you claims are doodoo. There is just one human race.

    It might not always be true, right, and one day there might be beings who look just like you but are in actuality nanomachines. You could not detect the difference. Also there might be those green martians that herneith is so weak for. You’ll never know…😀

    “What if they had a different linguistic architecture – a separately evolved language module in the brain, resulting in different “natural grammar”?”

    Well, just for your information; certain whales have their own personal “whistle” to which they answer and researches have found out that spermwhales have around 3000 different “whistles” which they use when they communicate. That is like the same amount of words in classic chinese. Makes one wonder, doesn’t it??😀

    “Biology doesn’t play ball with any of our ideologies.

    It just is.

    Hornshoeing it into ideological walls doesn’t serve anyone.”

    So right, which makes me wonder why you keep posting this ideoligical garbage week after week??😀

    Like


  198. @Olufemi
    The scientific definition of “races” in humans doesn’t exist. That’s the issue which invalids all those claims up front.

    Your comment is both wrong and, if I try to interpret it the way you want me to, still irrelevant. I’m approaching this from a biological perspective – not a socio-cultural one.

    Deal with humans as if we were cockroaches or dogs or monkeys. We’re not “special” or outside the basic laws of biology. And “Race” may be a difficult term given its social definitions, but is we define it as “identifiable population sub-group” then it absolutely exists.

    You don’t need the concept of “race”. I’m not talking about the social definition. “Race” is a social term, not a scientific one.

    The larger scientific point is this: There *are* sub-groups in populations that maintain some level of distinctness; they often disappear, blending in or dying out. Sometimes they bud off and form new related-species, then new species.

    Sometimes it’s random drift. Sometimes it’s adaptation. Sometimes Founder’s Effect. Sometimes it’s all of them at the same time.

    “Race” as iron-clad definitions doesn’t exist. But biological “race”, or call it “sub-group” or “distinct population segment” or whatever, or even “Biogeographically distinguishing element” – let’s just say “race” for short, given the inadequacies of English–

    Absolutely exists.

    It exists for dogs (varieties). It exists for squirrels (red, gray, black, brown; they mix, they also have distinct population zones), it exits for insects and it exists for plants. Every single species of life has the potential to fracture into different statistically separate groups of in-group breeding units.

    I’m very sorry to have to tell you this, but humans are easily dividable into semi-distinct subgroups that have coherent sets of traits – in different distributions -than others. Call this “race” if you want.

    Geography started this all. Proximity of breeding mates in a world without airplanes or animal husbandry or boats. Then introduce different selective factors.

    Race exists:
    Blonde-haired, blue-eyed babies are not born to two parents in Bourkina Faso who were both African without white parentage. White parents who have Finnish ancestors going back 200 years do not suddenly give birth to Australian Aborigine babies. It just doesn’t happen.

    We are not “miraculous creations” in that sense: We are animals exactly like every single other animal in the world, when it comes to following the rules of biology.

    We are genetic machines which exist for the purpose of continuing the existence of our genes. All the rules that affect other animals apply to us in every way.

    I don’t even know what you mean by “Race doesn’t exist”. I’m not sure that you do, either.

    If you mean what Stephen Jay Gould meant when he said “In-group-variation is greater than inter-group variation, so groups can’t be defined and therefore don’t exist”, then…

    Stephen Jay Gould was partly right. But his conclusion was wrong. “Race” exists sufficiently to easily identify a person’s “race” (or racial components). Another 3-4 generations of sex between groups and this won’t be the case: The sub-groups will merge.

    (a very bright man and biologist, by the way, great evolutionary theorist with a major blind spot for humans – only)

    This is ALSO NATURAL. We are not separate species.

    I’m not saying blacks are stupid.

    What I’m saying is:

    Biology aggressively predicts that there will be a tendency for evolution to manipulate even minor issues of difference between individuals – like a tiny bit of extra height or a little bit of disease resistance – into larger and larger differences over time.

    Variation is the fuel of evolution.

    In West Africa, it’s entirely possible that sexual selection went on that was more or less the same as sexual selective pressures anywhere else – but even tiny differences (“I Like bigger butts”) would, over time, be exaggerated out of all proportion.

    The tendency for black men to like major booty is a case in point. That’s like the Peacock’s feathers, and it’s a Red Queen effect run wild.

    There’s some evidence that W African women are just— different, when it comes to fat distribution. Genetically. The way some groups are taller.

    Women chose the tall guys in one group more than women chose the tall guys in another group. Of course there are other reasons why the Dutch will be tall, and pygmies short – but sexual selection was likely part of it.

    With the rise of agricultural civilization, being Alpha Male may have been DIFFERENT than it would have been for the same society BEFORE agriculture.

    More pacifist/co-operative/less aggressive behavior might *NOT* have been weeded out as effectively as it would have among, say, the hunters in the mountains who observe no laws and have no kings telling them what to do.

    It’s not saying that black skin makes you a criminal. This is what the racists get wrong.

    It says: behavior is likely partly related to background.

    If a given population has more Beta males, meek and quiet, breeding, then, *over time*, this society will have MORE BETA BEHAVIOR. Less violence, maybe.

    It doesn’t make such people better or worse. We’re machines created by our genes so the genes can transmit themselves.

    In a time of chaos and war, you need other strategies.

    The Swedes were fantastically violent, savage, brutal and monstrous. They raped and pillaged and butchered each other all the time. Over time, social demands changed.

    In one era, a violent bastard could have 15 children. All of them might have had his violent bastard genes.

    In another time, with different demands, he might only have 6 children. The *other* guy, who would have had 2 kids before, now has 6.

    Over time, … … … the violent behavior seems to naturally weed itself out.

    However, IT IS NOT GONE. Some people will still be violent bastards. Variation: Variation tends to remain because different individuals may use different strategies, even when prevailing conditions change. For some Norse/Swedes, an “independent/Rebellious/Violent” strategy was still useful.

    It *might* mean that we can’t expect the same performance from West African kids in school. Maybe they need *different* learning strategies.

    Did you ever consider that, by intensifying research into the genetic factors in personality/IQ/the human mind we could FREE ourselves from a lot of social prisons?

    MAYBE

    boy and girls learn differently.

    MAYBE

    some people need different strategies to succeed in life.

    MAYBE

    a room full of inner-city black boys need… a different teaching model than a room of quiet, calm, introverted Japanese kids?

    Liberals deny biology and possibly harm millions of people because they Want Everyone To Be The Same Because We Must All Be Precisely Equal.

    I wasn’t born with musical talent. Maybe I carry the genes for it, but they weren’t expressed or they were dominated by other genes. Maybe I *Could* have kids with musical talent if I mated with X woman.

    Humans really are like that.

    Studies are consistently showing that, on *average*, as in not on an individual level for everyone, black students do poorly in the same environment as kids from other races.

    Possible reactions:

    Blacks are sub-human. Kill them all.

    Blacks and Whites and Asians are different. They’re all good, but should live apart, for their own good.

    Blacks are “quaint”. Give them some handouts and say there-there. (liberals). Deny there’s any difference and “nyah nyah I don’t hear you” if the science seems to show this.

    It’s culture, not biology. CRUSH OPPOSITION AND DON’T ASK UNCOMFORTABLE QUESTIONS

    My response:

    Maybe there are some inherent differences that are true – statistically – though not absolutely, of course. Perhaps we could, … vary our approach.

    Obviously, from any casual observation of racial groups, even accounting for culture, there are both physical and behavioral differences – on AVERAGE. I must qualify this: Individuals will run the whole. You WILL get black computer nerds and Asian bad boys. Just more or less of them. There’s no “Blackness = Bad” gene.

    But biology predicts differences in any group separated for any length of time. Many of them will be behavioral.

    Heck – dropout rates for Portuguese kids are almost as high for black kids. Maybe there’s a common genetic structure. They just don’t have black skin. Maybe they share a similar genetic component, or different but parallel ones.

    Maybe it’s cultural, too.

    Culture breeds a genetic trend which feeds back on culture which feeds back on the genetic trend.

    If you want clarity, stop thinking about this as a SOCIAL issue and think about it as a purely BIOLOGICAL/BIOSOCIAL issue.

    Don’t think about implications. Don’t think about identity. Don’t think about anything but the human biology and nothing else.

    Once you have that clarity, and we’re all being honest, then maybe we can also stop being racist about it, too.

    Most racists and anti-racists miss the whole point.

    Like


  199. Except that we actually ARE different than other animals— There is only ONE human species, not 20.

    Dead wrong. I’ll illustrate.

    By definition, when speaking of species, there is only one of every species.

    There is only one dog species – despite interbreeding. The definition of species is the ability to interbreed.

    What you mean, but don’t know it, is that there is “only one human variety, while there are many, say, Dog varieties.”

    Actually, that’s not true.

    Neanderthal-Human as Fox-Wolf (possibly: did they interbreed?)

    Homo erectus – Homo Sapiens as Bear-Wolf

    Pygmy- Dutch as Chihuahua-Great Dane: Identical species, radically different variety, but COMPLETELY SAME ANIMAL

    Additionally, human cognition is much more complex than that of any other animal, by many factors.

    Yes, it is. But it’s still driven by the same basic impulses.

    Women are still utterly controlled by their most basic programming when it comes to selecting sperm. Males are still utterly basic when it comes to breeding.

    Human: Social animal designed for multiple environments, no physical advantages but: Ability to travel (walk) with extreme efficiency. Scavenging animal and dietary opportunist. Tools:
    – Social groups (ideally, 10-50 individuals; extended related families)
    – Intelligence: Social
    – Intelligence: Tool-using
    – Intelligence: Environment prediction / manipulation
    – Intelligence: Pattern recognition

    etc.

    Massive mate selection instincts still deeply hard-wired:

    12-year-old girls at a concert given by some male (Elvis, Justin Bieber, bad boy, whatever).

    We are fully animals.

    Look at actual human behavior. There’s a very thin layer of delusion surrounding a massive animal core. We have highly elaborated animal brains.

    Of course, for reasons of internal consciousness, these are indeed of a different order.

    But in sexual/mating/evolutionary terms, nope.

    And not 30,000 years ago.

    Women don’t say, “I don’t want to be sexually attracted to bad boys”. Men don’t say “I want to like fat women.”

    We do what our genes tell us. Sexual selection is the least conscious and least controllable instinct of all.

    Like


  200. Sensible comments Gorbachev.

    Like


  201. Gorbachev, while I take issue with much of your comment, because it’s a major distortion of science, I did notice something:

    but even tiny differences (“I Like bigger butts”) would, over time, be exaggerated out of all proportion.

    You seem to have forgotten Bergmann’s rule that individuals with less body bulk (including butts!) are found nearer the equator, while those with more body bulk are found farther from the equator. So, you’re wrong there.

    And this, Men don’t say “I want to like fat women.” is false based on cultural evidence like fertility sculptures. Attractiveness is based more on culture, and mating is a highly regulated process, again by culture. Look at any culture on Earth, from our earliest archaeological evidence to the present day. Sure, we have biological urges, and we are animals, we also use culture as an extra-somatic means of adaptation. Shoot, even wolves do this kind of stuff, regulating mating through group hierarchies (which is cultural). So, again, you’re wrong.

    Actually, you seem to have made A LOT of generalizations based on distorted pseudo-science, but those two jumped out at me.

    Like


  202. @sam
    Actually, it has been the conservatives who have always been trying to deny science on some excuse, such as HBD or, as it was in 1550, because of religion.😀

    Liberal lefties are obsessed with the “truth” being that all people are born equal, and there are no inherent differences.

    They’ve been able to create emotions with chemicals. They’re mapping the human genome. They’re mapping the human brain.

    Chomsky discerned the “language module” and its natural grammar in the human brain in the 50’s. This killed the idea that language was fully learned.

    A specific language is learned. The ability it completely hard-wired. Chimps don’t do it because they’re not Hard-Wired the same way.

    We are physical, genetic machines, exactly like chimps.

    Some people still think language is some airy-fairy nebulous thing we generate out of nothing. In fact, using injuries to some people’s brains, they’ve even identified different distinct linguistic faculties and their physical locations in the brain.

    A modular brain. A highly elaborated, specialized and oddly generalized animal brain.

    Specific skills programmed in.

    Imagine that.

    There are speech pathologists who still have problems with this.

    There are lefties who still have problems with this notion:

    Sometimes, psychopaths are BORN, not CREATED. They’re psychopaths from *BIRTH*.

    Give one guy power, and he is virtually guaranteed to be a psychopathic killer. Give another one power, and he’ll never be a killer. Not background. Not upbringing. Genes.

    Already, justice officials know this.

    Our whole philosophy isn’t geared to deal with the hard facts of much of biology. The whole “Blank Slate” at birth thing.

    Appears it isn’t quite as true as we thought.

    There’s nothing dangerous or threatening about this is we’re mature.

    No. You belive that. But since you want to be right in your racist ideas, you try to convince yourself that everybody else shares your convictions. Which they do not.

    Believing in the existence of “race” (as in different sub-population of humans) doesn’t mean I discriminate based on race, that I think Black guys deserve to be beaten, or that I think my sister marrying a Black guy – true – was a bad idea.

    In fact, I was all for it. He has excellent genes.

    In USA it is the religious right which still denies evolution and whole load of science because of their beliefs, a bit like you and others who do the same.

    You’re right. I agree wholeheartedly.

    The Left denies the Nature in the Nature vs. Nurture debate.

    the mistake:

    it’s not Nature Vs. Nurture.

    It’s Nature AND Nurture.


    And, just like those nutters who believe that first humans walked this earth among the dinosaurs, you try the damnest to portray your racist humbug as a science.

    I have no a priori racist beliefs. I’d have dated or married a woman from any background.

    My brother-in-law is black. My SO is Persian.

    My closest lover for a year and a half in France was a statuesque, absolutely West African French woman of impeccable manners and exquisite French hauteur.

    I lived in Korea and China for 6 years. I would have married an Asian if I’d wanted to marry again.

    I was married to a Jew.

    For you to call me racist is rich.

    I don’t believe in racial discrimination.

    I arrive at HBD PURELY–

    And before you continue thinking I’m a Klan member —

    PURELY from a biostatistical point of view.

    I formally studied population biology, genetics and evolutionary biology. That was my degree and my background.

    So if you think I’m some redneck racist – fuck you.

    HBD and all other racist doodoo is not science but something else, belief perhaps or somekind of psychological perversion.

    HBD: The acknowledgment that there *is* human biodiversity. We are a typical animal species.

    A large mammal with significant intra-group variation.

    Sorry, dude, but science will be proving this wholesale shortly.

    All work done in the field, all of the genetic work, stripped of bias and reporting delusions, shows this time and time again.

    In 10 years, this anti-HBD crap will be old news.

    The Left better adapt. Blank-Slatism is done.


    No. You belive that. But since you want to be right in your racist ideas, you try to convince yourself that everybody else shares your convictions. Which they do not.

    My convictions are that all individuals deserve to be treated equally before the law, and people should be free to make their own decisions. If a white chick wants to marry a black guy, I say go for it – make babies.

    How does that make me racist? Come again?

    Quit with the shaming language and stop propping up straw men.


    “Double-fat/skin layers among the Eskimo and many North American natives. Same: Adaptation. Genetic.”

    So I guess the quadruble fat layers among texans are also genetic??😀 You do know that texans are the fatest people on earth, right??😀

    Ignore my point. Fine.

    Eskimos have an actual secondary fat layer and an extra layer of skin. It’s clearly a physical adaptation.

    Texans have a single fat layer and a normal amount of skin. They’re just bloated and fat.

    Are you actually dim or did you deliberately miss my point?

    Say what? You mean what science said before 150 years ago, right? You do know that science today presents the fact that there is only one human race? You don’t?? Well, check what science has done for the last 150 years instead of dreaming doodoo. You’ll be surprised!!😀

    Population biologists all talk about races. They use different words.

    The moment population genetics became a field, population biologists started talking about race.

    They call it by different names. But make no mistake:

    Race is extremely real.

    They just don’t call it “race” because lefty retards get all up set at the word.

    “The truth is that we don’t want to think of ourselves as subject to natural rules. We want to be special. Unique. The Left doesn’t see us as “part” of nature. On the extreme, they go as far as to advocate for our elimination, because we do “artificial” things. Well, this world produced us – we’re animals in the same way as elk or dinosaurs or mice or cockroaches. This is our home.”

    Wrong again!😀 You just do not know doodoo, do you? It has been the left and, yes, the dreaded commies who have said all the time that humanbeings are just animals among the animals. It has been the religious conservatives who have said all the time that we are special because “God has a plan for us”. But I guess that this just shows what your “science” is all about. You do not know a squat what you are talking about.😀

    The extreme left (environmentalists, animal-rightists) argue what we do is unnatural. Nothing we do can be unnatural: we’re tool-making bipedal primates. The Earth birthed us. Making nuclear-powered submarines and cutting down trees is as natural as beavers making dams or chimps using rocks to smash their rival’s heads.

    On the other hand, it’s crucial for Socialists to see people as “perfectable” – the whole socialist program is about “perfecting man”. We are “infinitely malleable”.

    We can change thought by altering words. We can alter people’s basic human natures by forcing change.

    Whatever.

    Human nature – greed, altruism, lust, hatred, love, – not all that alterable.

    Socialist thought – marxist thought – everything based on it relies on the notion of human perfectibility.

    We are biological machines, with some limited ability to use non-biological (but dependent) culture.

    Wer’e cultural animals.

    Point: We’re cultural * ANIMALS*

    The left wants to forget this.

    Think Gattaca.

    Want to avoid it?

    Face reality.

    There is just one human race.

    With interesting varieties.

    Like brown field mice and gray field mice. Both the same species. Minor variations. Sometimes major.

    behavior can vary, too – genetically.

    Well, just for your information; certain whales have their own personal “whistle” to which they answer and researches have found out that spermwhales have around 3000 different “whistles” which they use when they communicate. That is like the same amount of words in classic chinese. Makes one wonder, doesn’t it??😀

    Not at all. I’m sure it’s complex communication. It’s ridiculous anthropomorphism to assume they can’t communicate. Dolphins, too.

    It’s also ridiculous anthropomorphism to assume–

    – that the communication serves the same purposes
    – that it’s structured the same
    – That we can replicate its social utility
    – That it’s just human speech in whale talk.

    It’s entirely possible that this communication, working for a completely different kind of brain, is structured in such an alien fashion our approaches have failed to understand it because we can’t even make out its clear purpose yet, let alone any semantic or structural components.

    On the other hand, a smart chimp can probably understand our basic thought and the way we use language. There’s a big similarity there – but no specific adaptation or “brain module”. We also have similar social instincts, social structures, even politics. As primates, we share a lot.

    Whales – not so much. We might have to do a lot more work to work out what the hell is going on.

    perhaps we have conceptual gaps – maybe we don’t see the right patterns. Our pattern-recognition software in our brains may be *structured* differently.

    It would serve everyone who wants to argue about variable IQ rates to come to this conclusion:

    KEY POINT 1: It’s not that relevant to issues of racism, actually (which is my point). Stupid white people have the same rights as smart white people. If blacks were all retards, they would still have the same rights. A George Washington Carver should have the same rights as a dude from the Ghetto, Rockefeller or the leader of the Klan: As Individuals.

    KEY POINT 2: Biology is marching down the HBD path whether we call it race or not. Why? Because it’s not about fairness or anti-racism.

    KEY POINT 3: Red squirrels and black squirrels are still both squirrels. That said, they’re different squirrels.

    You can’t conflate or artificially divide them is you wish to discuss them

    The human mind wants categories.

    “HOT/ COLD”
    “SOFT/HARD”

    Biology doesn’t work that way. it’s mushy and ill-defined and where you STOP and where the mobile ecology that is your body with all its parasites and symbiotic organisms and everything else starts — isn’t even clear

    We have to learn to think in this zone of statistical non-clarity to acquire any clarity on these issues.

    If you don’t get it, I suggest taking an introductory population biology class, or maybe some statistics.

    Like


  203. Obsidian had the main point:

    If Botswana was populated with mentally retarded children, every single one of them would still have every right that any other person had.

    What average IQ or average criminal behavior or average autistic social behavior or whatever a person has – or a group has – either CULTURAL OR GENETIC–

    Has no bearing on their rights, obligations or right to live. PERIOD.

    You may not want to make X person the world’s Supervising Engineer, but then again–
    the world needs all kinds of people.

    it’s entirely biologically possible that some groups – Azoreans (white), Pygmies (kind-of black, though “black” means nothing really, in the face of Africa’s diversity), Polynesians, Vietnamese – are less bright than, say, Ashkenazi Jews or Norwegians when it comes to compelx mathematics.

    Some family lines are just better at music. Get used to it.

    On the other hand, we humans mix it up a lot. You never, ever know where some incredibly useful genes are lurking. And some bad ones are hiding.

    It may COINCIDENTALLY happen that some African groups are less good – genetically – at some tasks.

    Nobody gets upset when you say that West Africans are clearly, at the professional end, MUCH BETTER SPRINTERS.

    Obviously, that’s okay.

    But I posit:

    If it can be true about eye color – skin color – running ability – tendency to get up set during a woman’s period – resistance to a given virus – etc.–

    then WHY is it suddenly NOT true for anything going inside the human head?

    Please.

    The non-HBD position requires total suspension of disbelief when it comes to human biology.

    Everything INSIDE the head is as much prone to genetic coding and group and individual differences as everything outside the head.

    Anything else is sheer denial for ideology’s sake.

    I have no left or right or racist or non-racist ideology. I don’t view Whiteness as anything but a social construct.

    However, I’m not dedicated to any philosophy on this issue.

    You call racist any idea that there’s are human sub-groups.

    Or a difference in IQ. Or height? Speed? Musculature? Ability to resist Malaria?

    For fucks’ sake, there’s clear genetic evidence for POLITICAL TENDENCIES, for that matter (conservative/liberal).

    If a tendency to be conservative or liberal has GENETIC markers, then by gum, pretty much every fucking thing can have genetic markers, too.

    You go take up your Straw Man arguments with actual racists.

    If you don’t like what Biology is doing – demystifying the Human Being – then feel free to bury your head in the sand.

    Like


  204. @gorba: “White parents who have Finnish ancestors going back 200 years do not suddenly give birth to Australian Aborigine babies. It just doesn’t happen.”

    Ööhh… Actually, they can, if there has been one single abo somewhere in the bloodline. It has happened, most famously in South Africa.😀

    “Liberals deny biology and possibly harm millions of people because they Want Everyone To Be The Same Because We Must All Be Precisely Equal.”

    You invented that yourself. I know not one so called liberal who denies biology. And, it seems, that you do not understand what “equal” means.

    Equal as in equal value in humanistic meaning. Not “the same/indetical” as in biological sense. That is your idea.

    But, like any good fascist, you do not understand this because you have quite limited amount of understanding and education. Maybe you do have some nominal education but not any intellectual. If you were an intellectual you would know these things. But then again, fascist were never know for their intellect. It is not in vogue among them.

    “Women are still utterly controlled by their most basic programming when it comes to selecting sperm. Males are still utterly basic when it comes to breeding.”

    Maybe you should really get some sex and see if this idea of yours holds any water.😀 I mean this as an empirical experiment. You know, science and such.😀

    “Women don’t say, “I don’t want to be sexually attracted to bad boys”. Men don’t say “I want to like fat women.””

    Well, wrong again. They do say so. Some women really do not want anything to do with so called bad boys. They are abhorred about the deeds of so called bad boys. And yes, some men see fat women, even obese women sexually attractive. In some cultures, yes CULTURES, fat women are regarded as sexual super stars. In your very narrow white college boy view fat chicks are no good. I recommed that you have some sex with some nice fat girl. You’d be surprised again😀 And this, of course, as an scientific biological experiment again.

    “Sexual selection is the least conscious and least controllable instinct of all.”

    No it is not. Humanbeings can easily control their sexual selections and behavior and have done so for millennias. Church has controlled litterally the sexual behavior of hunderds of millions of people for almost couple thousand years and still does. How it could do so, if we could not control ourselves at all?

    Also, it seems that today, particulary in USA, women and men have a shit load of requirements from their sexual partners before doing anything with them. So, that proves you wrong too.😀

    “If a given population has more Beta males, meek and quiet, breeding, then, *over time*, this society will have MORE BETA BEHAVIOR. Less violence, maybe.”

    Let me guess: so called alpha males are big and strong and physical and get all the women. They are also more war like and aggressive. Right? Beta males are smaller, weaker, more intellect and behave more controlled. Right?

    So, how come, the biggest mass murderers of all time have been meek humble little men? You know, herr Hitler and herr Himler were both small unimpressive men who could not get women, or maybe did not even care about them. Joe Stalin was also pretty small guy physically and so was Napoleon. Alexander the Great was less than fiove feet tall and nobody in their right mind would call him a sissy. All these small, almost feminine men lead huge armies, organized genocides as a routine and murdered men with their own hands. Well, perhaps herr Himmler did not.

    Ok, Attila the Hun was not feminine but he was ugly and small never the less.😀

    You are wasting your time, my friend. You are convincing nobody other than your ideological buddies. Scientifically you are lost. It is ideology you talk about.

    “Most racists and anti-racists miss the whole point.”

    Well what is your point? N****s are better dancers and sprinters? They have a rhythm?? What?

    I see no point. I see a racist who tries to hide it behind some pseudo scintific mumbo jumbo and manages to convince himself, barely. I’m sorry but thats what it looks like from here. And I am speaking to you as a really white guy who has no shame, no political correctness or any other decency. Also, I have no political agenda either.

    And, on conclusion, I would like you to explain how on earth I, fat and short hairy guy with a goatee and glasses, have been with a very tall blonde model for free? How on earth I have had sex when ever I have wanted, both here and abroad?

    I have had sex in USA, Britain, France, Spain, Greece, in many European countries, in Africa etc. Tall women, short women, ugly women, beautiful women, poor women, rich women etc. How the hell this has happened?

    I mean, I am not too bright shining example of alpha male in any sense. I am self admitted ugly son of gun. I have no money, never had. I am a book worm.

    How this happens? How this can be natural selection? I’m out of shape, both health ways and by looks. What genetic thing makes all this sex possible??😀

    Like


  205. There is only one “breed” of human, if that makes it easier for you. (which I doubt)

    Like


  206. Gorbachev, it takes too much effort, at the moment. Perhaps when I have a bit more patience.

    Like


  207. And, just like those nutters who believe that first humans walked this earth among the dinosaurs, you try the damnest to portray your racist humbug as a science.

    Why wouldn’t they? It beats watching paint dry!

    We do what our genes tell us.

    You may have a point there! I love to shop! Maybe it’s genetic! Every time there’s a sale somewhere, I feel compelled to shop, doesn’t matter where!

    Women don’t say, “I don’t want to be sexually attracted to bad boys”. Men don’t say “I want to like fat women.”

    I say this all the time and mean it. The only thing ‘bad boys’ are good for are jokes! They are also great gossips! I prefer wealthy older men with heart conditions.
    I’ve seen plenty of men with ‘fat broads’, ever hear of ‘chubby chasers’? Besides what constitutes ‘fat’ varies. Marilyn Monroe would be considered fat today. Most of the ‘pinup’ girls from the 1950s, 1850-1910s, would be considered fat by today’s standards, but the ideal build of their day. Fat is where it is at for a lot of men, I aint talking extremes either!

    These arguments are akin to the skin creams promoting wrinkle reducers and making you look ‘years younger’. They may make you feel better, but they don’t actually work and the science behind them are for the most part nonsensical.

    Like


  208. @Gorbachev
    Men don’t say “I want to like fat women.”

    Africa Uncovered – Mauritania: Fat or Fiction – 11 Aug 08 – Part 1

    Attraction is part environmental and part cultural. You should check out the National Geographic’s youtube page for the docementary entitled, “What’s Sexy?”

    Like


  209. @zek j evets
    Gorbachev, while I take issue with much of your comment, because it’s a major distortion of science, I did notice something:

    but even tiny differences (“I Like bigger butts”) would, over time, be exaggerated out of all proportion.

    You seem to have forgotten Bergmann’s rule that individuals with less body bulk (including butts!) are found nearer the equator, while those with more body bulk are found farther from the equator. So, you’re wrong there.

    Actually, you make my point for me.

    In West Africa (not East – s the equator is irrelevant here), women tend to have larger bottoms. Men also seem to prefer it. The American African population was almost exclusively West Africa.

    Similar environment, similar latitude, different “racial” type, somewhat different “beauty” standards.

    Actually, in virtually every respect, but skin tone, West and East Africans have virtually nothing in common; and before the Bantu migrations (into Southern Africa), the local populations there seem to have been even more diverse. The Hottentot/Bushment/Pygmies are holdouts, islands, like the “aboriginals” of India. The Bantu-speaking peoples – who absolutely have a very strong internal *racial* identity versus other Africans, something rooted in their physical characteristics and not just language/culture – were extremely successful, and just overran the place within the last 2500 years, from a homeland somewhere in the Upper Nile/Kenyan/Malian area.

    West African men often pick heftier women. It’s a noted tendency. Dating websites publish this kind of thing all the time.

    In fact, OK Cupid is a gold mine of sex-selection data. They’ve found *massive* correlations along racial lines. I’ve spoken with the analysts at many online dating websites about this issue, for a documentary (I work in film): there are absolute racial trends that seem, like ghostly patterns, to flicker behind often contradictory cultural patterns.

    Culture-genetics may be working together, sometimes against, and often at cross-purposes with each other. Multiple factors. But some clear racial/genetic ones in *what* people are most attracted to.

    Example: Waist-hip ratios. There’s growing data suggesting that American blacks prefer a higher ratio; Whites in the middle; and Asians on the other end.

    Oddly, this matches the various sizes of West African-background, Northern European-background, and North-Asian background women.

    Are men picking attractive women our because of their culture – or are they doing it because of a programmed shape their eyes seek out?

    Evidence is rushing in that beauty standards are not *only* culturally-imposed, but have a dynamic relationship with deeply programmed standards – which *may* vary *somewhat* by race.

    We’re not talking African Venus here, just variations strong enough to have some statistical echo.

    Again, no impact on an individual person, per se.

    And this, Men don’t say “I want to like fat women.” is false based on cultural evidence like fertility sculptures. Attractiveness is based more on culture, and mating is a highly regulated process, again by culture.

    Actually, the hip/waist ratio thing seems hard-wired.

    ALSO

    Height for women: a universal attractant, not related to culture. No women likes short guys; the ones that do are the exceptions that prove the rule.

    ALSO

    lightness of skin: even culturs not exposed to Western standards revere those members with lighter skin. There’s a good potential reason: it can show more readily any signs of disease, and therefore fitness (think Australiopithecines – not our recent history, our more distant history). Having clean skin says “Look at me, I’m Super Disease Resistant!”, and having pale skin says “I’m Advertising my Clean Skin!”.

    Founder effect – changes in environment – etc. – different skin types.

    paler West Africans were consider more attractive 800 years ago when the Arabs went there, too, even by other West Africans. Deal with it. This effect has been noted globally.

    Another fail for you.

    ALSO

    Symmetricality of facial structures: A universal marker of beauty and genetic fitness, presumably.

    There are, in fact, lots of standards that have no bearing on culture. They seem to be more basic.

    Culture OF COURSe has some influence. But it can’t make ugly people pretty. It can make pretty people less attractive.

    Biology is tracking down hard-wired programs in the Human brain every day. Experimental psychology is completely upsetting the “it’s nurture” debates.

    Children: Don’t bother worrying. It’s their peers that do everything. You just keep them alive long enough to mature.

    parents: All the crazy super-education and stress isn’t going to help much. If they’re not that bright, there’s not a lot you can do. Don’t sweat it.

    Research consistently backs these sorts of things up.


    Look at any culture on Earth, from our earliest archaeological evidence to the present day. Sure, we have biological urges, and we are animals, we also use culture as an extra-somatic means of adaptation. Shoot, even wolves do this kind of stuff, regulating mating through group hierarchies (which is cultural). So, again, you’re wrong.

    Actually, you seem to have made A LOT of generalizations based on distorted pseudo-science, but those two jumped out at me.

    Actually, every year a few more presumably wholly “cultural” aspects of the Human condition turn out to be partly controlled by genes.

    They can induce fear, love, and anger with chemicals in the air; they’ve found genes for all kinds of attitudes, possibly even a gene that correlates to “religiosity”, or the ability to feel that idea of “immanence” and “all-pervading power” – a common genetic marker in the very religious.

    Truly, we are both genetic machines and cultural machines.

    The point of it is this; For the last 100 years, the Boasian/Marxist historical approach has consumed anthropology and sociology. It’s been assumed we are infinitely perfectable and radically alterable.

    It hasn’t been proved that way in reality. We ascribe it to cultural failures.

    What we’ve done is forget that we are also beasts. Animals with hard-wired programs, AS WELL AS culture.

    Now we’re exploring the Programmed nature of Human Nature.

    Those of us with stakes in Humans being All Equal – All Born The Same – Products of Nurture Alone —

    had better get used to this not being the case, because science is moving away from this.

    Variances between different groups in IQ are just the start.

    We START from here.

    How about ability to fall in love – tendency to believe – ability to rationalize – ability to perform fine motor actions – ability to navigate–

    Already, we know that, for some reason, Mohawks of the Six Nations are expert at balancing. They have a genetically-programmed ability to work at high altitudes gthat they never knew they had. before the advent of modern technology, a much higher percentage of Mohawk men had the ability to safely navigate the skeletal structures of skyscrapers while working in construction – no cultural element there. It could have been the result of ONE FAMILY 2500 years ago, one unused gene, spreading among a small population. Who knows? But there was a small difference in the architecture of their inner ears.

    Ever been to see the Aymara in Bolivia? Short, squat, we’d find them unattractive; big barrel chests, easily identifiable in skeletons and mummies. Perfect for high altitudes.

    Look: HBD may have been hijacked by racists, or even named by them, but this study of humans as simple animals is here to stay.

    And the more scientists do it, the more disconcerting things they’re going to discover, like differences in racial IQs.

    I keep telling you: IQ differences are just the beginning.

    You people think this is an issue? Holy crap, it’s not even remotely relevant. It’s the least significant issue.

    You just don’t get it. The “Nature versus Nurture” house is burning down all around you – and you’re arguing about whether you should grab the silverware or the family jewels before you run out.

    The house is burning down around you. Take a good long look.

    I pointed out stereotypes, but there are harder facts to throw out.

    Genes for psychopathy. Genes for behavioral neuroses. Autism. Tendency to resort to violence. Language ability. Mathematical ability.

    Imagine when they start mapping these on populations. Say they find a group in Brazil where the population has a higher than average tendency to have genes for serial-killer psychopathy?

    What if part of the reason there are so many black men in prisons has to do with a specific genetic background – which DOESN’T apply to, say, anyone from the Congo? Or Senegal?

    What if it was a Founder-Effect and DOESN’T EXIST in Africa – just in the descendants of a few “slave” lines?

    WHAT IF IT CAME FROM WHITE MEN? Criminal/Psychopathic slave owners from Scotland who raped slave women and bred badness in the next generation of whites and blacks?

    Like


  210. Get a grip:

    I mean, seriously.

    Within 50 years, we’re going to be able to do this shit and much more.

    You just wait until a full human genome is mapped, with whole continents sampled and genetic lines traced.

    Traits for studiousness, slutty behavior, different kinds of criminality, risk of acquiring specific diseases, musical abilities (multiple – maybe unrelated), different kinds of intelligence–

    Imagine a complete map of the Human Race, with individual family lines all traced out.

    You don’t think there are going to be some unbefuckinglievably disturbing patterns in there?

    This shit is going to happen. And the stuff they uncover – it will make worrying about IT variances and the Flynn Effect (which will likely radically raise African IQs over th next 3 generations, it’s true) look like debates about what color of doily to use on the coffee table.

    Get a grip.

    Science is on the verge of completely unmasking the nature of what it is to be human – greed, emotions, behaviors, instincts, everything. It’s just starting.

    Once we’re done with that, we’re going to have to debate breeding some things out or in. Believe me, without any debate or question this is going to happen with an absolute certainty.

    There *will* be selective breeding, genetic surgery, and if we’re not careful – race wars, genetic-line wars, and wars of extermination – maybe not even violent wars, maybe they’ll be POLICY wars.

    Viruses designed to seek out a very specific genetic code. Designed to sterilize only one family line. Mad men wanting to make a race of Super Soldiers and Super Scientists and Super Sexy Women and Ultra Tall Guys.

    You can debate the IQs of Africans and Fight Racism all you want. The door is closing hard on this whole Human Nature debate, and the Marxist Left has been utterly left out in the cold.

    Humans are machines, and for better or for worse, we’re on the cusp of learning how the programs work.

    Believe me: The facile interpretation of genetics as Destiny that HBD represents is the tiniest, most insignificant tip of the iceberg.

    The genie that’s being let out of the bottle will terrify the current generation of HBDers to the very core of their humanity, as much as it will piss off Anti-Racism Activists of any tribe. Both philosophies will be left in the dust.

    It’s too late to stop it now.

    Get all upset at HBD. HBD is one flavor of an interpretation of science.

    Human genetics is just getting off the ground. What geneticists and population biologists already know buries any notion of “special creation” – religious or leftist – for humans.

    What they’ll know in 50 years will send such philosophies into oblivion.

    Like


  211. Gorbachev, it takes too much effort, at the moment. Perhaps when I have a bit more patience.

    Don’t bother, his tomes are killing me! Just out of curiosity, how fast do all of you type?

    Like


  212. @herneith: I do my best but cant match that Gorba guy. He spews that doodoo like an elephant on laxative.

    Like


  213. BTW, I apologize for being verbose.

    I’m at work and I’m bored.

    Really, I’m not like this in real life. I’m actually very taciturn and amiable.

    @@Gorbachev
    Men don’t say “I want to like fat women.”

    Africa Uncovered – Mauritania: Fat or Fiction – 11 Aug 08 – Part 1
    [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25DxHXz8ZUQ&w=640&h=390

    Attraction is part environmental and part cultural. You should check out the National Geographic’s youtube page for the docementary entitled, “What’s Sexy?”

    Of course, it’s partly cultural. But a lot of people want to deny the biological component.

    The culture – biology thing is a dynamic. One feeds the other, in a big feedback loop.

    Some things are universal, some are strong trends, some vary because it’s cultural or just random.

    I always argue this, too.

    But the HBDers ascribe too much to genetics. For example, the profound levels of violence and sociopathy in urban Black America (mirrored by urban white and hispanic America to some degree – it’s cultural, too) they say is the result of BLACKS AND SUBHUMANS BEING BLACKS.

    Well, that’s grotesquely overstating any HBD argument.

    On the other hand, the Liberal “IT”S ALL CULTURE” argument – actually, they can’t even say thatm they say “IT”S ALL RACISM/POVERTY” – on a good day, they can come up for air and say “CULTURE” – clearly doesn’t account for *all* of this, either. Counter-examples of equally poor, culturally dismissed and oppressed groups consistently not suffering the same problems (even in Africa, btw) show this up to be false.

    The only real debate is how much of it is genetic, how much of it culture. On that issue, we then have to separate out the socio-cultural factors, which is hard to do.

    I like this parallel:

    Canada doesn’t have this problem. But they chose different non-white immigrants. They chose blacks who were, largely from the upper-educated classes of their countries. That’s a partly Nazi-like Eugenic policy: Naturally, they get better genes. They basically have less genetically poverty/crime/impulsive-behavior people to deal with.

    Even for West Africa, downtown Philly can seem pretty shitty.

    Instead of it being a BLACK/WHITE thing, any genetic factors could literally be an American thing – we picked the losers/violent criminals/hapless victims of (black) slavers in Africa; we bred not for HIGH IQ, but for ability to work; more like we *culled* for certain behaviors. Slaves were treated like animals, and some slave-owners had active breeding programs.

    Given 3-5 generations, and even these ridiculous slave owners could have made a difference.

    So EVEN if this is a genetic effect, statistically, maybe we’re NOT looking at a racial effect. Maybe it has nothing to do with being African.

    It might go some distance to explaining the higher incidence of violence in the average White American too.

    When you’re breeding pigeons or mice or rats, in a lab, you get effects like this in only a few generations.

    I know it makes people uncomfortable, but humans are identical. You can breed violent rats in 3-4 generations; it doesn’t take long.

    Selection can happen through social policy. Getting rid of dads in the 1960’s can have massive implications for the great-grand-kids, and these would be INHERITABLE implications. Not *just* cultural ones.

    The precisely same thing goes for white people, too.

    Once you start to examine people, IQ, violence, criminality, giftedness, etc –

    Race, in and of itself, is interesting to investigate, but overall human genetics, while acknowledging race, also suddenly brings into focus a whole range of other issues.

    Suddenly, humans start looking a lot like pigeons or rats.

    It really upsets a lot of people.

    But there you are.

    I tell you, the debate about blacks and IQ is the tiniest pinprick on a mountain of unimaginably consequential research.

    I predict:

    Flynn effect in Africa, for sure. Watch IQs start to jump up with beter health/food/education/testing/opportunities/INCENTIVES (economic). Humans tend to rise to the challenge; Africans as much as anyone.

    I also predict that a substantial (1 stdv) gap will remain. An elite black population will segment off; it always does. It will test at and perform at the same level as high-level whites or Asians.

    Over the next 5-10 generations, if Africa develops economically along Western /Asian lines, that gap will narrow by rising (not Western levels lowering), as tiny amounts of selective pressure starts to eat away at the divide. It won’t take much. Stupid africans, who can breed as easily as smart ones because of the structure of the economy, will begin to fail to send as many genes to the next generation. What will be slow at first will radically pick up speed in the 3-4th generation.

    The aristocracy that emerged in the 1st-2nd generation will start to bleed into the general population as it loses influence and power, generally as all aristocratic families do.

    it will be more important for a woman to choose a man who had good earning potential as an accountant or administrator than anything else; whabam, 3 generations and you’ve got some powerful selection.

    In 300 years, there’ll be no debate to be had. It’ll all average out.

    If any of us are genuinely human at all any more, of course.

    Like


  214. @Herneith
    Don’t bother, his tomes are killing me! Just out of curiosity, how fast do all of you type?

    I’m bored at work and this is my entertainment.

    Also a key issue for me – I hate HBD racists. I HATE the misuse of science. I see bigger issues. I hate lefties/righties who want to use it to justify this or that.

    I’ll let it rest for a while.

    Like


  215. I’m bored at work and this is my entertainment.

    Does your work know you are perusing the web and writing responses on their dime?

    I’ll let it rest for a while.

    Is it your lunch break?

    Like


  216. @Sam,

    You seem to have missed the core point of everything I just said. Fine; be deliberately obtuse. I’m sure you find it amusing.

    Trust me on this one: HBD or anti-racist, the Blacks/IQ debate is a total red herring, true or untrue or partly true.

    Like


  217. @Herneith,

    The operating words here: Hurry up and wait.

    And I work weird hours. I’m grateful for the distraction.

    Like


  218. Wow Gorbachev, you sure are bored!

    And also still wrong =/

    You agree that dating preferences are culturally based, and also agree that genetics play a factor. So then why do you ignore so many of the biological “rules” for heritability? And I don’t just mean Bergmann’s, I mean, starting with IQ, IQ has a VERY low repeatability, and so it’s impossible to say with any confidence how accurate any measurement is unless you “gloss” them. (To paraphrase Mielke et al)

    But I realize you’re going to leave tl;dr comments all day, so I’ll save it for my own posts…

    Like


  219. ***it will be more important for a woman to choose a man who had good earning potential as an accountant or administrator than anything else; whabam, 3 generations and you’ve got some powerful selection.***

    Well, if they follow the West, won’t those more educated people will be more likely to use contraception and have smaller families?

    Like


  220. King

    There is only one “breed” of human, if that makes it easier for you. (which I doubt)

    Olufemi

    The scientific definition of “races” in humans doesn’t exist. That’s the issue which invalids all those claims up front.
    ………

    Again, your claim is either that there is not enough human genetic variation to allow for significant genetically mediated phenotypic differences between individuals descended from historical geographic populations(say between Orientals and between West SS. Africans) or your claim is that the socially classified groups we often speak of (say, African-Americans or Orientals) are unrelated to the above populations. Now, I have dispatched of both of those arguments. I’ve also demonstrated that Lewontin’s estimates predict large differences. And your response is to restate the “race is a social construct” nonsense?

    How about reading my Fri 18 22:05 post and giving me a coherent reply — since, of course, zek j evets refuses to? Either that or concede the prior plausibility of the HBD position. I have developed a more detailed exposition of the position on the blog called “Race, genes, and disparity.” Perhaps you would be so kind as to point me to the mountains of scientific evidence that contradicts the HBD position.

    Like


  221. @ Chuck

    No, you are making claims. You have to deliver a scientific definition of “race” in humans. One that is valid worldwide, hence experimentally reproducible anywhere in the world.

    Like


  222. Yeah, co-sign on that Olufemi. The established position has already been made, and reinforced through a long tradition. HBD and race-realism are newer versions of already discredited theories, and if they want to be accepted they’ll have to present new evidence.

    But at the same time, sifting through all their claims, showing them they’re wrong, and then having to start from scratch is boring, and tiresome. I can’t tell ya how many times I’ve had to see someone make a scientific racist claim, disprove it, and then see it pop up again. It’s like whack-a-mole with these guys.

    The mountain of scientific evidence Chuck is looking for can be found in every college classroom, every graduate seminar, nearly every doctoral thesis, and textbook in the game. However, Chuck is also blind, and like Abagond’s metaphor with the elephant, he’s feeling the trunk and thinking it’s a snake!

    I, for one, suggest we do the most annoying thing possible — ask them to prove what they’re saying, and then keep asking every time they finish an extremely long comment ; )

    Like


  223. ***But at the same time, sifting through all their claims, showing them they’re wrong,***

    You haven’t really shown that the likes of Gorbachev or Chuck are wrong.

    You’ve suggested there isn’t enough human variation to account for iq differences, but not provided any evidence.

    Also, you’ve dismissed people like Hsu even though he’s been involved with BGI and has a better grasp on these topics than you suggest.

    Like


  224. Schwartz,

    Oh no, quite the opposite. You haven’t shown that human variation is great enough to account for differences of IQ, nor have you established the veracity of IQ as a legitimate measurement. You haven’t even provided an inextricable link between genetics, race, and IQ outside of methodologically flawed correlations.

    It is not up to me, or anyone really to disprove you. You make the claim, then you prove the claim. The fact that you are incapable of doing so makes my life very easy if I avoid wasting my time with racist trash.

    Also, Hsu is an astrophysicist. How many times do I have to tell you that? He is no more qualified to speak on this subject than Chuck with his ergonomics profession.

    Like


  225. Nobody has addressed any of the points I’ve made. They’ve made little jokes and tried to be confusing, but not a single point has been addressed.

    You can;t – actually, in biological terms, you have nothing to discuss. How interesting.

    Race exists. It can be identified in bones much of the time. It can be identified by genetic samples due to specific tags that are easily visible – we’re not talking one or two, but whole ranges of them. Crime-scene analysts use it. Exactly the same process we could use to distinguish various lineages of lab rats or cockroaches. With the same implications: None.

    If forensic anthropologists can tell race from bones, then it’s a real concept. The left-wing obsession with proving that there’s no consistent biological factors that distinguish a Congolese from a Finn is a dead canard. If you don’t call it RACE, then you have to call it something else.

    “Isomorphically distinct population subgroup.”
    Whatever.

    Some other definitions:

    “”A subspecies is an aggregate of phenotypically similar populations of a species, inhabiting a geographic subdivision of the range of a species, and differing taxonomically from other populations of the species.”
    Population Dobzhansky (1970) “Races are genetically distinct Mendelian populations. They are neither individuals nor particular genotypes, they consist of individuals who differ genetically among themselves.”
    Lineage Templeton (1998) “A subspecies (race) is a distinct evolutionary lineage within a species. This definition requires that a subspecies be genetically differentiated due to barriers to genetic exchange that have persisted for long periods of time; that is, the subspecies must have historical continuity in addition to current genetic differentiation.””

    You want a biological definition of race? This seems to be the only thing you can harp on. . Here:

    Race

    Definition

    noun

    (1) A group or population of humans categorized on the basis of various sets of heritable characteristics (such as color of skin, eyes, and hair).

    (2) A descent from a common heritage, ancestor, breed or stock as distinguished from other lines of inheritance.

    (3) A tribe or family of people sharing a common breed or lineage, as distinct from other lines or breeds.

    (4) A population of interbreeding species that develops distinct characteristics differing from other populations of the same species, especially as caused by geographical isolation.

    OR ANOTHER ONE:

    In biology, races are distinct genetically divergent populations within the same species with relatively small morphological and genetic differences. The populations can be described as ecological races if they arise from adaptation to different local habitats or geographic races when they are geographically isolated. If sufficiently different, two or more races can be identified as subspecies, which is an official biological taxonomy unit subordinate to species. If not, they are denoted as races, which means that a formal rank should not be given to the group, or taxonomists are unsure whether or not a formal rank should be given. According to Ernst W. Mayr, “a subspecies is a geographic race that is sufficiently different taxonomically to be worthy of a separate name” [1][1] Examples of race include:

    * The Key lime and the Persian lime, both of species Citrus × aurantifolia.
    * The western honey bee is divided into several honey bee races

    Like


  226. @ Zek,

    Ok, I might have misinterpreted an earlier comment. I can’t be bothered going back to the start of this thread.

    @ Gorbachev,

    I’ve enjoyed your lengthy comments. If you’re that bored at work maybe you could set up your own blog? I’d probably read it.

    Like


  227. @Schwartz

    Zek’s got nothing. He’s said nothing of any substance at all. It’s typical; ideological; no discussion of specific points. Squirrels can have varieties, dogs can have varieties, but not humans. Humans are Special Creations.

    @ Gorbachev,

    I’ve enjoyed your lengthy comments. If you’re that bored at work maybe you could set up your own blog? I’d probably read it.

    I might, but I’d be a target. Racists hate me for not being a Proud White Man, and anti-racists hate me for not being a jack-booting Leftie. Humans would be an impressively unique mammal species if there were no sub-varieties.

    I mean, there are varieties of puma (MOuntain Lion, Puma, etc.) – but not Humans.

    Give me a break.

    Biology is all about fuzzy borders and half-formed this or that and statistical distributions in gene pools.

    Gene pools have clumps and nodules that demain ddistinct while interacting with the whole. This is the nature of life.

    Somehow, in these lefties’ views, humans are all exactly the same and there are no population variations. Our eyes deceive us. We didn’t evolve.

    We’re a special creation.

    I post at Roissy a lot.

    I’m also a terrible cad. Lots of women hate me, too.

    Like


  228. ***I’m also a terrible cad. Lots of women hate me, too.***

    Heh, good for you. I tend not to read Roissy much as I’m married & expecting a child in a few months. That said, his latest post does contain some good long term relationship advice.

    Like


  229. Oh, Gorbachev… If only you knew my actual position, haha.

    But knowing you post at Roissy’s a lot kinda makes sense. And makes me less likely to think exchanging ideas with you will be at all productive =/

    Everyone from that blog is suspect. Mostly because they’re in a race to the bottom with toxic women.

    Like


  230. @gorba et all:

    “If forensic anthropologists can tell race from bones, then it’s a real concept. The left-wing obsession with proving that there’s no consistent biological factors that distinguish a Congolese from a Finn is a dead canard. If you don’t call it RACE, then you have to call it something else.”

    Well, they can not tell weather bones belong to a black person or not. They guess on account of many other aspects on a crime scene and other propabilities. So, no, you are wrong. They can not tell race from bones. They can tell age and gender, basically. So it is not a real concept, race that is, in a way you want it to be. Sorry😀

    Since I am a finn I think I can tell you this: congolese person is humanbeing just like me😀. You can not deny it. And since science world knows that there is only one humanrace, we are the same. Also a scientific fact you can not deny. But you try, just like your buddies schwartz and chuckie here. That is because, despite how you claim not to be a racist, you are a racist. For you race is important for some reason. You want it to be true. The real question is this: why? Because you are a racist. If you were not, the whole matter would be unimportant for you.

    Do we look different, the congolese guy and me? Yes we do. Do we speak differently? Yes we do. Do we have different culture? Yes we do. Are we different races biologically? No we are not. These same facts separate you and me too.

    You are not a finn, do not look like one, speak no finnish, do not know anything about my culture etc. You score differently in IQ tests. Are we different race biologically? According to you we are. We have nothing in common, in any way. Even our skincolor is different. So you are a different white race than we here in Finland, right? Wrong.

    The real issue here seems to be with you about your imaginary Left which is responsible of all the horrors in your life, they even deny that race is a bilogical fact. I do not know which fruitcake rightwing group you belong to but I know some conservative scientists here and in other countries who are politically on the right and let me tell you buddy, they laugh their asses off for guys like you.

    Only the right wing fringe lunatics babble about the race as a bilogical fact. You are in the same league as are the neonazis, creationists and other crackpot nuts. Maybe you do not see it, but from here, normal world, it looks like it.

    I know you do not like that since you try so hard to be serious guy and give “scientific” arguments on race, but that is the way it is. Now, we try to take you guys seriously, not because your “science” but because of your racism, but it is very hard when you guys are so far out that even the lunar expeditions seem like visits to a local Seven Eleven.

    It is very hard to argue with a guy who has religious convictions on race. Like you do. You want to believe and you do believe. You have no scientific evidence what so ever, you cherry pick stuff just like all you guys, and if you face too many facts, you just ignore it or change the subject. Just like any religious zelot does.

    What I find very interesting is this: you wish that race would be a biological fact but you deny that you are a racist. Why? Why it is so important for you and these other racists (chuckie, schwartz etc.) to deny what you are are openly otherwise?

    What is it in the word “racist” that you abhorr? Why do you, a self claimed and openly racist guy, do not want to be called one? Because of negative connotations of the word? What?

    A racist is a person who believes that there are separate human spieces, biological races. Just like you. Despite the overwhelming scientific evindence and facts, you claim that there are bilogical races. You try to prove it. You talk about it. You promote that idea. You even have a political agenda connected to it. You are a racist, man. It is a fact.

    You want to believe that a racist is someone who burns crosses and hop around in those funny pointy hoods at midnight in Redneckville Hickstown, or shout and scream Siegl heil with their bald heads red like a tomatoes, but no. Majority of racists are guys like yourself.

    Why do you want to deny it? Are you affraid that if you are called a racist nobody will take you seriously? It is on the contrary. You are taken seriously (as seriously as one can) only because you are a racist. Not because you have some serious scientific stuff in your arsenal.

    So, lets keep arguing. I’ll be the horrible leftist antiracist satan worshipping hippie creep and you’ll be the race knight from the right in shiny white armour.😀

    Like


  231. @Sam,

    You appear to be somewhat uneducated on the subject. This may be the source of your delusions.

    I’ll help.

    Race is a often obvious from skeletal remains; it’s definitely traceable from soft-tissue remains.

    Skulls found at crime sites can almost always be identified by race. They can even identify mixed-race individuals. The shape of the skull is sufficiently different for each race.

    Soft tissue: Genetic tags – whole scores of them – common to certain groups can also be identified, if the police determine that an uncontaminated sample can be had and the cost is justified.

    Race exists for forensic anthropologists.

    *RACE EXISTS*

    That’s all that needs be said about it. In anthropological and biological terms, race exists.

    Your old canard about race not existing was an argument based wholly on statistical sophistry that never stood up to the most casual statistical analysis. It’s been discarded by biologists for years.

    WHAT BIOLOGISTS DID WAS THIS:

    They changed the NAME of the concept. Race still exists; they just don’t use that term. They use a whole panoply of euphemisms to describe something that is very biologically real. This is shown to us by our eyes.

    Science hasn’t written off race. They just renamed it to avoid being called racist. Describing human variation doesn’t make you racist. Obviously, there are “races” of people, and distinct lineages – tribes distinct from all the tribes around them, very different lineages of tribes all vaguely similar and united into a larger group, itself differently connected ot other larger groups.

    For God’s sake, you people, this is how the entire science of population biology works. Breeding groups clump together for various reasons. On some levels, it’s not an even distribution, which is why you get black people and Asian people etc. Traits in each group end up having different statistical distributions.

    For you people who appear to have no biology or science background:

    ” Someone’s race can be determined when forensic scientists examine a hair under a microscope—although if the hair came from an infant, or if the hair contains unusual racial characteristics, this may not be possible. Generally there are three types of hairs that forensic scientists examine: Caucasoid (coming from people of European descent), Negroid (coming from people of African descent), and Mongoloid (coming from people of Asian descent).

    MORE

    “Bones – When skeletal remains are found, a Forensic scientist needs to establish from the beginning if the bones are human. If so, different bones can identify things such as sex, race, and age. Leg or arm bones can determine stature and weight. Also, any pathology of the skeleton must be start in order to make an identification of the remains, determine the cause of death and, if homicide is involved, could even identify the murderer.

    Skull – Computer graphics are used to perform a facial reconstruction to estimate the dead person’s appearance. Like other bones, scientists can determine a person’s sex and race from skull features. The difference is , with the aid of these graphics, they can also discover much about the soft tissue in the ears and nose and how much fat the person had on his or her face. The image is then usually distributed for identification.

    Hair – Results from hair analysis can be a bit contentious . Multiple factors can have an effect on the results, including the area on the body from where the hair was taken, the color, and the person’s age and race. Standards vary as to methods of washing, cutting, and collecting hair. External substances such as air pollution, composition of the water used to wash hair, and materials used to treat hair such as shampoo, hairspray, and hair dyes may also help with the identification process.”

    Like


  232. It’s only ideologues who argue that race doesn’t exist in human biology. It exists for every species of animal ever found, but not people?

    Please.

    I didn’t say that blacks were stupid. I didn’t say that whites are superior. I didn’t say that Asians are obviously far better at academic subjects, and are clearly smarter, as a race than blacks. I said none of these things.

    I said that race exists because human populations and population biology follows the same rules as every mammal species on the planet. And that nature doesn’t make exclusive categories – races are not absolutes. Even species are not always absolutes, or what we think are species. Canines, for example, have the ability to interbreed – are they separate species or not? Nature doesn’t even allow our nomenclature to be precise.

    Fuzzy borders.

    You “Race does not exist” people are denying that humans are animals.

    Like


  233. Actually Gorbachev, forensic anthropologists (my peers) can only determine what racial label someone would give to a person based on measurements of their remains. They can’t definitively determine which race someone belongs to in the ancient past, mostly because the morphological characteristics which people use to define race are constantly under evolutionary processes which lead to variation across time, as much as across geographic space.

    And no, they can’t determine mixed-race individuals with the same level of accuracy. Why? Because of non-Mendelian inheritance — these are complex polygenic traits. And the gradual variation makes it difficult to pinpoint anything but a stereotypical example.

    And, of course, forensic anthropological determinations are based on correlations of skeletal features, not on causative traits. This is especially problematic when dealing with remains that are found outside of their expected context, or that have experienced extreme decomposition, or that been found in geographic locations that don’t fit the correlation.

    Essentially, it’s a scientific guesstimate, though they are very good with remains in Western societies, but not so good with indigenous societies. Mira could probably offer more expertise, since archaeology is more closely related to the discipline than my sub-field.

    Like


  234. @zek j evets

    Zek,
    Finally, something I can agree with.


    Actually Gorbachev, forensic anthropologists (my peers) can only determine what racial label someone would give to a person based on measurements of their remains. They can’t definitively determine which race someone belongs to in the ancient past, mostly because the morphological characteristics which people use to define race are constantly under evolutionary processes which lead to variation across time, as much as across geographic space.

    I agree wholeheartedly. “Race” means something only in a specific chronological and locative context.

    The traits that defined an Italian 2700 years ago will have radically morphed by now.

    However, the comparison of Scythian skulls and Etruscan skulls may still see a systematic difference.

    That Scythian skulls may not appear to be the same race as Ukrainian skulls from a WWII mass grave just shows that evolution plays on this variability.

    *I never claimed that races were absolutes in space or time*. Only that this type of variation exists.

    Biological race may NOT be what “social” race seem to be; and there are varieties within varieties, too. And fuzzy borders and isolated colonies with weird statistical distribution effects.

    And no, they can’t determine mixed-race individuals with the same level of accuracy. Why? Because of non-Mendelian inheritance — these are complex polygenic traits. And the gradual variation makes it difficult to pinpoint anything but a stereotypical example.

    I never claimed they could do it with the same level of accuracy – just that it’s possible. If it’s possible *at all*, then there’s some truth to the existence of race.


    And, of course, forensic anthropological determinations are based on correlations of skeletal features, not on causative traits.

    Absolutely.

    I’m just confirming the existence of race. You’re essentially agreeing with me that race exists.

    This is especially problematic when dealing with remains that are found outside of their expected context, or that have experienced extreme decomposition, or that been found in geographic locations that don’t fit the correlation.

    However, it’s still possible.

    Essentially, it’s a scientific guesstimate, though they are very good with remains in Western societies, but not so good with indigenous societies. Mira could probably offer more expertise, since archaeology is more closely related to the discipline than my sub-field.

    I’m not an archaeologist, but my degree was in genetics and population biology. I see the same patterns among humans that I saw among the other mammal group I studied. My specific thesis is highly identifiable so I’m going to hide behind some anonymity and just say “I studied a very convenient group of mammals”.

    My thesis was in evolutionary biology; I studied the speed of gene transmission and the effects of various statistical phenomena.

    The transmission of genes through populations is not straightforward and mechanical; there are a host of bizarre statistical distribution phenomena that both maintain “racial” (varietal) characteristics and wildly bend and transform them.

    In a *very* short period of time, applying limited selective pressure, it’s possible to bend these distributions out of all shape and proportion, thus accounting for the ease with which breeders can shape a particular genetic line among any animals they choose.

    Like


  235. @Zek,

    When I was doing research, it struck me that selective pressures only need about a 1.5-4% impact on a breeding population to have effected major change within 5 generations.In my research case, this is more or less what I had (if memory serves me correctly; it’s been a while):

    I wanted to test various ideas about inheritance of color and how the mechanism worked (a specific mode of expression). It all worked out nicely. But as a side-benefit, I also got this:

    1 Gen:
    Grey (15%), Brown (17%), white (18%), black (22%), quad-patterned (23%), balance: mottled.

    4% selective pressure (I didn’t kill them; I segregated them, don’t worry).

    Result: Minor change. Nothing major; a shift of about 1-2 % for each color.

    HOWEVER:

    4% selective pressure.

    2 Gen: Massive shift: White 29%; Grey 4%; Brown 11%; black 17%; quad-patterned 16%; balance mottled (much larger than before).

    I now dropped the pressure to 2%; I removed far fewer individuals. And yet, this happened:

    3rd gen: White 54%; Balance between 10-5%

    By 5 generations, I had a nearly pure-white line of (mammals).

    I was able to repeat this over 4 years.

    I had three control groups. The showed minor statistical variation.

    And YES, the smell was incredible.

    Hundreds of similar studies have been done. I wasn’t actually looking to illustrate this point, but it was an interesting side-venture.

    The point: In a shockingly small number of generations, its possible to drive a statistical occurrence of a genetic feature from relative balance to total dominance, with a freakishly small selective pressure. Control groups showed typical drift, but all within statistical norms.

    Like


  236. @ gorba: oh man, you should have been livin hundred years ago and measure the skulls with likes of you. It was hot science back then.

    Like zek says, it is scientific guesstimate. No an absolute fact, you you…😀

    But, like always, you cherry picked this one too and twisted it to suit your belief😀

    I don’t know what to say to you. Just for fun I checked what finnish criminal forensic pathologist (shw roks at the best crime lab in this country) thinks about this and called her (an old school friend of mine) and her answer was this: “No, we can not tell the race from the bones”.

    If there are clothes, soft tissue, hair etc. then it is another thing, but you originally claimed that they can determine the race from the bones and because of this it is a fact. No it is not. Sorry again😀

    But tell me, my positive racist friend, why it is so important for you that there are several human races? What is it for? And, why on earth, you do not want to be known as a racist when you are??😀

    Like


  237. This is my point, now:

    “Race” can exist on multiple levels. Apply the right selective pressure, and you can *create* “races” that are essentially uniform and distinct in a ridiculously short period of time.

    HOWEVER

    left to their own devices, there was gradual drift back to the mean.

    Want to know about an interesting effect?

    Three of the animals were outrageously hostile; they were difficult to control. It caused endless trouble. If there were problems, they were usually the source. It usually manifested in ear-biting and goring of other males, very atypical for this particular species of mammal. In almost all cases, the testicles were clawed at. It was brutal.

    One control group I had, while showing the same statistical distribution for color, also had, at G7, about 47% of its members illustrating overtly antisocial behavior. By g5, none of the other groups had it; it reappeared in only one individual in another group.

    I never selected for it or against it. Clearly, it was either one of my statistical freaks or there was some other selection going on. I was correct.

    The males who showed some of this behavior were chosen as mates in that control group 10% more often, as my co-author reported. Basically, the gene for aggression got some males more mates – IN ONE GROUP, and not others.

    Why was a total mystery.

    Like


  238. I’ve never said race didn’t exist. I’ve only said that race, as used by HBDers and “race-realists” is a sociocultural construct. In fact, most laymen use race as a sociocultural construct, though they like to pretend it’s biologically/genetically based. Race is a fuzzy category that has little significance except that we like to believe it does (even for entomologists and forensic anthropologists), mostly because of racism. It’s a taxonomic category that has more cultural characteristics than phenotypic ones.

    However, the real problems begin when you start applying heritability to non-genetically measured traits, and then say that this is due to race, even though morphological traits have no genetic connection to IQ.

    Even more importantly, IQ has very little genetic basis at the population level, and often at the individual level. Why? Low repeatability, flawed measurements, ethnocentric definitions, and other methodological problems.

    Your idea of a *very* short time would have to mean hundreds of thousands of years (probably longer, unless you’re not using punctuated equilibrium?) of continuous selective pressure that isn’t being mitigated by other evolutionary forces. And based on the genetic variation between humans, even disparate populations, there simply isn’t enough of it to account for immutable racial differences, especially when dealing with amorphous concepts like IQ, or behavior. The very plasticity of our adaptability, coupled with our lack of significant genetic variation, means HBD and race-realism are scientific racism, attempting to ascribe negative cultural qualities to populations under the guise of phenotypic variation.

    It is because of this that talking about race as a sociocultural construct is more useful, than as a genetic/biological category. This is especially true in metropolitan Western societies where there is a lot more mixing between populations.

    And that’s just the beginning. There’s a whole other area dealing with the cultural-historical aspects of this issue which deal especially well with how scientists justify their racism through science, instead of constructing a theory after testing the results. Basically doing science backwards.

    But I suppose that would be outside your area of expertise… For anthropologists it’s part of the required reading ; )

    But yeah… race exists alright. Just not the way people think. And it’s definitely based more on culture than on genes.

    Like


  239. I worked up a whole host of explanations, based on game theory and cost-benefit analysis for why this aggression (clearly an adaptive trait for breeding, but not universally)spread in one group – and you can guess the evolutionary reasons. Of course, as it started to spread, not having it was a distinct disadvantage. But where its incidence was low, not having it wasn’t a disadvantage.

    Or, more to the point, having it wasn’t an advantage until some statistical fluke gave it a slightly higher than average occurence – and then it became an advantage.

    This is what I mean.

    Within 5 generations, I’ll put money on self-domestication having an effect on human populations. More, I’ll put even money on this:

    One of the reasons for the pervasiveness of crime in inner-city black communities is genetic. 5 generations ago, there need have been no genetic tendency for crime; but conditions might have made sexual selection (the most powerful of selective forces, subject to other pressures, not even subordinate to disease, though linked) literally generate a population more prone to lack of future-time consideration.

    Equally, 3 generations could reverse such a trend.

    I POSIT THIS:

    This has been going on in all populations of humans forever. Vikings were PROBABLY *genetically* more violence-prone. Slowly, as their economy changed, and as it segregated (those wanting to Berserk went out and raided, often getting killed, those who wanted to farm stayed home, as the local economies improved due to improving agricultural opportunities), … the Swedes essentially domesticated themselves. They’re likely less violent than they were before – as a result of genes.

    This process of population-level self-domestication is obvious once you look for it.

    Then you can raise this to the level of race. Of course, this is on a super-level.

    I know a geneticist who tracked a single gene that appeared in about 1790 from Kenya to Korea by 1992. The transmitter in Korea was a Korean, no sign of “blackness”. Of course, whole gene complexes weren’t transmitted – just the one marker – but it shows how quickly adaptations can spread through fuzzy borders.

    Yet this happened *even while* the transmitter looked fully Korean in every way.

    I get it – “races” are highly fluid. I get it in ways you grossly underestimate me.

    But at the same time, on a statistical level, they’re also very real.

    *IF* blacks as a collective statistical subgroup of humans have a lower IQ, it could be due to several factors:

    – Obligatory metabolic resource priorities: Either physical fitness/muscular development/or, most likely, disease resistance: the same IQ effect is noted in Asia (NE Asia / SE Asia/ Equatorial)

    – Random chance. Statistical flukes.

    – Sexual/selective pressures that differ over time (even locally)

    – Different economies feeding back on selective pressures (except that stupid people now have more babies than smart ones; birth control, …)

    – self-domestication in less hospitable climes

    – Palaeolithic innovation (genetically linked), going back even 100, 000 years – innovation loci being on the periphery of the habitability zone where selective pressure would be most intense – in the zone where advancing cold/warm fronts waxed and waned, specifically in central Asia and Europe.

    Given that genes marking for intelligence could spread as rapidly as any others, even 4-5 generations could see marked changes in a given population.

    UNLIKE “racists”, I don’t subscribe to the idea that there’s an essential “blackness” or “whiteness” – there’s a basic failing of human thinking, designed into us and accounting for lots of human error – or that races are immutable.

    But the idea that “Africans”, as a race, have lower IQs is neither biologically controversial or even terribly interesting.

    Of course some groups will be smarter than others. Some groups will also be *taller* than others. Some will be more disease-resistant or specific-disease-prone.

    The only reason it’s interesting is that racists want to either misinterpret the statistical reality of biology or lefty “there are no races” types want to deny it.

    Both are wrong. Human population biology shows precisely the same patterns as all other mammals. It’s not controversial.

    And as far as racists are concerned, yes, it’s possible that blacks are more prone to violence (crime stats seem to imply this).

    Prevent the thugs from breeding, and it’s possible to change that within 3 generations. Not much effect in the first; strong effects in the second; profound effects in the third.

    By the 5th, the crime stats would have balanced out.

    I’ll put money on it.

    Like


  240. But the idea that “Africans”, as a race, have lower IQs is neither biologically controversial or even terribly interesting.

    generate a population more prone to lack of future-time consideration.

    Yeah, see Gorbachev, you take the wrong fork at the road and end up in Crazyland…

    Behaviors are not genetic traits. Or, I should say, most behaviors are not genetic traits because most behaviors are based on cultural processes and ethnocentric definitions. (The only exception that comes to mind is the fight or flight response.) You’re good on the biological end, but once you shift over into attempting to use cultural traits like you do biological ones, that’s where you eff up.

    Sorry dude =/

    Like


  241. @zek: “Yeah, see Gorbachev, you take the wrong fork at the road and end up in Crazyland…”
    😀 😀 😀

    Well said, man!

    Like


  242. @zek
    I’ve never said race didn’t exist.

    Should I quote you? Biological race doesn’t exist. Read back.

    I’ve only said that race, as used by HBDers and “race-realists” is a sociocultural construct.

    I agree. It’s a convenient label. In fact, what we need to talk about are “lineages” and groups defined by collections of statistically relevant traits.

    Africans will come out not as one, but several linked “groups”, and not as distinct from Whites as whites would like to believe.

    In fact, most laymen use race as a sociocultural construct, though they like to pretend it’s biologically/genetically based.

    I use it purely in biological terms. No other way. What I did was study “race” (variation/variety/statistical distribution) among (small mammal species).

    You can call it whatever you want, but what my group was doing was breeding a “race”. Several, actually.

    Race is a fuzzy category that has little significance except that we like to believe it does (even for entomologists and forensic anthropologists), mostly because of racism. It’s a taxonomic category that has more cultural characteristics than phenotypic ones.

    Yes, in this sense.

    I also throw this out to you – it’s also almost impossible to parse out cultural factors in behavior from genetic ones. Culture is so powerful.

    HOWEVER

    I also posit that culture and genetic tendencies tend to reinforce each other. Directly. It’s a feedback loop.

    Vikings just don’t create pacific cultures (in one go); and pacifist cultures won’t breed vikings (immediately). They feed back and reinforce each other.

    Changing how females select mates will literally change the racial characteristics of any mammal. I found out it happens insanely fast.

    However, the real problems begin when you start applying heritability to non-genetically measured traits, and then say that this is due to race, even though morphological traits have no genetic connection to IQ.

    You need to meta-analysis for this. All you see is a general trend.

    The *average* lower IQ for Africans may have meta-statistical truth, but the circumstances on the ground are going to be chaotic and unpredictable.

    That’s the nature of stats.

    Even more importantly, IQ has very little genetic basis at the population level, and often at the individual level. Why? Low repeatability, flawed measurements, ethnocentric definitions, and other methodological problems.

    This is untrue. Unfortunately, more and more evidence is accumulating that there’s a 33-50% “inheritability” factor for intelligence as measured by *scholastic aptitude*.

    I’d go for more like 40%. Studies haven’t taken into account epigenetics and some forms of bias. Epigenetic effects can linger for generations without leaving any trace beyond that, confusing stats. A mother’s smoking can affect grandchildren on minor levels, but have no trace in the genetic record.

    Epigenetic effects are only now being traced.

    “Inheritability” now means more than just genes. It’s weirdly Lamarckian for some things, and yet this fades.

    So you’re right – IQ may have a multiple root source, but given that everything else varies, dude —

    There’s no reason to think that average IQ doesn’t vary. In fact, it’s eminently reasonable to arrive at this conclusion as a prediction even before you look at any data at all.

    Some group somewhere likely has a lower IQ, on average. Some group is probably genetically prone to being more violent. Or tall. Or smelly.

    You can predict this without even looking at specific groups. Then you look at groups.

    Your idea of a *very* short time would have to mean hundreds of thousands of years (probably longer, unless you’re not using punctuated equilibrium?)

    Eldredge and Gould are my heroes.

    PE explains a lot; and a lot of these characteristics can operate on micro-time-scales.

    Bear in mind that reintroducing a statistically segmented group back into the larger group will almost ALWAYS dilute the differences back to the mean, unless something stands in its way (ie, the Klan beating the crap out of white guys who marry black women).

    of continuous selective pressure that isn’t being mitigated by other evolutionary forces. And based on the genetic variation between humans, even disparate populations, there simply isn’t enough of it to account for immutable racial differences, especially when dealing with amorphous concepts like IQ, or behavior.

    Come on. This is pure speculation on your part. You and I have no idea what the heritability factors in IQ are. We’re Mendel noting patterns in peas without Watson and Crick’s discovery.

    That said, if testing data and school records and everything else suggest something, 1) It’s not really controversial biologically; evolution and population biology predict this; 2) the social implications are irrelevant, and can’t be considered when considering the observations.

    IQ and related talents are clearly heritable on some levels, otherwise we’d be chimps.

    And there’s lots of variability in IQ and intelligence for selection to play with.

    The very plasticity of our adaptability, coupled with our lack of significant genetic variation,

    Um, there’s lots of variation. Not significant when compared to Erectus or Neanderthal; but massive when compared to an in-group of tribesmen from Namibia.

    Variation is relative. Stop making ridiculously obfuscating statements like this.

    means HBD and race-realism are scientific racism, attempting to ascribe negative cultural qualities to populations under the guise of phenotypic variation.

    For some HBD types, yes.

    Not for all.

    I arrived at this from a purely science perspective. I’m personally not fond of racists and find the debates mostly red-herrings.

    It is because of this that talking about race as a sociocultural construct is more useful, than as a genetic/biological category. This is especially true in metropolitan Western societies where there is a lot more mixing between populations.

    What you say will be more and more true as time passes. At the moment, it’s still safe to talk about segmented population groups.

    I was in Canada last year and saw amazing crap there. Toronto, Ontario province, had insane levels of mixed friends/couples.

    There’s a genetic experiment not even we’ve tried yet. It makes NYC look like a segregated Apartheid city.

    I predict interesting things there.

    And that’s just the beginning. There’s a whole other area dealing with the cultural-historical aspects of this issue which deal especially well with how scientists justify their racism through science, instead of constructing a theory after testing the results. Basically doing science backwards.

    Whatever.

    We’re not talking Coon and categories of races here. We’re talking about modern population biology and genetic biostatistics.

    You think race is an issue?

    Pay attention. It’s another red herring.

    Once the map is done, and the variation map is done (within the next 60 years, for sure), and the genes are identified and we know what they do–

    Holy Shit, worrying about Race and IQ will be the very least of our worries.

    Believe me.

    The ethics of this situation are profoundly complex.

    We’re on the verge of major a major Eugenics revolution.

    It will be profound.

    But I suppose that would be outside your area of expertise… For anthropologists it’s part of the required reading ; )

    I’m interested in hard facts – not interpretations.

    I find most non-physical anthropology disciplines in Anthropology to be obsessed with details that have no bearing on the facts.

    But yeah… race exists alright. Just not the way people think. And it’s definitely based more on culture than on genes.

    No. Stop fuzzy thinking. Be precise, here.

    Race exists as a biological reality, and as an ethnic construct, and as a class/cultural construct. These intersect.

    They are not identical.

    You can’t use proof of the arbitrariness of “race as a cultural construct” to disprove the existence of the biological components of race.

    And this is fundamentally what I’m objecting to.

    This is why anthropologists are famous for fuzzy thinking.

    Like


  243. @zek
    But the idea that “Africans”, as a race, have lower IQs is neither biologically controversial or even terribly interesting.

    generate a population more prone to lack of future-time consideration.

    Yeah, see Gorbachev, you take the wrong fork at the road and end up in Crazyland…

    Behaviors are not genetic traits. Or, I should say, most behaviors are not genetic traits because most behaviors are based on cultural processes and ethnocentric definitions. (The only exception that comes to mind is the fight or flight response.) You’re good on the biological end, but once you shift over into attempting to use cultural traits like you do biological ones, that’s where you eff up.

    I’ll give you an example.

    A guy I went to highschool with. Indian.

    3 siblings: 1) Doctor, went to jail for selling drugs. Had a doublelife. 2) Sister, dated a dozen guys a year, left each after 3-4 weeks. Did this for a decade. 3) Brother, airline pilot. Dozens of GFs, burned out.

    Father: International trader, salesman.

    Maternal grandmother: Activist in India, during movement for independence. Killed. Was known for being a wild child.

    Link? Is there a connection? No? Cultural? Family?

    I’ll tell you what it was.

    The guy I knew found out he has a gene that makes him more susceptible to endorphins. He loved the rush. So did the rest of his family.

    They traced it back. It was *one gene*.

    It was also found in cousins.

    True story.

    Is is their family culture or their genetic tendency?

    Perhaps they feed back on themselves?

    Imagine what whole complexes of genes could do.

    You Culture is Everything types discount the raw, undisguised power of genes to influence behavior.

    Nothing Sam has said has been anything but guffaw; and Zek, you refuse to see the obvious:

    much of human behavior is genetically determined.

    As more and more evidence piles up, more and more behaviors – ability to postpone rewards, the ability to feel fear from specific situations (heights, for example), the ability to fear given animals (snakes, for example), aversions to certain foods, ability to trust others, —

    many behavioral traits have positive genetic components that have been identified.

    Part of the lefty-cultural-anthropological view is the contention that humans are “blank slates” and are completely programmable.

    In fact, it is becoming more and more clear that mothers were right: from birth, people come preprogrammed on many levels with tendencies to behave in certain manners.

    Sometimes, a criminal is *literally* born. Sometimes, an artist is *born*. Sometimes, a lazy bastard was just born a lazy bastard. A slut was almost always going to be that way, no matter how you rewind the clock. One gene might have made a difference. in other cases, it might be huge, vastly complex interactions of collections of genes.

    It could all be hidden by epigenetic effects that fade out in several generations.

    Science has determined that there’s a genetic factor in the ability to love others, or trust others, or in the tendency to cheat.

    As we get more precise, we’re going to obliterate the Left’s shibboleth of Humans as a Blank Slate.

    We are animals, just like the animals used in lab experiments.

    There are no fundamental differences. Only of degree.

    That’s an adjustment that’s even harder to make than admitting that race actually exists.

    Like


  244. @Zek,

    Found it:

    Behaviors are not genetic traits.

    Dead wrong. Many are not. Many are. We’re talking statistical influence, here. And some genetic behaviors are full-on genetic.

    This is the root of your error. Science is proving this statement wrong more and more every day.

    No serious geneticist believes this any more. In the context of any animal, including humans. This is an old belief, but for specific behaviors, it’s being shown to not be the case.

    The revolution in genetics and science and sociobiology and psychology and neurology is fundamentally altering the way we see ourselves, unless we deliberately blind ourselves to reality. This blank-slate Anthropology is going to be nothing but a historical footnote.

    I say this with extreme confidence because if you were in on the science, you’d see it and be incredibly depressed.

    it’s depressing as shit. We turn out to be Machines just like dogs or amoebas.

    But the science is doing it. Like it or not.

    And Sam, I’ll put money on you not having understood anything Zek or I wrote.

    Like


  245. Lineage Templeton (1998) “A subspecies (race) is a distinct evolutionary lineage within a species. This definition requires that a subspecies be genetically differentiated due to barriers to genetic exchange that have persisted for long periods of time; that is, the subspecies must have historical continuity in addition to current genetic differentiation.””

    That’s exactly the point.

    There is precisely one subspecies in the species homo sapiens which is homo sapiens sapiens. There is no (more) taxonomical hierarchy within homo sapiens. The other subspecies are extinct. Darwin already knew that. And btw, that silly “leftist” or “PC” nonsense didn’t exist back in Darwin’s times.

    The next 1-4 cut and paste “definitions” are scientifically useless.

    The last one could easily be applied to the different populations of chimpanzees but not to humans.

    If not, they are denoted as races, which means that a formal rank should not be given to the group, or taxonomists are unsure whether or not a formal rank should be given.

    That’s the essential point.

    …consistent biological factors that distinguish a Congolese from a Finn is a dead canard. If you don’t call it RACE, then you have to call it something else.

    You already have in your previous phrase. Congolese, Finn etc will do. Some might even ask “which tribe?”

    All those zealous attempts to squeeze a mortarboard on the indoctrinated concept of “race” in humans is pointless. There’s no scientific value to it. Ergo, the only reason for this kind of zeal must be an attempt to justify racism. It’s very obvious which side the political motivation is coming from.

    Like


  246. Sometimes, a criminal is *literally* born. Sometimes, an artist is *born*. Sometimes, a lazy bastard was just born a lazy bastard. A slut was almost always going to be that way, no matter how you rewind the clock. One gene might have made a difference. in other cases, it might be huge, vastly complex interactions of collections of genes.

    That’s essentialism. Not science.

    Fuzzy thinking is the way of the world. There are no clear borders, no strict boundaries or absolute definitions. You need to think in complexities — which you do, but only to the extent of biology. You break down at the cultural component. And culture IS an important component. It’s our extra-somatic means of adaptation, and is responsible for our lives as any genetic component.

    To me, you sound like a sociobiologist, which also explains a lot, as sociobiologists are among the most essentialistc of the scientific disciplines. Too much black & white, not enough gray, and definitely not enough rainbow.

    I agree we are to some degree “preprogrammed”, and this can be proven in myriad ways, but your degree and mine differ in fundamental ways. Mostly because you’re seemingly incapable of understanding how culture influences our behavior, and a whole lot else.

    And even more depressingly, much of what you base your observations on are studies which haven’t been completed, but that you assure us are on the way. You base it on things which haven’t even been peer-reviewed. That’s not science, that’s playing Nostradamus.

    I’ll pass on debating the merits between nature versus nurture, because it’s not a choice between them. It’s about understanding how they work together. And if you don’t understand how humans are highly complex animals, then you don’t understand anything really.

    The only obvious thing I refuse to see is that this is obviously becoming an increasing waste of time =/

    Like


  247. @Zek,

    The only difference in our approach then is that you ascribe more to culture than I do.

    I suggest that culture and genetics feed off of each other. It’s a dynamic loop. It might appear that genetics are 100%; but they’re not, because the culture that has fed back into the genetic selection for generations makes it seem that way. it might seem like culture is 100% of the effect – but again, that doesn’t take into account the generation of the culture by the genes.

    Instead of parsing these things out as discrete components, “This is 30% genetic!” (which is meaningless), you can only look for effects.

    Again, you’re taking a sociological approach.

    There’s nothing inherently wrong with sociobiology except that it discounts culture as an adaptive tool.

    I’m making some simple points:

    1) Biology predicts group differences in all traits, some more and some less
    2) These differences are noted
    3) These differences and the range of difference varies by group and individual, and in groups, *over time* as well
    4) All of this is subject to change via selection

    dismissing sociobiological arguments apriori because they’re sociobiology is like ditching chemistry because you’re interested n physics.

    In the 50’s and 60’s, many linguists saw this coming. When Chomsky came out with generative grammar and then neurobiologists located (or acknowledged having had already long before located) specific structures in the brain that operated as language modules, often discrete ones, the humanities and many science communities were in uproar.

    it turns out, human language doesn’t have completely learned structure. Grammar – in its generative sense – is specifically human and the ability to learn, and the various forms that language structures can take, are hard-wired into the human brain.

    This freaked lots of people out. I met a speech pathologist who refused to believe this – today – because she felt it reduced humans to mere machines. Language wasn’t preprogrammed in any way.

    Whatever.

    You can argue this or that, but

    – Biological race exists in the same way that there’s a variety of gray squirrel and a variety of black squirrel. Both squirrels, same species, same nomenclature.

    – Genetic factors affect behavior. If you examine this sentence, it’s so obviously true it’s absurd – clearly, much behavior is genetically influenced.

    – Personality is also powerfully influenced by genes.

    All research is now showing this. Biology is stepping up by identifying the specific actors in these factors.

    Read the Blank Slate by Stephen Pinker. Anything by Dawkins. They’re laymans’ introductions to the subject.

    I can direct you to professional publications in population genetics if you’d like to see specific references.

    In all of these disciplines, there’s rigorous analysis and hard debate. One thing that hasn’t affected the debate: Any discussion of the social consequences.

    Anthropologists can contort and censor themselves this way. Geneticists aren’t interested. They have actual data to work with.

    The social consequences of truths be damned: they’re irrelevant.

    Like


  248. You do realize that while language structures are genetically based, your vocabulary still has to be learned culturally, right? If you don’t grow up learning the actual words, then your genetic potential doesn’t actually mean anything. Just because you *can* learn language really well, doesn’t mean that you will. And this is a problem that sociobiology makes often — ignoring environmental factors.

    I agree that you can’t parse it out into percentages, and that looking for effects is the most useful and practical way, that also means that you’ll end up with only correlations, not causation. And thus you’ll always be guessing. Or should I say, WE’LL always be guessing.

    My background in genetics and bio-anthro comes from James Mielke et al 2006.

    Anthropologists can contort and censor themselves this way. Geneticists aren’t interested. They have actual data to work with.

    I don’t think you understand my discipline very well. You should read up on the subject more.

    Meanwhile, I disregard sociobiology due to it’s oversimplification and large body of critics, from Chomsky to Gould to Lewontin, and I particularly take issue with the field’s ethnocentrism, which limits their supposed universality.

    The real funny thing is you understand feed-back loops, but then completely disregard this when it comes to whether traits are heritable or not. Rushton, for instance gives IQ heritability a 0.8, yet the trait has low repeatability AND is inherently ethnocentric in it’s definition. This is a classic theoretical limitation and methodological flaw that so many scientific racists make. Feed-back loops mean that we’ll only ever be able to get correlations, because we can’t isolate genetics or culture. You can’t manipulate a single gene and see what happens to the IQ without contamination from environmental factors.

    1) Biology predicts group differences in all traits, some more and some less

    This is your fundamental mistake, and one which we’ll have to agree to disagree on, since you can’t seem to look outside biological determinism.

    Like


  249. Geneticists aren’t interested. They have actual data to work with.

    That’s exactly the point. The data speaks volumes for the fact that the entire human species is actually very boring in terms of genetic variation. There is significantly more genetic variation in drosophila (although the phenotypical differences are minute).

    Certain people only see what they want to see. Just put a (virtual) microscope on a chosen section, zoom in until it fits their preconceived notion, lock it at that point and have everybody else have a look at it. And don’t anybody dare touching the zoom dial!

    Like


  250. I’m not an HBD nut. I have no racist bone to pick.

    I just studied genetics and population biology and applied it to humans, where I see precisely the same rules and patterns.

    I married a Jew, have seriously dated Asian and Black women, have a sister married to a black man with two wonderful kids, and have a whole host of friends; I speak 4 languages (only 3 of them European) and I have a working knowledge of 2 more; I’ve worked *in* Africa, all over it in fact, and have seen things that would make racists blink their eyes.

    I regularly expound on the awfulness of black American culture, but this is in contrast to the actual African cultures I’ve worked in, which are functional in ways black Americans should take note.

    I’ve argued mercilessly with Race Absolutists about the inability to distinguish cultural from genetic factors much of the time.

    What galls me as much on the left is the tendency to want to wash over genetics because of the implications that we’re not blank slates.
    This is nearly a mantra on the left: We must all be born Equal. Well, we’re not. Some my (animals) were born and grew bigger and it was genetic; some stayed runty. That’s just how the cookie crumbled.

    Culture and genetics interact, but Zek, clearly, your instinct is to minimize the effects of genes.

    Genes are the clay from which culture sculpts.

    If the clay isn’t there in the right form – culture cannot sculpt it.

    We are not infinitely malleable. Some people are born smarter than others. Some are born to be stronger or better athletes. This is obvious.

    We can say that West Africans make the best sprinters. Sports commenters at the Olympics noticed this 20 years ago. Some good sprinting genes, there.

    In the mushy middle, you see no effect. On the extremes – low and high- you see lots of effects.

    Both racists and Blank Slatists are absolutely wrong.

    If you don’t see this, consult your local meme factory.

    Like


  251. To sum up:

    http://defaultuserblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/23/hbd-what-and-why/#more-1748

    @Olufemi,

    Unless you’re a population geneticist, I’d refrain from making blanket statements like that.

    Such things were bandied about in the 1970’s. That statement – that there’s little to no variation – is a common statement, but it’s actually false.

    true, we’re not canines, with the wild variation they have.

    However, for a species that went through 4 traceable population bottlenecks within the last 100,000 years, we’re wonderfully diverse.

    A good look at people from all over the world will provide you with enough variation to wonder at the genius of evolution.

    I repeat this:

    It won’t give racists what they want.

    However, population genetics and modern genetic science will absolutely bury any notion that we’re born blank slates and that there’s no significant variation among groups, subgroups and even minor collections of humans.

    Behaviors are going to be genetically linked, tracked, and at some point, some madman may decide to – say – pacify the population through the elimination of genes.

    It’s going to become possible to identify specific gene complexes for a whole range of human behaviors, which we now think are cultural or learned.

    We’re going to find out that genes breed culture which breed genes.

    Give it 15 years.

    Get ready to adjust your glasses. it’s been happening – quietly – in labs around the world for 15 years.

    I will say this:

    WHAT GENETICISTS KNOW PRIVATELY (and within science communities) WOULD SHOCK MOST BLANK-SLATE LEFTISTS.

    Actually, the verdict is already in; we’re just filling in the details.

    The public just doesn’t know it yet.

    In a very real sense, Science is taking the magic out of people.

    You don’t have to believe me or argue.

    Just watch. Give it 15 years for it to fully filter into the public consciousness.

    By then, the old “There’s no variation” meme will be thoroughly trashed, and shown to have had no value even when it was popular.

    I welcome this: It’s at least honest.

    Note that this will not give comfort to racists. Expect a lot of upset.

    And watch out for those on the LEft and Right who are going to use ideology to subvert science.

    because it will now be possible to start literally engineering populations and people. This is not science fiction;

    It’s becoming hard science fact.

    Tell the ethics departments and the anthropology departments to get ready for it.

    Like


  252. @ Gorbachev

    Of course we’re not born equal. Most are born into abject poverty, some into humane conditions and very few into superabundance.

    Genetically speaking however, humans are one of the most genetically homogeneous species on earth.

    Like


  253. I married a Jew, have seriously dated Asian and Black women, have a sister married to a black man with two wonderful kids, and have a whole host of friends; I speak 4 languages (only 3 of them European) and I have a working knowledge of 2 more; I’ve worked *in* Africa, all over it in fact, and have seen things that would make racists blink their eyes.

    Classic symptoms of White Denial Syndrome. Just because you’re “worldly” and have dated/married people of various backgrounds, doesn’t prevent you (or anyone) from being racist.

    because it will now be possible to start literally engineering populations and people. This is not science fiction;

    It was already possible to engineer populations and people, according to your own assertions on genetics. Shoot, it’s already possible using culture too. Engineering populations is nothing new, the only difference is how.

    We must all be born Equal. Well, we’re not. Some my (animals) were born and grew bigger and it was genetic; some stayed runty. That’s just how the cookie crumbled.

    No duh Gorbachev! The problem begins when you start making essentialist statements about entire populations! Why? Because that’s stereotyping, not science. You can correlate, but as soon as you make the mistake of being causative, you’ve stepped the line into racism.

    But trust me, nobody seriously believes that we’re all born equal, especially when bad people get rich while others eat sh!t and die. The problem is you’re trying to justify it through science. Oy. Vey.

    Like


  254. @zek

    Zek, you came rushing onto the debate about IQ by saying race is irrelevant and doesn’t exist in any way.

    Obviously, you’re wrong. And biologically, you’re wrong.

    I’m holding you to that fail.

    Now you’re backtracking and qualifying.

    You do realize that while language structures are genetically based, your vocabulary still has to be learned culturally, right?

    Of course. I never said otherwise. The grammar and its patterns (on a basic level) are like switches that click one way or another.

    Al human grammar ican be generated. Hence, generative grammar. It still pisses off blank-slatists, but it’s also undeniable.

    If you don’t grow up learning the actual words, then your genetic potential doesn’t actually mean anything.

    Children in these situations have invented languages. They invent it. The coo-coo behavior of babies is a precursor to the creation (or absorption) of language ar 2-5 years of age.

    Kids left alone and later discovered were discovered with language. They were not mute.

    Language is programmed, or at least the ability to learn it and its structures.

    Their grammars were found to be basic, but basically human, and followed the same patterns as other human languages.

    Just because you *can* learn language really well, doesn’t mean that you will. And this is a problem that sociobiology makes often — ignoring environmental factors.</I.

    Look, Zek, I most emphatically DID NOT ignore environment.

    Read back to what I wrote. In fact, I qualified everything with this.

    You jumped in like other blank-slatists and claimed culture was everything.

    God damn it, it's like arguing with some White Nationalist Racist.

    First, make absurdly absolutist positions, and then qualify and backtrack.

    Whatever.

    Left and right, more similarities than differences. Always said it, it's still true.

    I agree that you can’t parse it out into percentages, and that looking for effects is the most useful and practical way, that also means that you’ll end up with only correlations, not causation. And thus you’ll always be guessing. Or should I say, WE’LL always be guessing.

    Until we start tracking specific genes.

    We can do that now; impossible 20 years ago.

    That changed the game entirely.

    My background in genetics and bio-anthro comes from James Mielke et al 2006.

    Anthropologists can contort and censor themselves this way. Geneticists aren’t interested. They have actual data to work with.

    I don’t think you understand my discipline very well. You should read up on the subject more.

    I’m interested in the genetic *data*. Cultural correlates are interesting, but with culture, we can argue for three months and never reach a conclusion.

    Find a genetic marker or set for musical compositional talent, that correlates with it, and bingo–

    That’s something we can talk about. Hard to object to data.

    The social sciences are too subject to ideology and preconception.

    Meanwhile, I disregard sociobiology due to it’s oversimplification and large body of critics, from Chomsky to Gould to Lewontin, and I particularly take issue with the field’s ethnocentrism, which limits their supposed universality.</I.

    Lewontin has been completely discredited in all biological circles. Criticism of his criticism has been utterly and completely damning without exception.

    Even uttering the name around geneticists or biologists is slightly embarrasing.

    Gould was blinkered, as well, and while a genius, had a black hole when it came to humans. He had a hard ideological position to push.

    He admitted later in life that he may have been wrong, and that genetics were advancing in directions that shocked even him.

    You have an anthropologists' education when it comes to biology. Drift over to the STEM disciplines.

    The authors you cite have had their arguments to thoroughly trashed by scientists in lab coats, if you knew, you certainly wouldn't mention Lewontin's name.

    The real funny thing is you understand feed-back loops, but then completely disregard this when it comes to whether traits are heritable or not. Rushton, for instance gives IQ heritability a 0.8, yet the trait has low repeatability AND is inherently ethnocentric in it’s definition. This is a classic theoretical limitation and methodological flaw that so many scientific racists make. Feed-back loops mean that we’ll only ever be able to get correlations, because we can’t isolate genetics or culture. You can’t manipulate a single gene and see what happens to the IQ without contamination from environmental factors.

    Yes. I’d never cite Rushton’s work.

    Other studies put it at about .33 to .60 %; my instinct, from observing studies and their raw data, places it at 40%, with 40% environment (including nutrition: Hello, Flynn Effect) and another 20% uncorrelated to anything we yet know.

    It could be genetic. I suspect epigenetic.

    1) Biology predicts group differences in all traits, some more and some less

    This is your fundamental mistake, and one which we’ll have to agree to disagree on, since you can’t seem to look outside biological determinism.

    Look:

    I come at this from population genetics. Stats.

    When you look at these things statistically, you see clumps, weird statistical effects and divergence. You also see random convergence.

    You see aggregations where there shouldn’t be, and you see aggregates disaggregate inexplicably.

    IE:
    Races come and races go. Lineages form, segregate, then dissipate.

    This is the way of things.

    You misinterpret my statistical approach as “absolute”

    You must be joking.

    You can’t see it – you’re blind – but your resistance to the statistical approach dooms your understanding of how population genetics actually works to simple interpretations.

    Unlike you or any racist out there, I have no ideological axe to grind. I find it all interesting. It’s of no consequence to me ideologically: I have no stake in believing we’re blank slates or that we’re genetic machines.

    I’m interested in an overall view. I want to know.

    If that knowledge is ugly, I want to know.

    Stop trying to prove that race doesn’t exist. Don’t try to prove that it does exist.

    This is the error.

    Examine the data. Follow it.

    Anyway, this is irreelvant; this nameless Internet guy who once studied this (until recently) as a vocation says, watch the skies. Keep your eye on the moving ball.

    It’s not going to tell you what you want to hear. Trust me on this one. You and the White Nationalists are going to be in the same camp, if on opposite sides:

    Screaming at the wind.

    When it’s mapped out, a new generation of thinkers won’t find it remarkable that we’re largely defined before we’re even born, our potentials and characteristics partly pre-set and measured.

    Like


  255. Now you’re backtracking and qualifying.

    No, I’m clarifying. I said I took issue with much of what you said, and I have always said that race is a sociocultural construct. I believe it has as little use as any other taxonomic category. Whatever name you want to use to describe populations of people is fine, but the *need* by so many racists to use race (and all the baggage that goes with it) is indicative of their prejudice, and makes any scientific claim they make suspicious. Especially after further examination shows that it is built off of distortions, ethnocentrism, and other methodological problems.

    Cultural correlates are interesting, but with culture, we can argue for three months and never reach a conclusion.

    So cultural data is too difficult for you? That seems a tacit admission that you’d rather ignore harder to reach conclusions over easy answers. Again, that is not science.

    When it’s mapped out, a new generation of thinkers won’t find it remarkable that we’re largely defined before we’re even born, our potentials and characteristics partly pre-set and measured.

    It seems I’ve found your religion…

    Again, this is essentialism, and NOT science. And is actually very similar to how many cultural ecologists deal with populations. You’d make a great French anthropologist, haha!

    Fact is, there’s a give and take. Yes, we are in large part defined by the collective in which we reside, and the genetic code imprinted on our beings, but we also have human agency, which is a theoretical wrench in any kind of absolute statement you or I may make.

    Predestination, which is were your arguments are increasingly heading, are largely philosophic, and an entirely different matter. In fact, the way you reinforce each with the other reminds me of an Ayn Randian, almost. Almost.

    God damn it, it’s like arguing with some White Nationalist Racist.

    My sentiments exactly. Only, I am beginning to think you’re a racialist more than a racist, rather like Henry Louis Gates said to James Watson.

    Culture isn’t everything, and neither are genetics. They’re two sides of a coin that make-up everything about us, and too frequently it’s easier to point at the DNA and say, “He did it!” rather than do the hard work of finding the complex solution which incorporates genetic and cultural factors.

    You say you agree on this point, but the only data you value is genetic, even when the genetic datum are inconclusive correlates. It’s a strange kind of doublethink…

    Anyhoo, this discussion is obviously not getting anywhere, so I’ll be leaving you to your beliefs.

    Like


  256. Wow – all of these ‘novel writers’ are jumping out of the woodwork lately! All of these long-winded, cut-and-paste ‘magnum opii’ from dogmatic morons who wish to shove their opinions and ideals down everyone else’s throats! If comments are longer than the original topic (and derail wildly as well) then they shouldn’t even be given space…but, that’s only my not-so-humble opinion! 😉

    The political BS is tiresome as well…looks like the FauxNews followers have found this place and are going to ‘squat’! 😎

    Like


  257. @gorba: you are funny, man.😀

    “I married a Jew, have seriously dated Asian and Black women, have a sister married to a black man with two wonderful kids, and have a whole host of friends; I speak 4 languages (only 3 of them European) and I have a working knowledge of 2 more; I’ve worked *in* Africa, all over it in fact, and have seen things that would make racists blink their eyes.”

    And despite all that, you learned nothing about humanbeings?? Incredible, but since its you, I guess, it must in your genes😀 But given your attitude and opinions, I am leaning to the idea that not all of that is compelete true. Might be, but somehow I don’t buy it. A bit like this “professor” Hall guy…

    “Vikings just don’t create pacific cultures (in one go); and pacifist cultures won’t breed vikings (immediately)”

    And in this you reveal how ignorant you are.😀 Do you even know what the vikings were? No, you have no idea. The term viking was a scandinavian term for pirates and sea roving war bands. For a ignoramus like yourself, they seem to be people, a whole culture, which there was none.

    Yup, there was no “viking culture” and why? Because there were vikings from all over the north, including some estonians, livonians, finns and naturally the scandinavians. There could be multinational crew on any given boat of vikings and very often was. Besides, the vikings usually preferred to trade, so usually they were peaceful tradesmen. Given a chance they would and did rob and steal and pillaged.

    They also hired out as mercenries for various kings and countries, for example in France where they got a whole piece of land from the king in return fighting of other bands of vikings. Later that piece of land was named after them as Normandie, the land of the northmen. They also served for few centuries as the palace guard in Byzantine, the famous varyag guard of the emperors.

    Also the vikings came from peaceful farming cultures, so that proves your other claim as BS too. The vikings were usually sons of farmers and fishermen who were the odd men out when the heritance was divided. A bit like the german knights who formed the core of The Order of Teutonic Knights. They were freemen, sometimes nobility in their communities, but had no land nor house, so the one option was to band with other guys like that and go to the sea and advetures. If you were lucky, you returned few years later as a rich man and bought your own land and house and lived in peace rest of your days.

    Race is a cultural concept. Anybody who wants to promote the idea that it is a bilogical fact is a racist. Just like you are. Yes, there are some differences between humanbeings, just like there are between you and me. And, by the way, you did not respond to the fact that you and finns are not, according to your defenition, the same race. But the idea of race, as you promote it, is a racist one. It is a cultural one.

    You can protest and deny all you want, but this alone makes you a racist: you want it to be a biological fact when it is not. You can scream, kick and throw tandrums but the overwhelming scientific fact is that there is only one human race, the modern man.

    And when you babble about human breeding, well, that is not a new idea. The nazis were very big on that too and yes, they were racists just like you too. And so that you do not have to guess and speculate there has been a real human experiment done with real life humanbeings which proves your ideas as nonsense:

    The Soviets were into human breeding too. They chose the best athletes and made them make babies for ecxately same reasons that you state and with the same kind of belief. And they did it for decades! And guess what: most of the kids of the super human athletes did not become super super athletes, despite all that genetic backround. Neither did the offsprings of the kids. There were no super super super athletes in grand kids despite all the effort; right parents genetically, nutrition, education, higher standards of living, hormones and training…

    That proves that your ideas of race and humanbreeding is big chunk of BS. The genes did not create a race of super athletes no more than nazi breeding programmes did create a super race of men during 1930’s and 40’s. Yep, they had those blonde tall SS-guys make thousands of babies with thousands of blonde german women, all racially selected. And, just like the soviet programme, it did not work out as they predicted, pretty much the way you think such stuff would work out.

    You did know that they had such a program too, right? Because if you did not, you do not even know the history of what you try so hard to prove, and of you did, you were trying to pull a fast one on us. Gotcha😀

    Like


  258. Sepultura 13,

    It’s not a simple subject. Take the time to read the threads directly above. They’re quite interesting.

    Like


  259. Everyone trots out “ou’re a racist freak.”

    You want to see some racist freaks? I can direct you.

    Biology doesn’t play to any ideological tune. It’s fuzzy and indistinct. And yet amazingly precise at the same time,

    I bristle at the equivocations and declarations of the right and left when they don’t square with biology.

    Lewontin. I mean, seriously. No biologist ever took his work seriously; Gould and Lewontin aren’t just not fashionable any more, their work in these subjects was discredited while Gould was still alive.

    Gould admitted as much. Lewontin – nothing but an ideologue.

    Bone up. That ship sailed a long, long time ago.

    Like


  260. @ Schwartz

    Most scientific subjects can be obfuscated beneath tons of study references, specialized jargon, and data volume.

    In college, I could always tell a ineffective professor, by their lack of ability to make direct and explicit arguments. Don’t get me wrong—backing up a point is certainly necessary when asked. But if you write with all your footnotes as part of the paragraph text, then the writing becomes tedious and inexact.

    I don’t deny that the concept and the science is interesting, but a more concise discussion would make it easier to digest and contemplate.

    Blogs are particularly vulnerable to verbose arguments. Something about all that scrolling that gives one nausea. It’s a peculiar challenge to try and keep the exchanges reasonable pithy.

    Like


  261. Let’s get back to Obsidian’s very salient comment right at the beginning:

    Obsidian

    Abagond,
    Once again, I think you are missing the forest for the trees.

    The issue here isn’t whether Africans can churn out Nobel prize winning economists or physicists and the like.

    Obsidian is completely correct. Whether or not there are any Nigerian Nobel Prize winners doesn’t diminish the humanity of Nigerians, as a group, or any particular Nigerian.

    To decry discrimination is one thing. I’m right there on that score.

    To claim there are no differences at all flies in the face of all recent research, and every casual observation by people in positions to make them.

    Even if there no Nigerian scientists or doctors, you’d still have to say that Nigerians are our fellow beings, regardless. This is where the racists go wrong.

    Where the obligatory-equalists go wrong is in thinking that there are no inherent differences at all. Many of these correlate with groups. Statistical data can’t be denied any more. We have too much to ignore.

    Actually, most cultures/”races”/ethnicities aren’t represented among top science. STEM fields are dominated by a frighteningly consistent group, and this isn’t necessarily related to wealth or social capital. This group is composed of:
    – Ashkenazi Jews (clearly, their utter domination of Nobel Prizes, all of them more than highly deserved, has a genetic component; it’s not possible, as all statisticians say, for this to be purely cultural)
    – White Europeans, mostly of N/Eastern background, but mixed up like jellybeans in a bag so it’s hard to make out anything from their backgrounds. Consistently, Northern Europeans produce even when *not in a Northern European culture area*.
    – East Asians, *specifically* North-East Asians; a striking absence of SE-Asians is remarkable
    – South Asians of Northern Indian extraction.

    There are others, of course – it’s not exclusionary – but every university campus in the world, prize-awarding bodies, scholarship bodies, and elite institutions of every possible description have noticed this. It’s not possible for something so global and consistent to be merely cultural or due to a massive conspiracy.

    Every admissions officer of every college in the US will testify to the accuracy of this observation. It’s as true in majority-black countries as majority-white countries. The few white people in such countries outperform non-whites with a frightening consistency that alarms Anti-Racist Activists.

    Unless there really is a global conspiracy to Keep Them Down, the trend is statistically undeniable.

    So what is it?

    Racists take this to town.

    The issue is whether African citizens are human beings per the UN charter. I say they are. So that, to me, means a range of things that has nothing to do with IQ, such as safe drinking water, being free from mass rapes and civil wars/strife, stable governments and so forth.

    Obsidian again has it precisely correct.

    Obsidian isn’t fighting the whole IQ thing because I know he’s looked into this; the results of looking into this are disturbing, and the more you look, the more disturbing it gets.

    Denials by folk like Lewontin – transparently disingenuous and often misleading as they are – serve no-one.

    That said, even if science proves these things, it’s crucial that the racists not be able to take this and run with it.

    *IF* you really believe in fighting discrimination, you need to own this kind of data and incorporate it.

    The argument put forth by the HBD crowd is that these things simply aren’t possible per the low IQs of African citizens; based on what we can see in many African societies, I would beg to differ.

    I’ve spent time in Africa, too. I agree. African societies tend to be far more vibrant and successful than American black society.

    I’ve sat in rooms of smiling, curious, bright and studious children with few teenage mothers and no violence problems. Might have been Japan. But it was in Africa.

    Culture is huge; it accounts for the near-permanent black underclass in the US, for sure, because modern racism can’t account for it any more.

    But there’s also a genetic component. No matter the effort, Africans are always under-represented in academic / science endeavors at the very highest levels, whereas people from poor countries – often at *greater* disadvantages, relatively speaking – who are from traditional STEM backgrounds often do well.

    It’s disturbing and you can argue the data, but it always comes out the same. There’s something to it.

    Many seem to have enough IQ to make their countries relatively stable, and in some cases are actually on an upward swing.

    I’ve been to many. You’re looking for the “clever quotient” – this is the fraction of the population suited to doing things like running dry-cleaning stores, managing companies and getting things done; “commanders” of a society, more or less. The middle-managers and everyday thinkers.

    This “clever quotient” is the ACTUAL key to having a successful society. They make the trains run on time and prevent wars and do that sort of thing.

    Africans appear to have a more than adequate supply of these. Poor black America – well, their “clever quotient” seems to abscond and cease being part of that community, leaving only the incompetent, lazy, and those without initiative or ambition.

    This accounts for the wild bifurcation in wealth in the black USA: the crucial “clever quotient” in the black community forms it own community, allied with middle-class whites, or it simply joins the middle-class white community.

    Policies like Affirmative Action largely help this group.

    The upper segment – doctors, lawyers, scientists – don’t need the help. Affirmative action is actually embarrassing for them. They’re capable of doing everything on merit alone, in fields that only respect merit.

    The “clever quotient” are the ones that need AA. They need to escape the stigma of association with the lower classes; AA helps them overcome racial stigmas.

    The black lower classes benefit from few of these policies. Abandoned by their co-racial “brothers” and “sisters”, left alone, they wither and get poorer, more criminal and more self-destructively violent.

    This bifurcation isn’t what you get in most successful African societies. It’s typically American.

    In short Abagond, it is my considered view that way too much focus is put on rather esoteric points of argument, and woefully not enough on things that not only matter, but are within much of our reach to do something about. Black Crime, is one such example – why do we not condem this, in the strongest possible langage that we can, on our blogs and venues throughout the Afrosphere?

    See what I mean?

    Again, the point.

    American black lower-class culture is so obviously violent, catastrophically failing and multi-generational, with no improvement in sight, that obsessing about IQ helps no-one.

    These people still need appropriate educations that get them jobs and out of their misery.

    Denying the truth to shore up an ideological point saves and helps no-one.

    Like


  262. “Obsidian is completely correct. Whether or not there are any Nigerian Nobel Prize winners doesn’t diminish the humanity of Nigerians, as a group, or any particular Nigerian.”

    So your argument is that as long as you’re a human you have certain “rights.” It doesn’t really matter if you’re a genetically inferior human with little to contribute because Morally, that doesn’t matter.

    1) Who is the one who gives you these “human rights”?
    2) Who is the one who decides and defines these “rights”?
    3) Who do you complain to once the rights have been removed?

    This seems to be a rather slender thread to hang your hopes from.

    Like


  263. @King
    “Obsidian is completely correct. Whether or not there are any Nigerian Nobel Prize winners doesn’t diminish the humanity of Nigerians, as a group, or any particular Nigerian.”

    So your argument is that as long as you’re a human you have certain “rights.”

    Absolutely. You’ve got it.

    It doesn’t really matter if you’re a genetically inferior human with little to contribute because Morally, that doesn’t matter.

    Absolutely. It’s your actions that count.

    You imply that genetically better people should have more rights.

    Should doctors who get into car accidents be treated differently than, say, janitors?

    Some say yes. I say no. I’m all for “isonomia” – one law for all.

    1) Who is the one who gives you these “human rights”?

    We collectively agree, to forestall wars of all against all.

    2) Who is the one who decides and defines these “rights”?

    We collectively agree, again. We’re actually pretty good at that.

    3) Who do you complain to once the rights have been removed?

    The only default is the authority defined (limited or large) by the collective: Human Society.

    This seems to be a rather slender thread to hang your hopes from.

    Not at all. Some are born stupid, some smart, some tall, some small.

    They get out of life what they can.

    But in basic treatment, we need to treat each individual as an individual with equal basic rights.

    This is the best system – it eliminates calls for variable rights, which are selectively applied and fought over.

    This is why Affirmative Action is objectionable: It reduces people to mere categories, and denies their individuality.

    As useful as these policies may be to the left and some minorities, it’s a philosophical brick thrown into the window of the system that guarantees equal rights. Not acknowledging this is a major problem for the Left.

    The Left and the Right are actually very, very similar, in almost every respect, on a fundamental, philosophical level.

    It’s why their argumentation styles are so similar.

    Like


  264. A trite paper, but literally thousands of papers are being done on these subjects. The results are often laughable, but often stunning. This one is funny:

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201103/criminals-look-different-noncriminals

    But these are repeated experiments.

    Moreover, studies that try to disprove these notions usually fail.

    That’s also telling.

    Something’s going on.

    Like


  265. However, for a species that went through 4 traceable population bottlenecks within the last 100,000 years, we’re wonderfully diverse.

    No, we’re not. You don’t have to be a population geneticist to look that fact up.

    Like


  266. “Absolutely. It’s your actions that count.”

    Really? Who made that ruling? Was it the Universal Council of Humans? Was it God? Or is this just something you’ve personally accepted, and assume that it’s some kind of universal rule?

    “Should doctors who get into car accidents be treated differently than, say, janitors?”

    Try setting what “SHOULD” be done aside. Your personal sense of morality is worthless, to anyone else. Try looking at what IS.

    Doctors who get into car accidents ARE treated differently than, janitors. Thats reality.

    “You imply that genetically better people should have more rights.

    No, but naturally you misconstrued that I did. My implication is that people who are believed to be “genetically superior” WILL be given broader rights than those considered to be inferior.

    “We collectively agree, to forestall wars of all against all.” Hahahahahahahahaha!

    ” The only default is the authority defined (limited or large) by the collective: Human Society.

    Hahahahahahahahahaaha!

    Like


  267. @ Gorbachev said:

    A trite paper, but literally thousands of papers are being done on these subjects. The results are often laughable, but often stunning. This one is funny:

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201103/criminals-look-different-noncriminals

    But these are repeated experiments.

    Moreover, studies that try to disprove these notions usually fail.

    That’s also telling.

    Something’s going on.

    It is called circular reasoning. I did not read the paper, so hopefully it is more profound, but all the article says, when you think about it, is that those who “look like criminals” are more likely to be arrested and convicted. It assumes that the police, judges and juries are not likewise affected by the same looks in determining guilt and innocence.

    Like


  268. @gorba:

    “This is why Affirmative Action is objectionable: It reduces people to mere categories, and denies their individuality.

    As useful as these policies may be to the left and some minorities, it’s a philosophical brick thrown into the window of the system that guarantees equal rights. Not acknowledging this is a major problem for the Left.”

    Well, there it is: the whole thing for you is political, race politics. And of course, there is that terrible heathen Left which wants us all be the same, robotlike non humans😀

    Like


  269. @Abagond,

    I agree with you; that was one flaw the study had. There were others. Read the actual paper; they did some good work. Basic, but decent.

    But there’s enough of this (non-circular) research going around, from “universal beauty standards” to “tendency to commit crimes”, etc., to make strong cases.

    it turns out humans are *extremely* socially adept. Many of the skills we think of as learned – social judgment, etc. -do in fact seem to be genetically programmed and may, in fact, have separate structures in the brain.

    We’re composite beings with multiple modules, even personalities, wired into our brains. Some of it is perhaps emergent (consciousness, on some level), other aspects purely genetic.

    Some of the “genetic” ones would shock you.

    Facial recognition; tendency to like things with big eyes and out of proportion heads (ie, don’t kill babies, kill adults) – bunnies, cartoon characters, etc. – and a vast range of weird things that should be learned are programmed.

    Fear of heights seems to have a strong genetic correlation.

    Addictive behaviors have not one, but many correlations – many of them unique to certain behaviors.

    Neuroses, too, appear to have very strong genetic correlations, across races and cultures.

    There have been excellent studies of how people experience love – and this has strong genetic correlates, as well; it’s not entirely universal.

    Religiosity: this has been studied to death, and the genetic correlates are very strong. The ability to feel the “immanence” of an all-pervading “power” is not only genetically influenced, it can be artificially induced – in *some* people, who also have those genetic correlates.

    There was a mystery: Why do some hormonal compounds, used as aerosols, make some people experience terror and others not? Genetic differences. These were consistent, and one gene (*one* gene – a simple trait, at that – how freaky is that?) keyed for susceptibility to fear.

    Creating a fear-terror inducing aerosol allowed other researchers to identify the gene. When tracked, this gene strongly correlated with social problems and political views.

    Stuff like this is fascinating, isn’t it?

    The implications for racial-group characteristic distributions is profound.

    Far from being some vaguely amorphous “Soul” or “Mind” that emerges from a uniform process, research is showing us to be programmed machines – in large to tiny aspects of our behavior – in ways we’d never guessed.

    Research into criminality is some of the most advanced. There’s a genetic profile for “successful cheaters” that Chinese researchers have found; it’s cross-sex, links dozens of traits, and when taken together, consistently predicts the tendency to cheat during tests or in sensitive jobs – *and get away with it*.

    It’s like a “cheating intelligence” gene that combines several other faculties successfully. Each one can exist on its own, but very successful cheaters often show this.

    One place that’s great to follow is China: They have no compunction about researching and experimentation there, or sample-gathering. There are no ethical questions. Despite being “marxist” and officially believing in “equality”, they have a powerful cultural belief that heredity is powerful, and they’re more authoritarian now than marxist.

    Their research runs from bad to great, but imagine:

    A world where the effects of each gene and gene complex is mapped out. Effects and correlates are measured. Statistical odds are calculated on minute scales and tested against real-world results.

    That world isn’t far away. You’ll be able to tell how hard a kid will study in school, how gifted he’ll be, whether he’s likely to act out and maybe even predict what teaching strategy would be best.

    Doubt it?

    It’s coming.

    When that map is elaborated, do you honestly think “race” – or any “lineage” – will be invisible?

    Within 4 generations, I can guarantee that agencies will exist to regulate this information, and many countries will be using it in a very eugenic capacity. Social policy changes will follow this info.

    It’s going to change everything. The effects on society will be so profound, you can’t imagine that world.

    It’s not science-fiction: It’s being done right now. Like Christian scholars and church members, and what scholars know about early Christian history, what the general public and casual science readers – and anthropology students reading Lewontin and Gould – know about advances in human genetics is a full two decades behind what geneticists know.

    It changes everything.

    Abagond, worring about IQs, arguments about this or that study or the Flynn effect (which *will* raise African IQs as recorded on tests) are so laughably irrelevant as to be pointless.

    Science passed this off onto social sciences two decades ago.

    You want some ethical issues or fact-versus-fiction in genetics and race and whatnot?

    Race isn’t even the issue any more.

    In the next 20 years, ethical debates are going to get awfully fierce.

    Left-wing multi-cultural loving there’s-no-race types will have to wade through so much self-contradictory philosophy that their contortions will become painful to watch.

    Race-nationalists (Black Panthers or white Nationalists) are going to be in for shocks of their own. None of their neat little categories are going to mean shit. And their anti-semitism is going to take a thorough beating, and they’re going to see rapid gene transmissions in just a few generations between blacks and whites. Bringing slaves here and even mating a *little bit* will have radically altered the gene pool.

    Just watch. All of this debate about IQs is, in the end, just prelude to what’s to come.

    And we haven’t even gotten to the notions of the “soul” and “free will” yet. They’re going to have to be radically altered.

    Like


  270. @Sam,

    Well, there it is: the whole thing for you is political, race politics. And of course, there is that terrible heathen Left which wants us all be the same, robotlike non humans😀

    It’s not race politics. In fact, genetics is happily neutral. I’ not interested in racial politics. I’m a firm believer in equality and civil rights above all else.

    Left and right are more or less the same, philosophically, they just disagree on details.

    Black nationalist – white racist – there’s no fundamental difference between any brand of segregationist. The results are the same, the philosophical underpinnings are the same.

    Either you view people as members of categories – Oppressed/Oppressors, Victims/Victimizers, and create elaborate mechanisms and levels to keep the various Victimologies apart, or you don’t.

    White men bitching about how blacks move in next door and they don’t like their basketball-playing shorts and women complaining that All Men Oppress Them except Black Men and Men of Color who are also victims–

    either we have civil rights and we’re all equal before the law or we’re not.

    Anything else is arguing about the form of oppression you like best. Ghandi was right: You (generally) can’t fight violence with violence; it only begets more violence.

    You can’t fight discrimination with more discrimination. You need to have so many philosophically contradictory memes in your head, you inevitably trip up. The victim is always civil rights.

    Genetics is above all of this and separate from it. My interest in the two subjects is unrelated.

    In fact, I come to “racialism” (which is too simplistic a notion – my approach is based more in basic biology) from a profoundly science-neutral background.

    My political views are, largely, not informed by this. They’re independent. They pre-existed for me and haven’t changed since becoming a biologist.

    Like


  271. But believe me: you can accept the biological reality of race and view humans as animals exactly like cockroaches or mice without BEING A RACIST.

    If we follow science at all, this will be the inevitable outcome. Give it 30 years.

    Research into human genetics is going to utterly transform everything we think we understand about being human.

    Believe it.

    Like


  272. I come at this from population genetics. Stats.

    As you seem quite comfortable in your field, I’ll recall this quote by ?

    “I can prove anything by statistics except the truth.”

    Like


  273. “If we follow science at all, this will be the inevitable outcome. Give it 30 years.

    Research into human genetics is going to utterly transform everything we think we understand about being human.”

    You MUST be relatively young, Gorbachev.

    Like


  274. Abagond, I’ve thrown a lot on your blog and it was rude. I’ll address this purely to you.

    Jews

    Jews dragged themselves out of poverty almost single-handed.

    In 1920, Jews were renowned for being criminal (they dominated petty crime; prostitution, loan-sharking, theft, embezzlement); they were largely uneducated; they packed the slums of NYC like rats. They had no future.

    Almost all institutions were wholly closed to them, *even* when those institutions were (partly) open to blacks.

    The only thing that changed their fate was the 30’s and the Holocaust. We see the situation now, but don’t remember the historically catastrophic situation Jews were in in this country prior to WWII.
    – Complete segregation; often, language barriers; no education; no jobs; no access to any government services; brutal policing; justice system utterly working against them at every turn.

    Successful Jews were few and far between, usually uninterested in the local poor Jews (sound familiar?), and internationally connected.

    Jews pulled themselves up almost WHOLLY on their own. At the time, there was little government support for anyone.

    No broken homes, missing dads, school loans, welfare.

    Nothing.

    You can say what you want – but in 150 years, *American* blacks haven’t been able to muster much of anything in comparison until massive state subsidies were provided in the 60’s, and then the black middle class just ran off and let the inner city American blacks kill each other.

    The story of the American Jews is incredible. It matches the brilliance, the overwhelmingly unbelievable story of Korea post-1953: From poorest country in Asia, starting from behind the gate, occupied by a hostile power for 45 years, who denied even the existence of their nationality – to wealthy first-world country with better metrics, in most ways, than the US.

    I know there’s a huge cultural problem in black America (not shared by, say, South Africa, which has its own unique problems, or Kenya).

    How much is racial and how much cultural?

    I’ve made this point to white nationalists:

    The interplay between abject cultural failure (crime/violence rate 10x that of their white peers, grinding poverty, inability of individuals to make good choices, political betrayal by the black middle class, etc.) and possible “racial” roots is:

    1) So complex in its own right as to be hard to sort out: culture breeds genes breeds culture. It’s not either-or, or “50% one, 50% other” – it’s integrated together. It’s like interlacing your fingers. You can’t “reverse” pie-baking and get flour, eggs and sugar.

    2) Complex because the culture is so maladapted to economic success in an industrial/information economy that it’s hard to see how you can say anything when the “race” might be so depressed by culture

    But white nationalists just see race.

    With the Jews, reasons for success can be easily seen. But you’ve got to remember, in many ways, Jews were more discriminated against. Their very existence was an affront to Christians in America. Blacks were fine as docile servants and menial laborers; maybe the occasional doctor, you know, “Those People need medicine, too”, but Jews: Jews were literally disgusting.

    Everyone from African-American churches to all-white town churches railed about the Jews. Jews this, Jews that.

    Jews forget it now, but of anti-semitic countries, in 1930, the US was near the top of the list. The US was terrifyingly pro-Anti-Semitic, if not pro-Nazi.

    The Jews bettered themselves.

    Why not black Americans?

    Koreans come here and Indians come here (dark skin). They *ALSO* do very, very well.

    From the get-go. Often with nothing.

    Asian communities do well; the Vietnamese have clawed their way up.

    Hispanic immigrants with nothing outperform blacks within 5 years of arrival; by 20 it’s off the scale.

    You tell me what’s going on. There’s no way racism is playing favorites *that perfectly*.

    Korean friends point to it hard. They notice it. I tell this to white nationalists and racists:

    It’s cultural.

    As my Korean friends always said, the attitude is completely, absolutely wrong and backwards. They succeed everywhere they go. It’s frightening. Their kids always profoundly outperform their parents; the third generation again. They’ll be running the country shortly.

    Africans tell me this. American black culture seems obsessed with its own destruction. Africans don’t, by and large, identify with this. In fact, the Africans I knew in Africa had more in common with my New England small-town work-hard focus-on-education culture than they do with American black culture.

    So before we obsess about race and IQ, and all of this other crap, I need to say: we can’t successfully talk about it in the US in biological terms because the culture so fully sabotages success. How can we isolate genes in this mess?

    But genes likely do play *some* factor.

    The 1.5-2 StDV difference in IQ I don’t buy. It’s waay too much. I see no evidence for that.

    A difference of .5 would be enough to account for the lack of equivalent numbers of high-performers in the extreme right tail (nuclear physicists, etc.). Also, it could account for a good portion of the economic stagnation.

    It would also mean that, by absolute numbers, almost all of the American black population would be well within the norm for either Asians or Whites.

    A lower overall IQ would be meaningless.

    The tail end on the left would be occupied by proportionally more blacks (or whites with the same gene sets- all that interbreeding), but this needn’t make any policy differences.

    Ultimately, when a guy comes in to your office looking for a job, it wouldn’t change the equation: You evaluate him as an individual.

    My sister married an extremely well-educated, well-spoken, funny, charming black man; he’s made an outstanding father to their two daughters. My parents were worried, and now love the man and the kids to death. My mother told my sister she was insanely lucky to have such a devoted husband. He’s gold-plated gold. He’s a true mensch.

    Brotha from the Hood might not have been such a good choice.

    I liked my BIL from the start. We have lots in common, except music and the fact that I’m better with women than he is.

    But his family is essentially divorced from the realities of poor black America, in a way that middle-class white people aren’t divorced from poor white America. They live in what’s literally a different world. Downtown Philly might as well be Zimbabwe for all the connection they feel to it.

    I work in media (left academia, but still avidly follow it; I have a dozen journal subscriptions, and read many more online). I work with lots of people like this. Comfortable, middle-class, black. They like AA, because it’s a huge benefit to them. How much real racism – getting the crap beaten out of them by cops, etc. – I don’t know if they experience.

    They bristle at the idea that there’s anything to race.

    I guarantee you this:

    Lower-class blacks don’t bristle nearly as much.

    Like


  275. on Thu 24 Mar 2011 at 21:16:35 Chuckwiththehippo

    The Cynic,

    Anyways, you forgot to ask me how I derived a 77 IQ for SS.Africans. Here’s how:

    A. Using Wicherts (2009/2010) IQ data, we have:

    1. Wicherts et al, 2009. A systematic literature review of the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans

    All samples 42, N= 14,125 IQ=77.1
    Wicherts 12, N= 2544, (n-weighted) IQ = 82.6

    2. Wicherts et al, 2010. Another failure to replicate Lynn’s estimate of the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans

    Wicherts 10, N= 7861, (n-weighted) IQ = 75.1

    3. Wicherts, et al., 2009. Raven’s test performance of sub-Saharan Africans: Average performance, psychometric properties, and the Flynn Effect

    Raven’s standard:
    Wicherts, k=40 sample, N= 15408, (n-weighted) IQ = 78.4

    Raven’s colored:
    Wicherts, K=16,N=5466,IQ=75.5
    ……………..
    Total: Wicherts, K=78,N=30791,IQ=77.3

    A. Averaging the student achievement tests across methodology

    Wicherts 82
    Lynn + Rindermann 72
    Average: 77
    …………………………………………………
    So the data converges on 77. But this isn’t the end of the story. Wicherts (2009) found an African SD of ~13. Like the African American SD, this is lower than the European/European American SD of 15. The average African-European SD then is 14. Making the difference one of 1.6 SDs (23/14). But this isn’t the end of the story. What matter is IQ (g) not IQ. Wicherts (2009) found that the African score on Raven’s has a g-loading of ~.30; as compared to the typical post-industrialized world g-loading of .60. Based on that, let’s assume that IQ unreliably measures g in African. After correcting the difference by half (which is basically the same as correcting for the Flynn effect assuming it went at half pace in Africa — see my reasoning above), we get a .8 IQ (g) SD gap. Now that IQ (g) gap could be partially environmental — but then Wicherts’ selection criteria controls somewhat for g-affecting environment (A point Wicherts et al. don’t go out of their way to make.) Nonetheless, let’s assume that environment accounts for some of that biological gap, say 1/3. We get a non-environmental IQ (g) gap of .53 after generously adjusting. I’d find it incredible if the averaged West SS African -European genotypic gap was less than that.

    Like


  276. Here’s something that will really offend you.

    Saying and insisting that “RACE IS BIOLOGICALLY MEANINGLESS” is absolutely a *class affectation* by a solidly middle-class intelligentsia occupying an ideological front in a war of perceptions.

    It actually has nothing to do with whether or not race is biologically meaningful or whether it can be identified.

    It’s important for this to be true because if we’re not blank slates – if we do come powerfully programmed, in patterns discernable by population genetics, then it says a lot of things about people. We’re not “perfectable” in a socio-cultural sense. Social and cultural policies may not have the influence we expect. And things like IQ might hamper the advancement of some groups (who knows, “Blacks” are likely not the only such group).

    So it’s crucial for people who read Gould and Lewontin and others for it to be true.

    Just as it’s crucial for white racists that blacks be inferior or more criminal.

    When people need to believe something *so badly* to shore up an a-priori philosophical stance, I question the need to believe it.

    Contrary to what Sam thinks, I arrive at admitting the likely existence of “race” from wholly biological sources. My personal ideology doesn’t mesh well with it. I sacrifice my personal ideology rather than what I get from science.

    Like


  277. @chuckwiththehippo,

    This is straightforward. It’s the same measure you get elsewhere.

    The problem is that unless you get a result of no statistical difference, critics will always simple dismiss the original data and ignore the statistical argument. Because there has to be some reason that it’s not true.

    This, despite the fact that it’s entirely reasonable for this to be the case, speaking in evolutionary terms, and no trait, presumably including things like IQ, have even distributions across such disparate breeding populations over time.

    But to convince people who have an ideological stake in one or the other item being true, we need stronger, cross-culturally correlated data.

    But the statistical analysis is solid. In fact, I suspect it accounts for extraneous factors.

    People who don’t do stats don’t realize how powerful stats are – they just dismiss it and say “You can really lie with stats.”

    That just means – they don’t understand the statistical methods or arguments.

    As a point of note, liberal/anti-racist psychologists have stopped saying “race doesn’t exist”. They *can* understand the stats, and for years, they’ve been seeking out other reasons the research is flawed–

    because the stats and the arguments based on them are good.

    At some point, people are going to have to come to terms with this.

    One way or another.

    Like


  278. Gorbachev,

    they packed the slums of NYC like rats

    Please don’t compare my people to rats. You sound like a N*zi.

    Also, Saying and insisting that “RACE IS BIOLOGICALLY MEANINGLESS” is absolutely a *class affectation* by a solidly middle-class intelligentsia occupying an ideological front in a war of perceptions.

    You blame politics for skewing science because the science disagrees with your opinion. You’re a text-book case of scientific racism. The ISAR would have a field day with you.

    And Chuck,

    Please, keep copy-pasting, because we know ergonomics gives you such a thorough knowledge of chairs genetics.

    Like


  279. @Zek,

    they packed the slums of NYC like rats

    Please don’t compare my people to rats. You sound like a N*zi.

    heh. it was deliberate, of course. Nazis viewed Jews as rats. So did most other people.

    MY ex-wife was a scholar of 19th-20th century Jewish history. I’m familiar, shall we say.

    Also, Saying and insisting that “RACE IS BIOLOGICALLY MEANINGLESS” is absolutely a *class affectation* by a solidly middle-class intelligentsia occupying an ideological front in a war of perceptions.

    You blame politics for skewing science because the science disagrees with your opinion. You’re a text-book case of scientific racism. The ISAR would have a field day with you.

    Dude — It’s not my opinion. I think I’ve established that.

    Let’s let the ISAR have at me.

    If they have a problem with me, hah – they’d have to shut down most genetics programs at most schools.

    You have no idea what the current knowledge of the human genome really is.

    Be strong in your ignorance.

    Like


  280. on Thu 24 Mar 2011 at 22:26:16 Chuckwiththehippo

    Gorbachev.

    The within population broad heritability of IQ (g) (in post-Industrialized nations) increases with age. By adulthood, it’s .8. [1] People seem to miss this point, which seems to lead to much confusion. Heritability, or variance due to genes, can be decomposed into: additive variance, dominance variance, epistatic variance, and assortive mating variance. Technically, only additive variance (ie. narrow heritability) is hereditarian.

    [1] See for example this massive study: Haworth, 2009. The heritability of general cognitive ability increases linearly from childhood to young adulthood

    The heritability of other behavior traits varies. I’d tell zek j evets to read up on the research in behavior genetics (and take note of the first law), but I’ve given up on that:

    http://www.psychologicalscience.org/newsresearch/publications/journals/currdir/cd9_5_5.pdf

    As for your other comments, I generally agree. The funny thing about racialists and antiracists is that they’re inverses. They both desperately want to preserve races from genetic variance. Racialists are fearful of particular racial populations mixing and antiracists are fearful of the larger human race having different subpopulations. Neither seem to get it. Genetic engineering will inevitable lead to unprecedented human genetic diversity.

    Like


  281. @gorba: Funny how you have married or have been dating or have done something with women of every ethnic group that comes up from USA to all over Africa😀 It’s gettin seriously funny, dude. One would think that all that mixing and travelling would have some impact on you, but nada. It is hilarious😀

    And zek is absolutely right: your opinions are political, not scientific. They are all about politics.😀

    Just for the sake of it: since you claim to be superior expert on human genes here, could you reveal your identity so we could veryfy your academic and scientific merits??😀

    What? You don’t feel like it?😀

    Well, then I must assume that you are just one of the net creeps who knows enough to put some fog into issues but who has no real substance, meaning you are not what you claim to be. Just like that “professor” Hall guy, who, by the way, does not hide behind pseudoscintific veil when it comes to racism. You do.😀 I have no idea why.

    Like


  282. ***Chuck,

    Please, keep copy-pasting, because we know ergonomics gives you such a thorough knowledge of chairs genetics.***

    Zek,

    These sneering comments don’t help your argument. Also, if you insist on giving greater weight to those with a background in genetics, it seems you’ll have to defer to Gorbachev.

    Like


  283. @schwartz: “Also, if you insist on giving greater weight to those with a background in genetics, it seems you’ll have to defer to Gorbachev.” Why? I don’t think gorba is no more expert on this field than zek. He just pretends to be.😀

    Like


  284. Really? Who made that ruling?

    Either Thulsa Doom or Dotar Sojat if I recall correctly.

    Hahahahahahahahahaaha!

    I heartily concur!

    Like


  285. @ Sam,

    Whether he is or not, people should focus on the arguments not “you build chairs, Nah Nah Nah”.

    Like


  286. Gorbachev is either the ex President of the Soviet Union, or he is an anonymous voice on the internet.

    It has not been established that either Zek or Gorbachev are who they claim to be.

    The difference however, is that zek:

    1) Uses a full name
    2) Posts a photo
    3) links to a personal blog, using the same name and photo

    If you put “zek j evets” into Google, the search shows a pattern of consistency with his presented identity here.

    http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=gsis&xhr=t&q=zek+j+evets&cp=11&pf=p&sclient=psy&site=&source=hp&aq=0&aqi=&aql=f&oq=zek+j+evets&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=3d41c23107087b73

    If you put in Gorbachev you get a bald guy with a wine stain on his forehead.

    Like


  287. Schwartz,

    Call me immature, but I make sneering arguments because racists disgust me personally.

    Seriously, the guy has a degree in building chairs! Even Gorbachev is more respectable than Chuck. At least he studied it before he got it all wrong.

    Like


  288. @ Herneith

    So, you will join me in ‘The Laugh of Scorn?’

    Like


  289. Zek you’re killing me on here in the last couple days😉 keep it up!

    Like


  290. King,

    I’m so flattered you cyberstalked me ; )

    But yes, I am actually an anthropologist. I specialize in folklore, but my studies cover bio-anthro (hence my background in it) as they pertain to racist mythology. Basically, how people create meta-narratives through everything from science to pop culture in order to justify their prejudice. This is especially obvious in this discussion when you notice that scientific claims match coincidentally with racist stereotypes…

    I wish I could ya’ll more reliable credentials, but I’m not down with being stalked in real-life, ya dig?

    Like


  291. ***Gorbachev is either the ex President of the Soviet Union, or he is an anonymous voice on the internet.***

    @ King,

    Sure, which is usually the case when discussing things on the internet. That’s why it is best to focus on what people actually say. Getting personal usually detracts from an argument.

    Like


  292. on Thu 24 Mar 2011 at 23:44:12 Chuckwiththehippo

    edit:

    Rindermann and Ceci, 2009. Educational Policy and Cognitive Competences

    Zimbabwe 73
    Nigeria 75
    Botswana 75

    Rindermann et al., 2009. The impact of smart fractions, cognitive ability of politicians and average competence of peoples on social development

    Ghana 61
    Botswana 73
    South Africa 63

    Rindermann, 2007. The g-Factor of International Cognitive Ability Comparisons: The Homogeneity of Results in PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS and IQ-Tests Across Nations

    Botswana 73
    South Africa 66
    Nigeria 75

    Average: 70
    …………
    Rindermanm et al, average 70 .
    Lynn and Meisenberg average 72
    Wicherts et al average 82

    Averaged across 3 sources and three methodologies: 75.
    Maybe an average African national IQ of 75 is closer to reality.

    Like


  293. @Chuckwiththehippo,

    Great article. I remember reading it.

    The first section is all these people need to read. it’s not even about race.

    The nature-nurture debate’s been over for two decades; and the results weren’t what racial absolutists or race-deniers will like.

    Like


  294. @ zek… I did.

    But then, you made it too easy.

    @ Schwartz

    Zek has mentioned his vocation vis-a-vis his demonstrated familiarity with the subject presented. But at least he goes some of the way in verifying an identity.

    Gorbachev, on the other hand, could be anyone. Background, education, and vocation does carry some weight in regard to how an opinion is weighed.

    It’s the difference in me listening to your opinion or that of an MD when it comes to my ear infection.

    Like


  295. Sam,

    I’m an anonymous internet voice. That’s fine.

    If you’d like to be educated on exactly how wrong you are, I can give you a few technical bibliographies to sort through. There are literally tens of thousands of papers on subjects that address this, and for geneticists, the data has been in for decades:

    The nature-nurture debate is finished. Done.

    The feel-good biology Zek is wedded to was completely discredited – or rendered irrelevant – long ago.

    Geneticists talk about this in non-racial terms, but the results are the same.

    And I use two dummy accounts and an IP mask or three to make sure nothing gets traced back to me: I have a nice job in a liberal media company to lose. I’m supposed to have Official Opinions that, for reasons of science, I can’t.

    Zek is in cultural anthropology, a discipline riddled with ideological Must Believes.

    Go have some frank discussions with geneticists and population biologists. Ask the *right* questions, and look for the answers that you’d like censored.

    It’ll be when the current crop of indoctrinated social scientists retires that the science of human genetics and biology overwhelms their faculties. It takes that long.

    I swear, that stock phrase, hearing “Race has no biological meaning” is exactly the same as hearing “But Gravity is just a theory!” from creationists.

    Liberal creationism is the same as White Nationalist creationism – at least Chuck gets this.

    Like


  296. @King,

    Gorbachev, on the other hand, could be anyone. Background, education, and vocation does carry some weight in regard to how an opinion is weighed.

    Extremely weak. Never accept arguments from authority.

    I have a master’s in population genetics and evolutionary theory. I studied at a large Ivy. My research focus was none of your business– being identified on the Internet under this handle would be devastating.

    It’s been a couple of years. but you don’t have to even believe me.

    My advice:

    START reading some technical journals or get a current technical education in stats and genetics.

    Don’t read convenient interpretations written by anyone not in the field; don’t read anything by social anthropologists.

    Stick to experimental psychology if you go to psychology.

    Stick to the hardest of the human sciences – not the softest.

    The hard scientists don’t give a flying fig about the social consequences of their work; neither should they.

    Social scientists are always self-censoring.

    Like


  297. The nature-nurture debate is finished.

    Then why are you still fighting the good fight to change the results? It’s both nature and nurture. Why do you want it to be nature so badly?

    Zek is in cultural anthropology

    Correction! I am in anthropology. Not cultural, not bio, not archaeology. Just plain anthropology. I’m not qualified to be a specialist in a sub-field, yet. But I do get to be pretty darn good at all of those fields in general ; )

    However, it’s sad you think all geneticists are as racist as you. But at least you have the good sense not to let your job know. Because there are literally decades of research from multiple fields by people smarter than you or I will ever be that say you’re wrong =/

    Also, this: It’ll be when the current crop of indoctrinated social scientists retires that the science of human genetics and biology overwhelms their faculties. It takes that long.

    Is highly suspect. Basically you’re saying everyone really believes this stuff, when the reality is… they don’t. And not just geneticists, but pretty much every respected (and even the unknown) member of the soft & hard science fields.

    Just give up Gorbachev, and go back to your day job at a liberal media company. You’re not even in the field anymore.

    Like


  298. @zek

    The nature-nurture debate is finished.

    Then why are you still fighting the good fight to change the results? It’s both nature and nurture. Why do you want it to be nature so badly?

    I don’t want it to be nature; it’s not “nature” in the deterministic sense that you imagine it to be, clearly.

    This isn’t about what i want or need to prove to you; you reiterate statements like “Race is biologically meaningless” like mantras, but don’t know what this actually means.

    Human population genetics just rushed on by long ago.

    Don’t take my word for it. Go out and speak to professionals in the field; someone working in, say, population bio in a big college.

    If you know what the tag phrases are, you’re going to get this: they haven’t believed that races were nonexistent ever; that was just a subset of people like Lewontin; and there’s now growing evidence.

    Believe what you like. If you want a bibliography or reading list, I’m happy to provide one.

    For the laymen reading, start with The Blank Slate.

    Zek is in cultural anthropology

    Correction! I am in anthropology. Not cultural, not bio, not archaeology. Just plain anthropology. I’m not qualified to be a specialist in a sub-field, yet. But I do get to be pretty darn good at all of those fields in general ; )

    Really, … my experience was that such mushy middles meant people ended up with a taste of the surface of many disciplines without any depth. Wrong?

    However, it’s sad you think all geneticists are as racist as you.

    Racist – as in all for discrimination?

    or believing that race is one interesting part of human diversity?

    Because you’ve got geneticists in on that one.

    But at least you have the good sense not to let your job know. Because there are literally decades of research from multiple fields by people smarter than you or I will ever be that say you’re wrong =/

    Any work on either side in this field from decades ago is worse that useless. From either side of this debate.

    Is highly suspect. Basically you’re saying everyone really believes this stuff, when the reality is… they don’t. And not just geneticists, but pretty much every respected (and even the unknown) member of the soft & hard science fields.

    They don’t believe race is a deciding factor for many issues; they do believe that race is a part of human diversity.

    D’uh.

    Just give up Gorbachev, and go back to your day job at a liberal media company. You’re not even in the field anymore.

    Geez. The experience is in no way different from discussing creationism and evolution with the very religious or the virtues of cultural accomodation with white nationalists.

    Sad, really.

    Like


  299. Gorbachev, my only argument is that what you are saying is unverifiable, and as such, the weight of your expertise is forfeit – which I think is quite reasonable.

    “Extremely weak. Never accept arguments from authority”

    Don’t be ridiculous. Who then should I accept arguments from, the non authorities??? And of course, I verify expert opinions by seeking the consensus of as many experts as I have access to.

    As to HBD, I’m afraid that I am not quite so invested in it as to make a second career of studying it. The world is full of things to look into, and to me HBD is a manifest waste of my time. You will doubtlessly think that it is my bias talking, but I do find Zek’s arguments to be more convincing than your own.

    There are simply too many things in your theory that fail the test of my reason.

    Like


  300. So, you will join me in ‘The Laugh of Scorn?’

    How about the Donkey’s laugh?:

    Like


  301. Gorby, why don’t you try making a succinct argument in non-technical terms. Use some examples and to explain what it is that you’re trying to say.

    It might be more convincing.

    Like


  302. Ha! Yes, the donkey laugh is perfect! lol!

    Like


  303. Sigh… once again.

    “In Fig. 2, we display part of the results from the study by Rindermann (2007), who correlated Lynn and Vanhanen’s estimates of national IQ with a student assessment mean score for 76 countries. This mean student assessment score was computed on the basis of the means of countries in the following surveys (cf. Rindermann, 2007): International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) Reading-Study of 1991, International Assessment of Educational Progress (IAEP)-II 1991, TIMSS 1995, TIMSS 1999, TIMSS 2003, Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2000, PISA 2003, Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) 2001. Note that some of these studies are also included in the studies we discuss below. Rindermann’s analyses included five countries in subSaharan Africa, the national IQs of which are all below the regression line in Fig. 2. As can be seen in Table 1, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, and Botswana show significant negative residuals in the prediction of national IQ from these student assessment means, although for Ghana and South Africa the residuals are non-significant.”

    As you can see Rindermann only included low IQ scoring countries between 60 and 70. I don’t see how you can say those five low scoring nations are representative of the entire region.

    http://wicherts.socsci.uva.nl/wicherts2009.pdf
    This is getting redundant…

    Like


  304. on Fri 25 Mar 2011 at 08:34:32 Chuckwiththehippo

    Sigh… once again.

    What don’t you understand. Here, I’ll make this simple:

    There are two issues. 1) IQ tests. 2) school tests. with regards to Rindermann, we are talking about the latter. With regards to the latter Wicherts et al. lists 7 countries (Mozambigue, Nigeria, Swaziland, South Africa, Botswana, Ghana, Zimbabwe); across three separate papers, Rindermann et al. lists 5 countries [Nigeria (75), South Africa (63), Botswana (73), Ghana (61), Zimbabwe (73).] Using Regression to predict scores (which is quite difference from using regression to minimize error)– Wicherts calculates an average of 82. Using direct scaling, Rindermann derives an average of 69. Both methods are valid. (Rindermann is a culturalist — who attributes most of the difference to educational infrastructure; he doesn’t have a hereditarian agenda — if that’s what you’re thinking)

    “I don’t see how you can say those five low scoring nations are representative of the entire region.”

    As opposed to the 7 scores Wicherts uses? You’re missing the point. The different methods result in a 10+ point difference. Neither method is a priori more valid. The results are odd since outside of Africa the two different methods lead to nearly the same global averages. Now, which is it? Rindermann =~69 or Wicherts = ~82? The most reasonable conclusion is that the tests support national IQs ranging between 70 and 80; given the indeterminacy, they can not reasonably be used to support a specific African IQ between those ranges.

    This leads us back to 1) IQ tests. The n-weighted average of the IQ tests that Wicherts deems acceptable, across the three cited papers, is 77. ( K=78,N=30791,IQ=77.3) Go tally them up yourself and see if you get the same number as I do. Hence my conclusion a while back:

    “If you want to hear my explanation for why I think 77 is a better average SS African IQ as assessed from IQ tests, I will detail it, once we are clear on the above matter (school assessments).”

    (77, of course, just represents the average IQ scores of Africans — not the average IQ (g) scores; a 77 leaves open the possibility of substantial differences in biological g, which leaves open the possibility of substantial differences in genotypic g, but it doesn’t do much more than that).

    Like


  305. @ chuckwiththehippo

    How do you get access to those IQ tests? A link would be appreciated. All we ever see are coarse figures.

    It would be surprising if there isn’t a trace (scans or transcipts) of each original of the individual tests, freely accessible to the public for general education purposes.

    Like


  306. @gorba:

    “I have a nice job in a liberal media company to lose.”

    WTF?? I thoughed that you said that you are an expert on genetics!😀 Now I understand you! You are frustrated white office guy. Ahhhh, Ok. Now I get where your ideas come from. Ok.

    “I swear, that stock phrase, hearing “Race has no biological meaning” is exactly the same as hearing “But Gravity is just a theory!” from creationists.”

    öööhhh… No its not. Race as a biological fact is under debate, hence your posts here, but nobpdy tries to deny the gravity. And on that note, I don’t think that evenm creationists deny gravity. I think they have issues with the evolution theory. But, maybe you are expert on this too? After all, you been in Ivy university and all, roamin around Africa, dating blacks and browns and asians, and studied judaism and its history too, studying african school kids and amrrican restless ghetto kids in real life for you experetise in that field too… Perhaps, I don’t know.

    “I have a master’s in population genetics and evolutionary theory.”

    But you for for those goddamn liberals in their leftist media company anyways? No wonder you seem to be a bit bitter. Howcome you did not continue in your field after the studies??

    Like


  307. sorry bout the typos, busy😀

    Like


  308. @Chuckwiththehippo
    “Both methods are valid.”

    No, they are not. Read the ‘Scholastic Achievement Surveys’ section again. The Lynn and Vanhanen’s studies showed that the school achievement surveys clearly correlated with their national IQ predictions. However, Wicherts et al. proved that for the Sub-Saharan African countries, this was not the case. In fact, when you take out the school achievement surveys from the SSA countries that were included you’ll notice that the correlation between Lynn & Vanhanen’s predicted national IQs and scholastic achievement surveys rises from 0.81 to 0.86. This is the case for the student assessment sum for Rindermann also. If you look at figure 2 only two out of the five SSA countries he used correlated with Lynn & V’s national IQ predictions(Ghana & South Africa). The other three SSA countries are outliers(Nigeria, Zimbabwe, & Botswana).

    I mean just look at the Lynn & Mikk(2007) correlations in figure 3. Again, you see a correlation between Lynn’s national IQ predictions & the TIMMS 2003 8th grd math scores for all of the 43 non-African countries along with South Africa and Ghana, however the residual for Botswana is significantly high. According to this particular scholastic survey the estimated national IQ is 80.5.

    In the conclusion of the ‘Scholastic Achievement Survey’ section Wichert writes, “The average predicted national IQs for Botswana, Ghana, Mozambique, Nigeria, South Africa, Swaziland, and Zimbabwe are 81.4, 70.3, 83.9, 88.3, 73.8, 90.2, and 84.6, respectively. On average, the estimated national IQs of these sub-Saharan African countries equals 81.8, which is higher than Lynn and Vanhanen’s estimates of national IQ (i.e., M=68.6). Thus, although these four studies appear to validate national IQs in other parts of the world, they do not appear to support the national IQs in sub-Saharan Africa.”(Wicherts, 2009)

    “the different methods result in a 10+ point difference.”

    The 10+ point difference can be attributed to:
    1)The extra 3 countries used in the Wichert paper
    2)Correcting for outliers that do not correlate between National IQ estimated by Lynn & Vanhanen and the school achievement test scores.

    *All the linear regression did was draw a line thru non-SSA countries to demonstrate a correlation btwn Lynn’s predicted IQ and school achievement test scores. Figures 1-4 show the raw data of the school achievement test. This demonstrates the weak correlation btwn many SSA countries(the outliers) while showing a strong correlation for the non-SSA nations.

    http://wicherts.socsci.uva.nl/wicherts2009.pdf

    Like


  309. lol @ sam

    The most absurd in all of this is the fact that those “scientists” are able to do “research” with uttermost zeal inside a mere 1% difference but don’t seem to have any constructive, not to mention groundbreaking, ideas for the 99% all humanity have in common.

    There’s so much effort needed in the research for genetically based illnesses and disorders and those “race realists” waste manpower and time on trying to prove the validity of an ideology.
    (Shaking my head.)

    Like


  310. @Abagond

    Is it possible for you to delete the first comment out of the two duplicates?
    https://abagond.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/the-average-african-iq-is-70/#comment-83347

    I so didn’t mean to type all of that in bold.

    Like


  311. Guess I was to late lol. Might it be possible for you to still delete it and let me type all over again?

    Like


  312. Done.

    Like


  313. @Abagond
    Thank you!

    @Hippo chuck
    Figure 2 in the ‘Scholastic Achievement’ section basically tells u why Rindermann’s methods are not valid. Their is a weak correlation btwn the SSA achievement scores & Lynn’s predicted IQ. Fig. 2 shows the raw data, the scores are not changed. Nigeria, Zimbabwe, & Botswana’s predicted IQs, according to Lynn, are clearly off considering their test scores provided by Rindermann’s survey.

    Like


  314. @cynic: just a word about that Vanhanen dude. He seems to be favorite of these racists, I mean race realists. He is a fellow finn, you know, and here in Finland that guy is out. I mean nobody takes him or his research seriously up here. Nobody supports him nor he has anybody in his corner in finnish academia. Everybody thinks he is senile or nut or actually both.

    His son Matti just recently avoided a court, barely, after his old political buddies saved his ass in the biggest corruption scandal of our history. Matti Vanhanen was a primeminister who lost three elections in a row. That is a track record for any PM. I guess like father, like son.😀

    Like


  315. Okay, simplified into short points for people. There’s a lot to digest, so I try to stay focused and on point. Try to get through all of it.

    Preamble:

    – I have no special marriage to blacks being dumber than anyone else. There are hordes of stupid people. Blacks are no exception. I’ve lived in China; there’s no shortage of stupid people there, either. Stupid is a gift that keeps on giving.
    – I am not, as you might suspect, a racist or white nationalist. I don’t believe in racial discrimination. I never have. I’ve seen enough of the world to know that it’s both pointless and damaging. In fact, I come from a very liberal background.
    – I don’t believe in discrimination; in AA – I don’t like the psychological effects it has on those it purports to help – and I don’t believe in segregation. This is for social reasons and is entirely unrelated to “race” for me. All thoughts about “race” come from science.
    – I do think there are differences – inherited – between races. If this makes me a “racialist”, fine, except that:
    – I also believe in inherited differences in *lineages* of organisms. a “race” is just an extended and larger lineage. Families are also lineages. So are clans and extended groups of relatives in villages. One is not different, conceptually, from another – just in matters of scale. Fundamentally, this is how all breeding groups are – segmented into smaller and smaller units, all of them more or less amorphous and subject to change, reabsorption and redefinition.
    – I arrived at this through science; my social background and political opinions are actually quite offended by the existence of “races”. My science background requires me to deal with it.

    I say this because I know people are going to dismiss everything I say by hurling the label “racist”. This is a political tactic. There *are* racist HBDers; lots of them. Many people use HBD to justify preconceived opinions.

    I am not one of them.

    I get into heated debated with them all the time. They’re abusing genetic science to shore up political opinions and promote social policy. This is an error. It’s also an error on the part of the Left to deny this science. I explain why later.

    Reality is reality. Ideology is poison.

    Background:

    – I started originally from the Gould/Lewontin position: variation *within* groups exceeds variation *between* groups. I then got several science degrees, in the subject, in evolutionary biology and population genetics. What science has learned over the 90’s and 00’s has up-ended understanding of human genetics.

    In short, Gould and Lewontin provided this:

    – 1) An ability to say “race is meaningless – biologically”. Any given trait has more variability within a group than between them.
    – 2) IQ, as an example, is obviously a complex of traits; analysis is impossible, correlation is difficult to track.

    They said this because both had ideological positions to defend and they needed to do it with science. An entire cottage industry has sprouted up on *BOTH* sides of this debate. Because of its position on the forefront of science/human understanding/social policy/ideology, anthropology jumped on this scientific position like starving men eating at a buffet.

    Anthropology is married to one view. That view is starting to look tattered. Evidence of the hard-wiring of the human brain and the end of the nature-nurture debate (it’s nature; nurture is crucial, but only for expressing what’s programmed by nature) has finished it off.

    Anthropologists refuse to surrender because genetic science filters down slowly. When I read “X gene linked to Y behavior”, I’m not even interested – yeah, yeah, of course. The public and the fuzzy social sciences haven’t absorbed this fact. But the notion beat the living tar out of “Nurture” two decades ago. Every day buries it more completely. It’s no longer a debate.

    (A layman’s resource: read Stephen Pinker’s “The Blank Slate”, and anything by Dawkins. Pinker has a unique ability to distill this. It’s no accident he’s also a linguist; his branch of science basically absorbed the whole “nature over nurture” reality first and deepest, out of necessity. He also writes well and is easy to understand. Everything else by Pinker is also hard on topic.)

    – The left needs to prove that we’re blank slates; that there are no systematic differences between groups. This then justifies fighting cultural barriers to inclusion/equal rights/economic rights/justice. Chomsky created generative grammar; he also politically had the most to lose from losing the nature-nurture debate, ironically.

    – The right needs to prove the opposite, for the opposite reason: That differences are in-born, and therefore remedying social factors won’t change anything. Therefore, leave things as they are. Also, the more extreme says: Get rid of the criminal/inferior.

    The danger for the left is similar to the danger of religious / ideological believers allying themselves with science. If you say God exists because of Y, and then Y is discarded by science, … oops.
    Also, if science later proves the opposite (which is happening), then you’ve actually handed the right-wing a cudgel with which to beat you. So: the left denies any counter-science as long as possible. But you can only do this so long.

    You an engage in shaming language and behavior, but as the science accumulates, all that happens is that you get sidelines and you’re effectively engaging in censorship. Scientists come up with euphemisms and specialized vocabulary to avoid having others understand the implications of what they’re saying.

    This is what has happened.

    My science background taught me: Gould and Lewontin were precisely wrong. Exactly wrong. Especially Lewontin, isolated and more or less disregarded by serious geneticists today. His arguments were weak originally, but now, not so much weak, as irrelevant. They backed up data before methodology and knowledge had caught up; their analysis at the time was fine, but advances in the understanding of the human genome utterly demolished their work. The right wing can rejoice. Right?

    Except: the right was also substantially wrong. Culture is crucial. Genes can hide for generations, though it’s unusual. And oddities require some ancestry; no black roots means you’re unlikely to never going to have a black-looking baby. But genes do linger in lines. And this is why races linger.

    RACES

    Here’s a barely adequate metaphor.

    Imagine a flat board. Imagine it scattered with pixels of different colors. Imagine these pixels are evenly distributed. Imagine there are 50 different colors of pixels, all scattered randomly. Lots of blues, lots of reds. These are individual traits. Each represents a genetic complex; they have complex interactions. A blue beside a red will look like a single purple pixel. A yellow beside a green will sometimes produce a yellow and green; it might produce single orange pixel. Some expressions are simple: A black pixel is always black, regardless. Others just affect other pixels: White has no presence, but alters how others work. Sometimes, a bunch of pixels come together in bizarre patterns – maybe so rarely you never get to see it, or it only happens once. It’s not always predictable, but–
    Overall statistical effects tend to be predictable. Not in the specific; but in the general, they’re extremely predictable.

    Stats lets us look for patterns.

    Lewontin was right: Intra-group variability is high. Asian people *do* get hair like Congolese; long wavy hair does sometimes appear among Malawians. It’s often – though not as often as Lewontin maintained – higher than inter-group variability for a given trait.

    However, these traits group together in statistical “clumps”. It’s not absolute – the edges are fuzzy and indistinct. But for various reasons, a bunch of traits will start to appear as a group:

    Here’s a potential list for Eskimos. I don’t know that these are all true; it’s just a theoretical example of a “Lineage” or “Race” or “Group” – call it what you want.

    – Blood type ratio distributions (say, 15% A, 35% B, 30% AB, 20% O)
    – Hair types; hair distributions around the body
    – Cranial shapes
    – Skin/fat morphology, fat distribution
    – Resistance to certain problems not found among other groups (ie, related to diet: They can eat nearly 100% meat without the ill effects I’d have; they *can’t* eat what normal Americans do without getting very unhealthy faster than people from other groups).
    – Inability to metabolize alcohol (or reduced ability)
    – Superior resource utilization on a cellular level: you get 5% more out of the food you eat
    – Attached earlobes
    Exclusions: There are no individuals with, say, great height (a consequence of some metabolic trait that assist survival in the cold); no individual has dark skin (selected against long enough for the trait to be gone); melanin has a different distribution, so that darker skin when it does rarely appear has a different structure, that doesn’t block UV, or whatever).

    NOW

    Not all members of this group will have all of these traits. Additionally, *many* people outside this group will have some, if not all, of these traits. Lewontin was right.

    We’re not talking about totally isolated breeding populations. Unless we are, in which case – all bets are off.

    But a”Race” or “Lineage” will have clusters of traits that appear together in specific ways.

    And we can observe statistical correlations. Many of these are profound. There are thousands of scientists working on finding these correlates. It’s no longer science-fiction.

    Races

    Obviously, there are races. When leftists say, “Race has no biological meaning”, they mean: the differences are insignificant. In fact, while this is true on one level, it’s also meaningless, because it’s false on different level. There *are* some differences – West Africans who can sprint are usually better than any other sprinters – and those differences, while not making Foxes on the one hand and German Shepherds on the other, are not nonexistent.

    We don’t need to be separate species or radically different breeds (like among dogs) for the differences to amount to anything.

    The fact is, we do have *some* variation. And that variation is consistent with area of origin. And this variation is consistent enough for us to be able to identify it relatively easily in physical form.

    The question is: Can these differences, inherited, be *behavioral*?

    The short answer is: Yes. You can, in fact, be born with a whole suite of behaviors. And evolutionary theory predicts that where variation and some breeding segmentation occurs, traits will, at some point, begin to systematically vary.

    This has been the revolution in behavioral genetics. This field utterly buried the notion that we’re all equal blank slates. Most mothers know this: babies are born with personalities. People suspect this.

    “Nurture” types say that Family Environments account for this. Or social class. But this is meaningless and misleading, despite its apparent reasonableness.

    Siblings share genes. The behavior that is similar might be from family culture; it could just as equally be genetic.

    Evidence suggests that it’s mostly genetic. You can rail against it as much as you want, but all studies and evidence are now pointing to this horrifying conclusion:

    In a large measure, our personalities are born the way they are. Or at least, with the tendencies they have, fleshed out to a much more limited extent than we thought by our environments.

    This is the shocking revelation. Our fears, hopes, beliefs – all of these could be influenced on profound levels by our genes. Knowing this changes the debate entirely.

    Anything that can be influenced by genes can have unequal distributions. Unequal distributions can mean: Lineages, groups and “races” can be behaviorally different – not just on a cultural level.

    On a genetic level.

    This isn’t just a potential, now. It’s a very real possibility.

    We’re born hard-coded for a shockingly detailed set of behaviors. Evidence increases daily. This includes everything from tendencies to be religious to tendencies to be violent, or to cheat at school, or to have specific fears (heights), or to like certain foods, to eat too much, to have addictive behaviors, to be lazy, to engage in risky behavior, to enjoy chocolate, to like moving fast, to be selfish, to be able to empathize with others, to be able to understand others’ emotions and thoughts, to indulge appetites, to plan for the future (sacrifice pleasure now for future gain), to fear authority – all of these things appear to have genetic correlates. You can track many of them through generations. Some of them have individual, identifying gene correlates.

    We appear to be nearly as mechanical – in a sense – as any other animal. This is a truly offensive thought to a lot of people. Science isn’t meant to be nice. It can offend. Oh well.

    Not only that, but everything from emotions to instincts can apparently be altered through the application of chemicals or hormones or other tools of manipulation.

    This started in the 50s with an analysis of language. Its basic structure and logic and the urge to use it is also hard-coded. It’s a deeply evolved instinct and it has whole brain structures devoted to it. Babies and children will create languages if left alone.

    IQ

    The standard argument: IQ is too complex to track; correlates are too confusing; it smacks of artifice. Testing is biased and rudimentary. Stupid people have brilliant kids all the time.

    Myah: They have smart kids, … sometimes. Smart people have stupid kids. But by and large, this nice notion isn’t as true as you think. Take a better look and don’t use anecdotal stories.

    Statistical methodology and data has radically improved. Specifically, the ability to correct for errors. It’s impressive. A parallel comparing 1940 to today is: the introduction of steam engines and the creation of a Ferrari race car’s engine. It can’t be understated.

    Another argument:

    IQ is a complex trait that’s hard to identify in genes.

    For the past 20 years, statistical correlation for the inheritability of non-physical traits – essentially, personality characteristics- has become apparent.

    On *this* level, the debate is over, and has been for over a decade: personality and ALL human behavior is inherited to a degree of about 30-50%, though that stat is basically meaningless – it doesn’t mean what you think it does.

    Upshot: Culture is not King.

    But – neither is it irrelevant.

    Evidence suggests that culture and genes work together. They powerfully influence each other.

    It’s like mixing flour and sugar in pie dough. Once mixed, you can’t separate them.

    Evolution acts on both *AS A GROUP*. Culture breeds genes; genes breed culture; it’s dynamic. This renders them inseparable in humans. You can trace genes, but you always have to consider what breeds them. We’re social animals.

    My research and that of tons of other people (I was replicating work done on other animals with a complex mammal) showed that:

    – Genes can spread very fast.

    RESISTANCE

    For ideological reasons, married to “equality”, the “left” needs all people to be of one race/group to justify social policies. For various reasons, this is wrong-headed: You should justify social policies based on reality and rights.

    You don’t need people to be equal to have equal rights under the law. That’s buying into right-wing and marxist ideology. They meet on this. It’s what bothers me about both.

    Basic rights accrue even to mentally disturbed and retarded people. Even they have the right to be considered as unique individuals.

    Allying yourself with a *particular* scientific view in any social policy is inherently dangerous. Have social policies because they work. Base them on observations of causes.

    Don’t be wedded to one view.

    Right-wingers take a chance, too: it MIGHT be All Nurture and No Nature. What do they say then?

    As *luck* would have it, this isn’t the case. But it makes their marriage to a sciencey-idea safer than the Left’s.

    It also allows them to abuse it. The Left shouldn’t allow that. To stop that, the left must own the truth – on its own terms.

    It can’t simply scream “LewontinGould!” and deny it. Then you leave the field to the right wing. And believe me, the “nature/nurture” debate is definitely over, even if you haven’t been informed yet.

    INHERITABILITY

    The ability to use language, the adaptations to use it (vocal chords/mouth/ears) and its basic grammar / structure are hard-wired.

    Linguists resisted this for years, despite Chomsky’s work. Why? Because it implies that we’re not blank slates. This offends the very religious and the left wing equally. The worriers were right, when they thought that this would lead to more of this “dehumanizing” science.

    But it’s not just about inheritability.

    The specific language, its expressions and potentials are ALSO LEARNED. In fact, genes and culture need each other. One is useless without the other.

    But this is more profound that you think. This is where the right wing is wrong.

    Genes and culture actually developed in tangent with the other; they literally generated each other in a dynamic process.

    Genes and culture are not separate processes in human behavior. They are self-reinforcing and mutually generating. This is key.

    It’s why it’s so hard to disentangle cultural from genetically influenced behavior. They’re intimately connected.

    The original problem was this:

    NATURE VERSUS NURTURE.

    This was dead wrong. It’s nature and nurture. Nature first.

    “Nurture proposes; Nature disposes.”

    Genes breed a certain culture. A violent population will not easily create a peaceful culture; a peaceful genetic group will not easily generate a violent culture. Of course, it’s possible.

    Once a process of change starts, you’ll get sexual selection and slowly – but surely – the actual distribution of genes will start to shift.

    But this MUST affect sexual success to make a difference. Changing social policies that have no effect (or a negative change effect) on breeding patterns will actually run against your intended motive.

    Left-led social policies that fail to take into account the genetic roots of behavior actually may be literally breeding themselves into failure. Quickly.

    SPEED OF CHANGE

    My work and the work I follow showed that a genetic complex can change a population much faster than previously imagined. Within 3-5 generations, you can completely alter the genetic profile of a group. But this can happen when really tiny selective pressures are applied. They seem to be magnified out of all proportion once local selection takes effect.

    Traits that affect sexual selection – possibly like intelligence, ability to perform sexual activities (social display: Music, art, dane, etc.) and other such things will spread at crazy speeds. All mates want sexy children. After a threshold point, this means that not following the trend – even if that trend is disadvantageous in other ways (peacock’s tail) incurs huge penalties: once it’s up to a certain percentage of the gene pool, not having the “sexy” trait dooms individuals to a diminishing presence.

    For a social animal, your environment it largely others of your own species.

    This runaway effect, along with others, is called the “red queen” effect. It can operate so fast it’s shocking. It’s old notions of evolution on steroids.

    SPECULATIONS

    Once we admit we’re just like guinea pigs, and can breed ourselves in many directions,
    It’s possible there’s a good reason why Africans might have lower IQs (abstract reasoning skills). They’re not *deficient*. Here are some:

    *
    Obligatory disease resistance. Some effect of increasing the amount of energy allocated to disease resistance in tropical areas saps energy from other aspects of development. This can’t be corrected by moving to a cold country or a place without the disease; it’s obligatory (as in, genetic; it’s not a programmed means of acquiring resistance should the body grow up in a dangerous country; the resistance is actually directly programmed as a result of long selection). This would account for non-tropical peoples having a hard time moving to and populating the tropics in any numbers. Central Africa was the “White Man’s Graveyard” – also for Arabs or blacks from other parts of Africa.

    Why?

    Central Africans had been there so long that, while they interbred with others, the requirements for disease resistance were now hard-coded. White people from France could move there, but good freaking luck staying alive.

    This remains true. Tropical peoples or those descended from them have marked abilities to withstand certain infections and diseases.

    Disease, note, is one of the most significant selective pressures. It’s why sex is so useful for animals and plants.

    Don’t underestimate the power of parasites and disease to affect the evolution – or account for the evolution – of animals.

    In this case, the lower average IQ isn’t chosen for; it’s incidental.

    There’s a lot of that with “variation” in populations. Half the time, it has nothing to do with adaptations. it’s just chance, or it doesn’t affect reproductive ability, or it’s a weird statistical anomaly. Shit happens.

    * Edge Effect

    On the edge, in a limnal ecozone, survival is difficult. Prehistoric communities on the advancing edge of biozones in Central Asia were obliged to innovate on a regular basis, for normal daily things – where to get water, being able to plan long-term, remember things and make connections, socialize differently.

    *From here*, adaptations would spread out, reaching the entire population. The same is true for adaptations radiating out from, say, South Africa. But the hot zone for certain adaptations would have been this area that was, over 100,000 years, warm, cold, warm, cold, and etc. Not just challenging: Constantly changing, often within one generation from one kind of place to another. Call it Bioshock: Enforced rapid “keeping up” evolution generates an increased ability to innovate.

    Within one generation the environment could go from abundant and game-filled to absent anything approaching food. But archaeology suggests people stayed; not all of the adaptation, give what we NOW know about how these things work, would have been cultural.

    Some work has been done on this. Central Asia during the palaeolithic appears to have been a major innovation zone; same for Europe. Lots of very specific things happened here.

    There’s one reference I can recommend: “The 10,000 year explosion” is a nice intro. There’s a lot more in journals.

    Populations further from this zone got less of these traits; some got none (ie, aborigines, though they DID get some, interestingly enough; people get around, and when they did get them, they proved their worth: the genes became universal quickly). Some would get these traits, but absent the selective pressures, they were merely cute or amusing as opposed to critical.

    * Self-domestication

    The invention of agricultural civilization radically altered the mating strategies on a local level; in a sense, the aggressive mating instinct was tamed. Nothing directed this; the change in the economy did. Populations that experienced this also had crazy increases in overall population. They swamped their neighbors completely. A place without extensive and intensive agriculture wouldn’t have experienced this.

    Given that so many behaviors are being linked to genes, and hence to the environment as well, the following conclusions can be reached:

    – whatever the reason, if IQ differences between groups are real – and there’s no reason to think this wouldn’t be the case form biology, but we should get better proof- if it’s true for sprinting ability, it should be true for the traits needed to be a nuclear physicist – then note that this can change awfully fast with the right kind of breeding selection.

    – It’s not static. Every evolutionary trend is subject to change over time as well as place. What defines a “race” in 20,000 BC may be totally different from what defines it in A.D. 2000.

    The Circus Maximus in Rome is gone, but the impression of the racetrack is still there in the streets. Rome grew up around it organically, preserving the use of space, but not the actual structure. It’s weird to see the layout of the old buildings, preserved in the distribution of the buildings built later. The track is now a road; the interior of the track is several blocks of buildings; the outside is more buildings; and the radial roads are the old entrances to the original Circus Maximum.

    In the same way, there could have been a “race” in SE Asia (The Han Chinese – who migrated in over 5000 years from the south) and another one in Europe; they would have been different from each other.

    But what MADE them different from each other might have changed.

    NOTE

    There are also other implications.

    – a “race” is just one more “lineage” – a family line is a race in smaller scales, a race a family in large scales. The concept is the same. The only difference is the size of the gene pool and what limiting factors your analysis uses.

    – “Race” may not correlate to Social Race, though it will to the extent that social race affects breeding patterns.

    – There will be sub-races all over. Get used to it. Same way with families.

    – Africans aren’t one “race”. There’s more diversity in sub-saharan Africa than the rest of the world combined. This says:

    – Africa was the origin as that’s where the most diversity is; and the rest of the world was colonized by smaller groups from Africa.

    – Genes that affect IQ, if selected for, can spread like wildfire in a population.

    – Smart Africans, like smart people everywhere, are likely to breed with each other – but if Africa really does have a lower overall IQ, an information-industrial economy will have this effect:

    – Africa will become MUCH more bifurcated than other areas: a very smart, elite high-IQ class, essentially sealed off genetically from everyone else, for social reasons. Those who are successful will be *radically* more successful, in that this will be multi-generational, and will be unlike the same effect in other places – essentially, vast blocks of people will be excluded from participation.

    IF this is true, not locally adapting social policies to deal with this predictable result will result in permanent frustration, permanent underclasses and exceptional brutality, because if you thought you’d seen elitism before, you aint’ seen nothing yet.

    However – an interesting evolutionary effect:

    Note that this will, in turn, breed lots of variation for evolution to play with. An elite hyper-selects itself out.

    Give it time, and this economic “edge zone” will presumably promote smarter people as these genes become more desirable;

    It seems like this generates stupid people, but it doesn’t. It savagely segments the population. The bifurcation will create massive selective pressure; once this exaggerates the variation (creation of people who are inherently smarter than everyone else, repeatable, entrenched), then if it continues, it will quite literally drag the average IQ up through selective breeding, presuming the smart people have babies.

    The problem is that smart people often have no babies. Stupid people have more, out of irresponsibility, lack of planning, or as insurance policies against risk.

    Genes make a difference. Promoting baby-having among the elite may be eugenic, but human life is the result of 4.5 billion years worth of “eugenics”. Ideologues beware.

    I doubt the correlation between race and IQ is as high as people think- but there’s no doubt in my mind that IQ varies by group, not necessarily race, and that personality traits and skills are also only partly cultural and that they also vary by genetic line – hence, by family, by extended family, by proximate breeding population, and hence by race.

    AMERICA

    We have Done something novel: We’ve placed disparate groups in one place (America), in large numbers, and many of them are breeding with each other.

    I’d like to point out that it’s in these situations that novel genes and genetic situations emerge. Expect major innovations and some cool effects over the next 300 years. It’s quite exciting from a human-genetic point of view. Really funky patterns are going to start to emerge.

    LAST POINT

    The left makes an ideological error.

    If blacks and Indonesians had lower IQs on average than whites and Asians, it wouldn’t diminish their complete humanity one iota.

    What happens if this is proven, and denying stats and genes becomes impossible?

    Does this mean its okay for the right wing to start sterilization procedures?

    Marrying yourself to the idea that “culture is everything” or that “IQ isn’t inheritable” or “Race doesn’t exist” is unbelievably dangerous for the left. That argument is stable only so long as those assumptions remain true.

    Look, either we have rights, or not.

    IQ doesn’t enter into it.

    And if overall IQs are higher or lower, which isn’t that hard to believe (given that height and stature vary), for any group, at any level (“race”, village, family – some families just produce autistic geniuses; others produce stupid people, most produce a little from column A, a little from column B), then–

    Who cares?

    Some guy applies for a job, you evaluate him.

    The problem is looking not for equal opportunities – it’s looking for equal results.

    Stop trying to make the results equal.

    Start trying to understand why and get that info out there – IN ITS PROPER CONTEXT.

    Don’t let the right-wing and the racists own the debate.

    Once you accept that race exists (on some level), a lot of stuff makes sense; so long as you’re very cautious about what you assume, it provides the most parsimonious explanations for some things.

    In concert with culture. Together.

    That said, things can change. And fast.

    White people can breed stupid as fast as you can blink, too.

    Like


  316. I meant
    ““Nature proposes; Nurture disposes.””

    Like


  317. Now to bury myself in controversy.

    Preface: This is not a white/black issue. It’s not even racial. It IS about inherited tendencies, however. And it’s explosive.

    One issue that’s hit people huge is rape. I address this because rape is the single biggest issue, dwarfing IQ, that can have genetic causes.

    In fact, because it hits hard at breeding, rape as a sexual strategy is enormous. It’s the elephant in the room. If any offensive behavior CAN be genetic, man, this one can. It’s the King Bad Boy of probably inheritable behaviors.

    Why? It impacts sexual reproduction immediately and directly. It’s offensive, but it’s a successful breeding strategy in certain circumstances. And have no doubt: it isn’t about Power and the Patriarchy. It’s about sex and instincts.

    The crime rate and rate of sexual assault is one thing that will be strongly influenced by both environment AND by genes: Especially the tendency to rape women. As disgusting as this sounds, that’s a behavior that massively impacts reproductive success. It will be the first offensive behavior to be genetically transmitted.

    All males will have this programmed into them, as a viable strategy to use in a few limited circumstances. If the male has no access to what *he* perceives as high-quality females, certain obviously inherited behaviors will start to be triggered. More risky liasons; not worrying about offending male relatives; cajoling or pushing females; and when opportunities arise, taking advantage in breaks in social security (father is away, strange tribe, have sex whether agreed to or not; cost is low).

    Men and women pass these genes on. They’re (in general) as advantageous to women as men. We have the same genes: females want successfully breeding sons and grandsons.

    A woman isn’t fundamentally genetically interested in other women or their fates. She’s invested heavily in the genetic future of her own offspring. She needs to pass on Sexy Girl and Sexy Boy genes; and if rape works some of the time, and she’s inherited these genes, it’s to her advantage to pass them on, too.

    All males have this programmed. It’s not a “rape gene” – but it’s part and parcel of a basket of reproductive strategies each individual has.

    Women experience the counterside to this. They like to be dominated (generally); Alpha Male attraction; and then the incredible prevalence of “rape fantasies” that women have – married to the Alpha Male fantasy; “I want Alpha Sperm, a man who successfully breaks rules to give it to me will give me strong sons; I therefore find that sexy” – is testament to the prevalence of this as an alternative mating strategy among males and females for as long as we’ve been hominids.

    It’s disgusting. But it’s also obvious, and no biologist will deny it. As offensive as it is, being honest about this social problem is really damned important. Evolution programmed us to be successful breeders – not to be fair, just, nice, or kind, except as these things helped breeding. If being a bastard – or letting yourself get impregnated by one – worked from time to time, then so be it.

    Your genes don’t share your ideology. Neither does evolution. In fact, people are just tools for genes to replicate themselves.

    IQ is one thing. It can affect reproductive success.

    Same for display abilities – music, art, etc. Sure, they could be genetic.

    But this terrifying complex of behaviors that leads to rape – that’s deep. And hard to govern. It’s one part of male mating behavior. It’s cross-cultural, cross-time, cross-species, for that matter.

    Change

    In agricultural societies, like West Africa or Egypt or Celtic Europe, random rapes are socially disastrous – the offender could be killed. Not a good strategy. Unless the woman is isolated (traveling?), alone, her male relatives are dead or gone, there are no other females to hear about it, etc. Then all bets are off.

    But take away social constraints, and BAM – many groups of males become amazingly dangerous. Life is cheap; genetic survival is everything. Death lurks around every corner. It’s all about continuing those genes. Nothing else is relevant.

    Rapists aren’t even conscious about this, apparently. Evolution just favors traits that continue – by whatever means.

    One thing feminists blanche at, and leftists in general, is this: anything that so profoundly affects reproductive success, even on a 1-4% basis (and that’s where rape comes in), will become huge. Massive. And hard to deny.

    IQ is nothing. Other behaviors are nothing. Who cares.

    The incidence of stranger-rape shows hard, clear, and stark evidence of being transmitted through lines; the transmission is stronger than for other types of criminal behavior; it’s linked to specific kinds of genes (a whole range of them); and it comes in many forms.

    And here’s where the right-wing has its best ammunition. It’s terrifying for someone with a liberal mind. Should the right ever get its hands on this kind of science, public debate on this issue will be, excuse my language, completely fucked.

    Repeatedly, scientists are identifying correlates for “risk to assault women”. It’s not widely spoken about. But as evolution would suggest, something like this – no matter how disturbing – has got to be hard-wired in lots of men. There’s no way or debate about it. If any trait is, this one has to be. It literally makes babies for some men. That is profound.

    And aborting male fetuses but not females doesn’t help. A *daughter* can just as easily pass on such genes. Your genes are Human – there’s no “essentialist” Male or Female. Even the X chromosome is shared by men. Only the Y is different, and it barely codes for anything.

    Women pass on these genes to their daughters and granddaughters as part of the overall reproductive strategy of their offspring.

    But one thing can affect this: CULTURE, over TIME.

    Remember that feedback loop between culture and genes?

    Self-domestication: males that (unsuccessfully) would be weeded out, over time; such an ancient program can’t be erasedby 10,000 years of agricultural society breeding it out, but it can be dampened and controlled and limited. Restricted. Female prefer it less (when they tolerate it at all or are stimulated by it); males engage in less risky behavior, to avoid social costs. Eventually, the culture breeds the people breeds the culture.

    Basically, living in large units, subject to authority, enforced social harmony, social rules – these things will tend to breed out crazy bastards and wild women.

    REMEMBER

    These traits are not gone: Stable society just needs to fail for 1-2 generations for the UTILITY of Nasty Bastard genes to come rushing back.

    One war – two wars in short succession – relaxation of Pro-Harmony Selective pressure – and WHAM
    you go from 1-3 % of men carrying these genes to 10-15% of men carrying these genes. Should chaos continue (which these men might be helping), that could rise to even 30-50%.

    Note that it’ll be hard to separate out culture: the genes breed the culture and make it stronger; vice-versa.

    But, of all behaviors, this will be very genetic. It has to be. Not just a human universal: it’s such a basic reproductive strategy, there will be lots of variation, and so, lots of variation for selection to play with.

    See? IQ is nothing. *N*O*T*H*I*N*G.

    There’s nothing biologically controversial about this. It repulses normal people, but it’s intellectually fascinating.

    And here’s my point, one that women need to pay close attention to:

    The incidence of forcible-rape in societies that were not traditionally agricultural is *MUCH* higher. Not a little – usually, on the order of 10x.

    The incidence of forcible-rape in societies that have experienced multiple generations of open warfare/conflict are MUCH HIGHER than any others, EVEN WHEN INDIVIDUALS ARE REMOVED FROM THE CULTURE (and, say, adopted).

    Children of rape may indeed be more inclined to rape, or, if female, produce sons that rape. And have other effects.

    In agricultural societies not in chaos, where social rules are in force, random stranger-rape is nearly unheard of. This does not strongly correlate with culture. It correlates with TIME of HAVING BEEN AGRICULTURAL.

    It’s terrifying, for its implications. You want an issue for the right-wing to call home about? This is truly the Bad Boy waiting for a platform.

    In parts of Africa (East: Agriculture), many East Africans pointed this out to me. “Oh, we don’t rape women. We’re not like X or Y”. This is partly cultural: Remember, culture breeds genes breeds culture.

    Among people who were traditionally Herders or marginal Hunter/Gatherers (ie, places of low abundance; not the Amazon: The Eskimo in the Arctic, the Indians of northern North America but notCentral America (Agriculture) or, say, the Six Nations (agriculture, highly articulated political structures), or among Central Asian herders but NOT city-dwellers (near-total segregation for centuries in some areas) – stranger rape is about 10x more common.

    The lack of a central polity and a need to regulate male sexuality (agricultural economies) seems to breed that nasty rape complex.

    The tragic reproductive logic is obvious. It’s devastating. And compelling.

    Among West Africans, it’s about half that: 5x.West Africa had agriculture for only half the time other places had it. It also had huge portions of people outside settled cities/centers; it was the Near East at 2000 BC, N. Europe at AD 200 (Celts were famous for their, um, forceful sexual relations – being ravaged by a “suitable” one was a major Roman female fantasy, widely lamented by nationalist Roman men), or Europe again in about AD 1100.

    Slavery won’t have helped. In fact, it likely made it worse. Remember: Rapists among slave-owners spread genes to the offspring, whether freed or not.

    Slavery is bad for this gene. It ends up in the descendants of slaves *and* the descendants of free people. Uncoincidentally, ancient authors noted that slave populations were famous for being sexually rapacious and “degenerate” – meaning not that they were effeminate, but that they were dangerous to leave young women around, and that the females were much more sexually active and at an earlier age.

    Controversial? Yes. But classical authors noted it, Medieval authors commented on it (the tendency of sexually promiscuous/precocious women to have daughters were the same – even if they were brought up elsewhere; the tendency of voraciously sexual males to have similar sons, even when brought up elsewhere. Throw rape in there somewhere, it’ll add to the mix).

    Note that this is not fundamentally a racial issue. In a specific place and time, it may correlate with some idea of “race” or some social class or whatever – but it’s a human universal and it this process can emerge anywhere, at any time. Tribes in new Guinea; medieval Scottish towns outside the law; Khazakh rape gangs pillaging Eastern Europe for a hundred years; Japanese soldiers on the rampage in Asia, had it lasted for more than 10 years; anywhere.

    It’s always lurking in the background, and when you give bastards the chance to marginally increase the amount of spawn they produce, it can add up fast.

    South Africa’s apartheid regime regulated blacks for white convenience. It left the townships to get by basically on their own, without effective social censure or police control. People were allowed to create what internal order they felt like, by and large; so long as whites were left alone. In other words, they were treated like cattle, or animals.

    Today, after five generations of this, South Africa has the highest incidence of violent rape and stranger rape on Earth – in fact, in recorded peacetime history. Fully 25% of women have reported being raped. This isn’t date rape or random drunken fumbling that you can debate is somewhat different: This is full-on, hard, forced rape by another man, often who you just met; a lot of it is RANDOM ASSAULT rape, which is rare almost everywhere else (including other parts of Africa). Equivalent rates elsewhere are vanishingly small – .04% in most places, despite rhetoric.

    And of that 25%, until a few years ago, pregnancies resulting from rape came to term, by and large. Daughters or sons, those are genes that get passed on.

    You can put it down to the culture, blame it on whoever you want –

    But in that mess, with something as viably reproductive as rape (assuming the women weren’t getting abortions – which I’ve read separately was the case), then you’re going to have a hard time justifying this as being purely cultural.

    A lot of people have speculated privately about this. The stats in some parts of the world – with similar conditions, and *across races* – are too suggestive.

    There’s nothing that shows the animal in all humans and populations of humans more effectively than anything related to sex.

    Given that the incidence of rape in the American black community is many times that of the white community, this is worrying (the incarceration rate is 10x, which may just indicate conviction rates, of course, but it’s worrying nonetheless; also the public culture of poor black America is, shall we say, not rape-aversive).

    Regardless of how this applies, just imagine in an off day how some White Nationalists are going to take this and add it to (historically totally unjustified) stereotypes of black men and then go to town.

    I guarantee you:

    You think the debate on IQ is ugly?

    Holy crap.

    A lot of work has been quietly done on this.

    Any solutions?

    On this score, we’re not talking about the absence of Nobel prize winners. We’re talking major issues of governance and crime and security.

    You ain’t seen nothing yet.

    Like


  318. ***Start trying to understand why and get that info out there – IN ITS PROPER CONTEXT.***

    I think Peter Singer had a go at this with his book ‘A Darwinian Left’.

    Like


  319. Out of curiosity, does anyone bother to read those comments that look like short novels?

    Like


  320. I do, they’re really interesting.

    Like


  321. @gorba:

    “The ability to use language, the adaptations to use it (vocal chords/mouth/ears) and its basic grammar / structure are hard-wired.”

    Boy you are spaced out, man! Almost every single living animal have those! And that proves that there are separate human races?? No.

    Genetic raping? Man, get yourself in therapy. You have some serious issues with yourself.

    You are juts repeating youself. You claim that debate was over more than 20 yrs ago and yet, here you are, still debating. Also, you came out claiming that it is all about the genes and now you say it is about genes and nurture…

    “West Africa had agriculture for only half the time other places had it.”

    Wrong again. The oldest clay ware that has been discovered come from western Africa, my friend. They were found recently and dated some 12 000 years ago. So, there goes you nice theory there…

    But seriously, when a grown man ( and I assume you are one) is serious about such things that genes command us and settle our destiny and raping is hard wired genetically, and there are separate races of humans, I am getting a bit worried. Why? Because what this guy is basically saying is this:

    “There are different races and blacks are not the same kind of humanbeings as we are and they have a rape gene in them and there is nothing we can do about it because it is in the genes.”

    Perhaps you think you are not saying these things, maybe you don’t mean to say them, but they are what you are trying to sell here. And the real question remains the same: why?

    Why it is so important for you to prove that there are different human races and that we are genetically hard wired to rape if we are black africans?

    By the way, now you are telling us that you have lived in China when last time you had lived in Africa…

    Like


  322. Just to clarify myself here:

    The biological concept of race is essential for racism. Without it, there is no bases for racism other than some crack pot political idea and that can be dismissed easily.

    That is why some, like gorba here, are convinced that there must be separate humanraces biologically. That is the core of their beliefs. They must have a scientific evidence for their race based ideas because deep down they know that without such, nobody takes them seriously.

    And that is the point here: when overwhelming majority of science and science community is saying that there is only one humanrace left on this planet, these guys are arguing that there are many. Why?

    Because without separate races there is no foundation for racism. So there must be separate humanraces.

    Genetics and genes are the new path for them to go at it. From there they cherry pick stuff, use pseudo scientific language, pick suitable bits and pieces from studies and research to give out the impression that it is truly so. Hence, we have a guy like gorba here, who tells us that he has no political motivation, that he is just looking at this “purely from scientific point”, and yet he promotes the very basic idea of racism.

    Being a smart guy, he tries to shut down discussion of his own motives by claiming that he is not a racist, despite the fact that he is telling us that there are separate races and that science proves it, and some blacks have rape genes because they had no agriculture.

    He tries to shield from critisim by saying that there must be some sort of social support system for “retarded” and poor blacks, and yet, he says that they are there because of the genes. Poor blacks and the retarted are the same, lower spieces, because of the biology. So eventually, we can only help them a bit to stay alive but that is all. There is no way to improve their lot because they are genetically lower than the more superior spieces.

    He also claims that he has no political agenda and that he is equally against the left and the right, and yet, he is very much annoyed by the imaginary Left, what ever that is, because they want everybody to be equal. Well, UN and US constitution says we are all equal. Are they part of that “Left” too?

    In gorbas mind, and in the minds of others like him, equality means as in the Same, which it does not. They tell us that this mysterious Left (which includes all and everyone who does not agree with them) and the very idea of equality wants us to be similar, with no idividuality (which equality does not mean). In translation: what really bugs him is the very idea that humanbeings are equal.

    Since he wants that there are separate human races and wants to deny that we are equal, he has an agenda based on separate races and classes of humans. Why? Well, because in that case it is okay to have subhumans and lower classes. Usually they include the poor who are also separate race. And because all this is hard wired somehow in our genes, we do not have to worry about any of this stuff. It is biological.

    And because of all that, he is truly a racist.

    And sorry for this another ramble again. Hope that abagond and the rest of you have the patience. But sometimes I just have to write much. Maybe that is in my genes?

    By the way, I really scored low in the IQ test, much lower than 70.😀

    Like


  323. @Sam,

    With all due respect, I think you didn’t understand anything I wrote. Please read again.

    @gorba:

    “The ability to use language, the adaptations to use it (vocal chords/mouth/ears) and its basic grammar / structure are hard-wired.”

    Boy you are spaced out, man! Almost every single living animal have those! And that proves that there are separate human races?? No.

    Your point indicates you entirely missed what I wrote, and didn’t understand.

    Please try again.

    And Sam, I’m not sure where you’re getting your data. let me provide you with some:

    You are juts repeating youself. You claim that debate was over more than 20 yrs ago and yet, here you are, still debating.

    Let me tell you a story.

    A famous Creationist was traveling around in the 90’s giving lectures. When one biologists pointed out that one of his “facts” was wrong – and why – and got the creationist to admit it, he thought the matter was settled. The next lecture, the Creationist trotted out the same old, tired argument – just illustrated as false.

    In that case, he was lying for God, so he likely justified it as “okay”.

    I’m not debating because I think I’m going to prove it conclusively here; it’s irrelevant what Zek or I think. Facts are what they are; I can believe the moon is made of cheese. It won’t change the composition of the moon.

    What irritates me is the left and right making claims that are patently untrue, one side misusing science and the other deliberately blinded because of ideology.

    Both sides miss the real story: and there’s the tragedy.

    Zek is an anthropology lecturer, too. More’s the tragedy. Ideology passes for fact too often in academia.

    It’s why the STEM fields tend to self-segregate from the social sciences and humanities.

    I may be the exception, but most of the time, it’s just better not to engage hard-core ideologues in debate. This is certainly true in the course of regular research.

    If what geneticists really thought was common knowledge, with all of the implications clear, there would be endless protests in from of every biology department year-round.

    It’s just not worth it to confront deeply entrenched ideologies in a public space. It’s one thing anonymously; in real life, the cost is insanely high.

    Also, you came out claiming that it is all about the genes and now you say it is about genes and nurture…

    I never, ever said it was all genes. Read back.

    I said it was a complex interplay between genes and environment, but the genes set the stage and transmit the potentials to the next generation.

    You may not know it, but the “nature/Nuture” debate *is* over – has been since the late 80’s. Now that the human genome has been mapped, this is going to become less theory and more hard-core solid fact as time goes on.

    Already, scientists can predict a host of things about babies – when they’re born. Some of these things are personality.

    Behavioral genetics didn’t exist 20 years ago. Now, an entirely new field is packed with researchers unlocking the Human Code.

    Believe me – this will change the way we see ourselves. This debate is part of that change, as with tends of thousands of others.

    “West Africa had agriculture for only half the time other places had it.”

    Wrong again. The oldest clay ware that has been discovered come from western Africa, my friend. They were found recently and dated some 12 000 years ago. So, there goes you nice theory there…

    JOmon culture, Japan, 18,000-32,000 years ago, hopelessly older than anything else anywhere in the world. Oldest villages – The Catal Huyuk site and region in Turkey; Gobekli Tepe, probably the oldest religious center, same region;

    – No major agricultural civilizations or societies in West Africa, and no major remains, until about 3000 years ago, and it didn’t take off in force until about AD 350-400.

    West Africa made up for it in the middle ages. But West Africa wasn’t Ethiopia (Agriculture as old as Egypt). It wasn’t even North Africa (which, while not technically sub-saharan “racially”, was a very mixed place) – the local societies were essentially Mediterranean in economic structure.

    Agriculture wasn’t a major focus for West Africa outside of a few small centers until about AD 400; though it made up for its slow start in major ways, over the next 1000 years, starting late is no shame. The Mayans were relative latecomers, with an essentially classical civilization 2000 years after the Bronze Age in the Near East. That doesn’t mean the Mayans are losers. Same for West Africa.

    But seriously, when a grown man ( and I assume you are one) is serious about such things that genes command us and settle our destiny and raping is hard wired genetically, and there are separate races of humans, I am getting a bit worried. Why? Because what this guy is basically saying is this:

    Look, there are whole libraries of books written about “rape” and sex among mammalian species. I’ve got a degree in evolutionary biology.

    You think this is a stupid debate and I must be an idiot, but it’s not controversial for biologists at all. It’s not even a discussion – nothing I said is even remotely scary. It’s just accepted as reasonable. Rape is a viable reproductive strategy: it exists in the human repertoire. Anything that makes more babies for an individual will be selected for. Period.

    I suspect you don’t have much formal biology education.

    “There are different races and blacks are not the same kind of humanbeings as we are and they have a rape gene in them and there is nothing we can do about it because it is in the genes.”

    And clearly you didn’t read what *I* wrote, because you didn’t understand it. There’s a comprehension gap there.

    – I said it’s not linked to race.
    – I said it’s not limited to men (women pass on these genes, too)
    – I said genes like this can spread rapidly if multi-generational social chaos is maintained – in *ANY* population (not just blacks)
    – Slavery will tend to produce this behavior in both owners and slaves, because it gives individuals prone to rape a chance to improve the numbers of their own offspring. White slaves in Rome experienced the same effect, according to classical authors.

    Was that direct enough? got it?

    What this *does* do is account for the incidence of rape in South Africa despite the best efforts of society, where 10-15% of the male population may be engaging in forcible rape, a terrifying number. it also accounts for the higher incidence of forcible rape among *Black and southern White Americans*, and not, say, Kenyans or Nigerians

    How much more loudly can I say: Not Related To Race?

    This is where ignorance like yours, Sam, is dangerous. If you were a right-wing male, you might say: “Black niggers rape our women! Hang ’em high!”

    EVEN IF black men in the US commit more forcible rape, on average – or Haiti or Jamaica – IT IS NOT A BLACK PROBLEM.

    Race is incidental. What’s at issue is being descended from slaves. If the slaves had been WHITE or ASIAN, you’d get the same deal. The effect would be the same: bastards get more chances to spread their sperm in times of social chaos or slavery conditions.

    You missed this point entirely. I most emphatically did NOT say that Black Men Rape White Women, which is what you’re getting at.

    *THAT* is what White Racists are going to say. Exactly like you, they’re going to miss the whole point – they’re going to misuse science.

    And I guarantee you, IQ is nothing. The science behind what makes men tend to rape – or not – the few criminals who do – is getting very suggestive.

    Like


  324. @Sam,

    Perhaps you think you are not saying these things, maybe you don’t mean to say them, but they are what you are trying to sell here. And the real question remains the same: why?

    Two reasons:

    – If the Left Wing, and Anti-Racists don’t start to own this perspective, and absorb what they have to, it means that as this new field of science – behavioral genetics – comes to dominate psychology and human sciences, then the RIGHT WING is gong to step in and assume moral authority over this information and its interpretation.

    You want that?

    The Left is hopelessly married to ideas that are dying in the face of hard research. Like the left everywhere, it’s losing it framework and substance.

    If you really believe in equal rights, in equality and a future where people can live together –

    Then this information needs to be assimilated. And dealt with.

    Otherwise, the right wing and the Racists are going to dominate the coming debates.

    Saying “Nyah Nyah Nyah Nyah It’s Not True!” just puts a loaded gun into the hands of your enemies.

    I’m sorry if you don’t see this.

    Why it is so important for you to prove that there are different human races and that we are genetically hard wired to rape if we are black africans?

    I think I demonstrated that this is not at all what I said.

    I’m talking about general genetics and humans as animals.

    In fact, everything I say can apply equally to all races. And race – as an extended “family” or super-family of slightly more related individuals (compared to, say, Japanese and Nigerians) absolutely exists.

    All people know this; biologists can identify race from genes without any great difficulty; they can even identify specific backgrounds (Orkney Islands, UK; Half German, Half Russian; etc.).

    There are all kinds of Genetic Line experiments going on. If you’re from the UK, and are white, do you want to know if you’re a descendant of Britons, of Vikings, of earlier Norman French (also “vikings”), of Celts or of immigrants from Eastern Europe? A genetic test can tell you lots about yourself.

    Give science 100 more years, and we’ll have this all mapped out. You’ll turn some very advanced computer and you’ll put in some genetic material and the machine will map it all out for you.

    That’s definitely going to happen.

    By the way, now you are telling us that you have lived in China when last time you had lived in Africa…

    I lived in Korea for 3 years; China for 2; I’ve traveled in Africa more than most people. Media job. I’ve spent 4 months in Malawi, three in Kenya, gone on many trips to West Africa, and filmed the ghost villages of the Congo. I don’t know what the hell to call the country, nobody there seems to know, either.

    I’ve stayed for many months on different occasions in South Africa.

    There’s no doubt there: There’s a rape epidemic. A lot of people privately admit: Something is seriously wrong with South African men, as a whole, but with a large minority, too.
    And it goes waaaay beyond culture.

    The most obvious explanation is one no-one can admit, but for three researchers I interviewed in Cape Town. They know their explanation is extremely reasonable: 65 years of Apartheid and endless opportunity for criminal elements to abuse women and rape them, and no access to abortions. This gives natural selection all the power it needs to breed the 10-15% of men that carry genes that favor rape.

    In other words, white South Africans actually fucked their country over more thoroughly than we could possibly have imagined.

    It will take a vigorous and heavily applied police state to undo that kind of damage. And generations.

    Something has to explain the crime stats there, and lack of education and jobs can’t be it: I’ve been to Bantu-speaking countries in East Africa that have none of the problems of South Africa, and very similar cultures.

    WTF happened there, people ask.

    I say: Look, for IQ, you can debate. But on this issue, genetics has hard answers.

    I never said black men rape because they’re black. In fact, I said the opposite.

    These are the subtleties that make a difference.

    Miss out on them and you arm the White Nationalists.

    Like


  325. @Sam,

    Your last letter again shows that unlike Zek and Abagond, you actually missed my point entirely.

    Yes, the Left right now needs to believe that there are no races.

    This is obviously and factually a false belief.

    Unless the Left adapts and changes, science is going to give the racists and the enemies of the Left serious weapons with which to beat the tar out of anti-racists.

    You completely missed the purpose, the intent, and the content of what I was saying.

    Not everything about discussions about race is racism.

    You’ve said a lot of things about what I intended and what I said that I never intended and that I actually said the opposite.

    Clearly, you’re just not as bright as either Zek or Abagond; no fault in that. They at least asked salient questions.

    I’d go over what you wrote but that would be pointless: everything you said about what I said shows you missed the point completely. You simply didn’t understand it, and when you did, you chose to ignore it.

    You can make up straw men and knock them down if you want to.

    Like


  326. A nice summary of why the Left can’t leave the idea of “race” to the Right is by a well-known black scholar:

    http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Hammonds/

    She comes out against using “race” for *racism* but engaging the reality of modern research in genetics and genomics.

    I wholly agree with the perspective in this article. You tell me if that makes me or others like me a racist.

    “If we are not to use our differing views about race as either a machine to produce straw men or to reproduce old narratives that naturalize the many social inequities that have produced health disparities in this country—a different approach is needed. It is time for geneticists and biomedical researchers to directly confront the methodological limitations, errors and uncertainties in the way they use race constructs in their research designs and statistical analyses. Social scientists are rightfully skeptical of scientists’ use of race when the term is not clearly defined or thoughtfully employed. The system of peer review must be enlisted to ensure that scientists clearly specify why and how racial categories are used in their research. It is time too for the leading scientists in genetic research to produce a consensus document on the use of race. This cannot be done without the help of social scientists. Social scientists know that much of the power of race comes from the fact that it is open to differing and contradictory interpretations. There is a critical need for rigorous interdisciplinary work on race between geneticists and social scientists to develop new ways to analyze and explain the relations between biology and society and how they interact with each other. Unlike consensus documents on race produced in the past, resolving the issues of the meaning and uses of race today will engage a complexity not seen before. Can we use race to capture the complexity of human differences from the genetic to the social? If so, to what extent? How? And if not, why not?”

    Like


  327. Be very careful with dimensionless numbers. So some people have an IQ of 70. What does that mean? 70 what? So if you can’t explain what this number means you have nothing more than the opinion of a psychologist. I would not necessarily value the opinion of psychologists as most of them are sexually and socially repressed and studying a meaningless subject designed to pad out the curriculum of new-build universities. They should have gone the way of other 70s tropes like flairs, gas guzzling cars and sociology as a total waste of time, effort and material. Inevitably psychologists take out their suppressed rage and sexual frustration on other people, usually by conducting pointless IQ tests or looking up the skirts of female undergraduates.

    Like


  328. Once again let’s not forget, the “race realists” are tinkering inside fractions of 1%. In other words, less than one percent. Then inside this minute fraction they are literally reading the tea leaves to find any patterns that fit their preconceived notion.

    It is not only cynical but first of all scientifically pointless to introduce subtotals according to criteria which are not genetic (as they are exceedingly difficult to prove with genetics alone) but hijacked from anthropology, evolution theory, statistics, psychology, social sciences etc. As sam already mentioned, it’s cherry picking in an only seemingly coherent potpourri. The only precise element in all of this is the predefined focus.

    Genetic research for the “greater good” has to be done on an individual level regardless. Anything else is irresponsible.

    Like


  329. @gorba: If I am so dumb tell me what you mean. Explain it so that even an idiot like myself understands. Thanks.😀

    You have not answered to the most simple question: why? Why do you want that there is one race of humans?

    Your claim that the debate is over is false. You are here arguing, aren’t you? If the debate was over in science world, we wouldn’t be arguing here, would we? And yet, here we are…

    Like


  330. Reading Gorbachev’s theories is like reading a Robert Frost poem about two roads and then getting smacked in the face by an Alice in Wonderland book…

    First he’s justifying racism, and now rape, and also he’s attempting to change the Human Genome Project from showing we’re 99.99% the same into showing we’re headed toward genetic determinism.

    While I’m sure most of ya’ll can’t be bothered to read the novellas, I’m somewhat fascinated (but guiltily so) at reading the sheer inventiveness of this guy’s social theories. I mean, he’s play so fast and loose with the facts that I feel like I’m a Michael Crichton novel! Next thing I know he’s going to say the moon IS made of cheese, and our genes control if I get bored or not while watching TV.

    Okay, but seriously, seriously: if you’re a bio-genetics expert, more power to ya, but if you don’t know d**k about culture or the factors you say genes influence, then you need to Sit The F*** Down.

    Please, you’re only making yourself look worse by dipping into the bottom of your barrel.

    Like


  331. Out of curiosity, does anyone bother to read those comments that look like short novels?

    Nope!

    They tell us that this mysterious Left (which includes all and everyone who does not agree with them) and the very idea of equality wants us to be similar, with no idividuality (which equality does not mean).

    That sounds like the makings of a comedy sketch, the bogey man, more like Leghorn Foghorn, hahahahaha!!!

    Maybe that is in my genes?

    No need to worry, shopping is in mine!

    By the way, I really scored low in the IQ test, much lower than 70.😀

    I scored in the upper 1900s!

    Like


  332. @herneith:😀

    @zek: I was wondering too what the heck is his point when he was going this way and that.

    That rape thing was, well… Lets just say that I would not like to be his date😀

    And by the way; that should have been “Why do you NOT want that there is one race of humans?” but I guess spelling problems are in my genes.

    Like


  333. on Sun 27 Mar 2011 at 23:33:55 random bystander

    I’m not academically qualified to have an informed opinion about these matters (I’ve read a lot about them, but I don’t have the statistical background to feel comfortable making judgements), but I know how to read, and I think some of you are doing gorbachev an injustice.

    It’s sad to see him fairly frantic to not be misinterpreted on this subject, and still be misinterpreted. He is clearly not a racist, he acknowledges the importance of culture, and his politics are foursquare for equal rights; yet he’s still getting slammed as if he were a Nazi.

    The essential point he makes, it seems to me, is that egalitarianism needs to be based on moral, not factual considerations. If you base it on factual beliefs such as “There’s no such thing as race,” and you’re wrong, then you’re going to be in deep trouble. Maybe he’s wrong about the facts; but what if he isn’t? Do you doubt for a moment that this would be used for vile purposes by bigots of all descriptions? He seems absolutely desperate
    that this not happen, and you’re writing him off as carrying water for people he detests. Criticize his evidence or his inferences, but I see no reason to suspect his motives. If I saw a shitstorm like this coming, I’d do everything I could to head it off, too.

    Try comparing it to the debate on homosexuality, where the sides are switched: the left eagerly hoping for a genetic basis, and the right passionately hoping they’re wrong. Does this make any more sense? Wouldn’t it just be better to argue that people have the right to practice whatever sexual behavior they like as long as it’s victimless? If it turns out that there is no genetic foundation for gayness (I think there probably is, but it’s at least superficially odd, evolutionarily speaking), that’s what you’ll have to fall back on, anyway; so why not start there?

    The left needs to assert moral equality, equality before the law, and let the rest go hang; then it can be sublimely indifferent to however the science turns out. To do otherwise is to hold your fondest beliefs and principles hostage to a process that you cannot control, with potentially grave consequences.

    Like


  334. You know what? Random Bystander had it.

    I’m not justifying anything. You’re all thinking this way:

    “If (uncomfortable fact about people) exists, then we’re all going to hell!”

    You know what? Neither Zek gets it, and Sam simply doesn’t understand the words I’m using: I’m not justifying anything. I’d never justify rape. I’d never justify racism.

    But the facts about human biology were never designed to be “fair”. Men have no wombs: is that fair? Men are stronger. Is that fair? Some people are short. Is that fair? And races may exist. Is that fair?

    Biology isn’t about fair. And whatever works for other animals, as general rules, applies in every measure to humans.

    People like Zek: if his belief system requires that there be no human races for racism to be bad, then he’s hitched his ethical wagon to the wrong horse.

    Racism is bad a priori – individuals are individuals. Why is it that the Left, while denying the existence of groups, is so obsessed with identity politics?

    I’m beginning to think that Zek doesn’t get the point. At all. he can’t see the internal contradictions of his position, and he can’t think long enough outside his box to even get the point I’m trying to make.

    Either blacks are less bright than others or not. My point: Who cares? It’s irrelevant. You can scream into the wind as much as you want and hate the science or have counter-science, but in the end, the debate is pointless. And these “thinkers” miss the point entirely. Even if blacks were mostly retarded, it wouldn’t justify racism against any particular individual. Or racism.

    This is why arguing with card-carrying hard-left “thinkers” is so hard: their beliefs prevent them from neutrally looking at facts or ideas. FACTS MUST FIT IDEAS or WE’RE ALL WRONG.

    It’s why the social sciences are such jokes. I’ll trust STEM field research before social science research, any day: at the end of the day, either the apple falls, or it doesn’t. In the social sciences, you can decide if knowledge is appropriate or not and discard it.

    What’s worse, exactly like debating with the religious extreme or white nationalists (which I’ve done), they’re True Believers – they call you a Race Traitor, a God-Hater, or a Racist! Racist racist racist!

    Anyone who disagrees is Morally Suspect.

    This is why geneticists have to be so circumspect. You say the wrong thing, the Right goes to town with misinterpretations. You say the wrong thing, the Left hauls you out onto the porch and hangs you high for
    Denigrating the Holy Truth.

    If your ethical belief system is so married to convenient facts, and those facts change, and they’re going to, then suddenly your ethical system starts to flail.

    This is why the Left is in such disarray and engages in so much de-facto censorship and shaming these days. They’re running out of tools.

    Damn, every time they trot out Lewontin and Gould, it makes me want to cry – I’ve never seen an entire ideological movement set itself up so completely for evisceration.

    Of course, the truth is – it’s a circle. The Left and the Right meet on the far side of silly,

    Nobody is trying to justify anything.

    If anything, Zek’s the one that thinks any particular fact justifies rape, or racism, or anything else.

    Like


  335. on Wed 30 Mar 2011 at 10:05:25 Chuckwiththehippo

    Cynic

    “No, they are not. Read the ‘Scholastic Achievement Surveys’ section again. The Lynn and Vanhanen’s studies showed that the school achievement surveys clearly correlated with their national IQ predictions. However, Wicherts et al. proved that for the Sub-Saharan African countries, this was not the case.”

    Based on IQ tests, Wicherts estimates that the African IQ is 77. Wicherts et al. (2010) p.2: “The full database includes 109 samples totaling 37,811 test-takers. The N-weighted mean of these studies is 76.5 (SD=6.7).” (To clarify: 77 is what you get after using Wicherts’ strict criteria.) Feel free to contact him.

    The question then is, what is the African IQ based on scholastic achievement tests. You argue that regression (82) is the preferred method of calculating this. I argue that the other methods (~70-80) are equally valid. You disagree. You keep pointing me to Wicherts’ scatter plot figures.

    You seem to miss my point. Take a look at the figures. Look at the dispersion around the regression line. Some countries fall above the line and some countries fall below the line. I’m contending that the African scholastic IQ scores fall below the regression line (not at and not above). How much below? Well about 5 points. Why? Because the other methods suggest that the African scholastic IQ ranges from ~70-80 and not above 80.

    Imaginably, you’ll argue that 1) Lynn’s African IQ’s predict a scholastic IQ that’s too low or 2) that the correlation would be higher if the African scores fell on the line. My reply is that 1) I’m not contending that the African IQ’s are below 70. I am contending that they are below 80. And 2) The correlations are just fine when the scores are in the mid 70’s.

    References:
    Wicherts et al, 2010. The dangers of unsystematic selection methods and the representativeness of 46 samples of African test-takers

    Like


  336. @gorba etc: Oh man, it is the commies after all! Damn those reds, they spoil everything! Right?😀

    “Either blacks are less bright than others or not. My point: Who cares? It’s irrelevant.”

    Look whos talkin. If you say that blacks are less bright you better prove it. And you can not. None of you guys can not. You quote studies which present minimal precetage of potential pool, not to mention how those studies are rigged from the get go (I mean, get real, western IQ tests?? You gotta be kiddin here!) etc. and claim that this is how it is.

    Besides, it is not irrelevant to say that people who have different color on their skin are dumber, as you must know, if you have any brains in your head. It is very essense of racism. You must, just like you and Chuckie boy here do, attach some demeaning values and conditions on people who look different. That is how racism works. Just like that. “Look at those blacks, did you know that they are dumber than we? Yeap, science has proven it.” You get it?

    If you say that human beings who have different skin color are dumber than the rest you are a racist. It is that simple, man. You just refuse to admit because it would be embarassing. And my question is this: why you feel embarassed to be a racist when you openly promote racist concept?

    “This is why the Left is in such disarray and engages in so much de-facto censorship and shaming these days. They’re running out of tools.”

    You for real? What constitues this mythical Left in your book? The real deal commies or some US humanists or all of them or what? You keep repeating this Left all the time and it makes me to belive that you must be something else politically. And when one combines your apparent fear of the overwhelming fact twisting Left with your open racism, you come out as Red hating right wing racist!😀

    As unpolitical individualist it really amuses me when some one who is a racist by his own admission tries to pose as non racist. How the hell you do that gorba? What kind of a intellectual somersault you do in order to look at the mirror and deny the fact that comes out from your writings? I just do not get it.

    You say you are not a racist but you argue racially. You argue in the face of science that you know that there are racial differences. You claim that you have the proof. You claim that it is a fact. Not just any fact, but biological fact. That is racist. Which makes you a racist.

    Maybe you do not like it but that is how it goes, my friend. You either belive in races and their biological differences or not. If you do, you are a racist. You can not prove it in reality, but you can belive in it, just like you do. You can say that you have biological facts for your belief, but you really do not. You just believe so.

    Ask yourself Why? Why do you believe that there are separate biological races out of which some are brighter than others? Don’t hide behind “this is just science” BS because it is not. Ask yourself “Why I want that there are separate races and some races are dumber than others”?

    Why do want it so badly? Why it is important to you? Science is not saying the same. You are reading it into science. You want it to be a fact. Why?

    Get real, bro. Get real.

    Like


  337. […] also noticed their tendency to shoot themselves in the foot. “African blacks don’t have an average IQ of 70,” they crow. “It’s actually 81! That’s only nineteen points (1.3 standard […]

    Like


  338. “The average African IQ is 70″. Rubbish once again.

    From reading the article, it is very clear that Richard Lynn was running a biased study, so how could it even be taken seriously at all?

    Intelligence Quotient is not static, it changes all the time, depending on the information and knowledge thar you are exposed to.

    Many years ago, I knew one boy who at 9 yeras of age could fluently read the financial papers and interpret them, he knew about shares and the money markets. Was he extraordinarily clever, not particularly, but, he was exposed to reading these newspapers at a very young age and was able to grasp and understand the information, also one of his parents worked in the finace field.

    So, environment is aone of the factors that affects IQ, from my observations.

    You can’t have knowledge of something when you haven’t been exposed to it.

    If Richard Lynn had carried out the experiment where the test subjects all had access to the same information, then the results of the study would be far different.

    How can you go into an environment where the people have limited information to begin with and expect me to take that farce of an experiment seriously?

    You have to compare like for like. This experiment is like comparing an apple to a potato or something along those lines.

    Complete joke if you ask me…..LOL

    Additionally, even in the UK, on testing the IQ of a person, you would find that the results vary depending on background, environment, diet, access to knowledge, information and education, pollution and environmental contaminants, toxins, social status, wealth and so on. There are just so many factors to consider when talking about IQ.

    A quick example is how you can observe children misbehaving and acting up when exposed to chemicals and artificial colours, sweeteners etc in their food….The behaviour can be very hyperactive…however, if they are eating healthy balanced meals minus all the toxins, notice a behavioural shift and calmness. So, diet does affect the mind, or it is one of the factors that affects learning anyway, as far as I can see.

    There are many factors that affect IQ, and that study was most definitely, biased.

    Like


  339. @happiness: On the diet, in States the menu in prisons is actually made so that the convicts can not gain strenght and too much steady energy from it. It is designed to keep them as apatic as possible. Unfortunately, that diet also makes them hyper because of fast carbos so…😀

    Like


  340. @ Happiness

    Additionally, even in the UK, on testing the IQ of a person, you would find that the results vary depending on background, environment, diet, access to knowledge, information and education, pollution and environmental contaminants, toxins, social status, wealth and so on. There are just so many factors to consider when talking about IQ.

    Exactly. Add to the UK (at least) France, The Netherlands and Germany (most likely many more). Isn’t it amazing how those things work differently in different parts of the world, depending on who conducts those tests and depending on what is projected to be “proven”?

    The biggest fallacy in those tests is that they claim objectivity by tacitly assuming minor environmental influence. It just gets wiped under the rug, failing to deliver not even a shred of direct evidence. (Direct evidence means, experimentally reproducible anywhere anytime and not this absurd empirical number crunching.)

    In order to come up with any, if at all possible, meaningful results, the tests would have to be done on large population samples around the world of which each individual has been literally living under a rock all of their lives, without any external stimulus whatsoever. Since this is obviously impractical, some “scientists” have to claim external influences as being relatively insignificant in order to keep at least some populistic credibility.

    Like


  341. Ok people,

    Here are my analyses. I get an SS. African IQ <75.

    Like


  342. Chuck:

    Are you the same Chuck who had a blue hippo for an avatar?

    Like


  343. on Mon 25 Apr 2011 at 18:00:37 Chuckwiththehippo

    “Chuck:

    Are you the same Chuck who had a blue hippo for an avatar?”

    Do I have the same IP address as him? Ya. Anyways, I linked to the data sets that I’m using if you want to play with the numbers. My assessment is that S.S Africans, on average, perform under the White 5 percentile on IQ tests. Why? There clearly are cultural and biological factors going on here. (As for the latter, does anyone seriously contend that such factors as infections, low levels of nutrition, etc. have no impact on the average African IQ?) The real question that we are asking is whether there’s a genetic basis to any of the difference and, if so, how much.

    Like


  344. @ Chuck

    Have you also considered the effects of illiteracy on test results?

    Like


  345. Or the effects of sickle cell? Or the effects of globalization? Poverty? Malnutrition?

    Like


  346. @chuck: well, genetically you are just an african yourself, like all of us, so…

    Like


  347. I get an SS

    I see. I bet those are the two letters you see yourself most associated with.

    Ovations anyone?

    Like


  348. Will all due respect , Zek, we don’t know what part of the physical effects are genetic and programmed and what part are physical but the result of environmental influences.

    We will soon enough. And statistically, there’s enough evidence to discuss it in broader terms.

    For example: Poor white students do better than well-off black students. McWhorter (Losing the Race) makes the case that black culture in America is anti-intellectual and thus is largely failing; I would agree.

    But is it possible that some of that is genetic?

    Of course it is. But how much?

    We coud invest some serious resource sinto finding out. Even better, why not redirect some of that research money into determining exactly how much of these traits, down to specific gene sequences, code for specific behaviors or statistical tendencies?

    Oh, but wait -0 even admitting this is possible (when of course it’s possible if not actually likely ) is Anathema.

    Like


  349. Gorbachev, we’ve all said it 1000 times that there is likely SOME genetic component, (of course, NOT racial genetics) but that we don’t know how much, and there are a lot of other factors involved and it’s astoundingly complicated. We’ve already said that.

    At this point, it would probably be better for us to concentrate more of our resources into effecting the things that we know for certain, have an impact.

    Like


  350. Hey ABAGOND,

    I have been reading your blog for some time now and it has literally changed the way I perceive and conceive the world. An amazing experience. I have NEVER EVER commented on any of your posts. But reading the comments on this post, I had to intervene.

    Ok I must admit that my scientific knowledge is limited but what do you think about this:
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/black_immigrants_an_invisible.html
    http://www.examiner.com/public-education-in-chicago/african-immigrants-out-graduate-american-caucasians-and-asians
    http://www.asian-nation.org/immigrant-stats.shtml

    Yes, African migrants to the US ‘outsmart’ and ‘out-graduate’ Asian migrants, making them the brightest group in the USA. I am not sure if these links have been posted before but how can anyone explain this since Africans are supposedly ‘borderline retarded’ ???

    Also it is communally admitted that North East Asians are smarter than whites people from the west. Consequently, the current world order and hegemony and domination of the west, show that even the highest IQ are not a guarantee of ‘prosperity’ and ‘success’. By many standards, even China is still considered a ‘developing’ or a ‘poor country’. Another example, is the supposedly very high intelligence of Jewish people. Why isn’t Israel – who has the second highest concentration of Jews on this Earth – second richest, most powerful, most successful , blabla bla… country on Earth???

    Do people really believe that intelligence, as conceived in the West, is the primordial element that determines the success or failure of one’s life ?? Please read Outliers,The story of success by GLADWELL. Do people really believe that an individual with a very high IQ is more valuable to society and to the world just by the fact of this high IQ?? Anyway what is success?? Should the compulsive accumulation of money be the ultimate goal of one’s life???

    I know that all these attempts at questioning the intellectual abilities of Africans and black people are just a way of questioning their value and worth as human beings and dehumanizing them. They always go hand in hand with theories about the supposed innate violence and bestiality of blacks. After all, it was indeed Black people who almost wiped out native Americans and Australians. I find it truly pathetic that some need to put others down to feel valuable and maintain a false sense of superiority.

    BTW why is it always our intellectual abilities that are questioned??? Why is it assumed that all whites independently of their origins are more ‘intelligent’ than blacks?? It is funny because here in Europe, especially in France, Americans have the reputation of being incredibly stupid. Hence the fact that a moron like BUSH got elected TWICE!! Are there any research out there about that??? Why do some ‘scientists’ go out of their way just to prove that blacks are ‘dumber’ than anybody else ??? And using ethnocentric and culturally biased tests at that ?? Why the obsession about our IQ?? WHY???

    BTW there is NO average African so that “Average African IQ” theory is rubbish. Africans have more genetic differences among them than the rest of the world. No body would try to make up a group with individuals as genetically diverse as Japanese and Germans compare it with a far less diverse group and try to reach valid conclusions. It is RIDICULOUS!!

    ABAGOND, I would really appreciate it if you were to reply to my comment
    Thanks

    Like


  351. on Mon 4 Jul 2011 at 23:25:13 louie jacuzzi

    Old new now, but you tell me that black iq is b/t 70 – 85, and I’m now curious, I want to meet some of these 85 iq AA’s and 70 iq SSA’s, and thoroughly analyze them, and their background

    Like


  352. well I believe in reincarnation. I think most humans have been white, Negro, Chinese, Indian, or whatever in past lives. The African intelligence as far as reasoning is concerned is lower than other races, but so what? this is a part of the human experience. I am sure African societies are evolving to higher intelligence but we do notice it since it will take generations to see a noticeable effect. The most stupid people on Earth were the Nazis for opening up extermination camps. Respect for human like is the central principle behind civillisation.

    Like


  353. @ narayan

    IQ does not equal racial cognitive ability. People learn things as they need to, or as it fits into their lifestyle and worldview. African cognitive ability is no less “evolved” than anyone else’s. In some cases they may be less developed, but only in the same way that your water polo skills are less developed than mine.

    Like


  354. KIng:you said it yourself people learns things as they need to. Asian and Caucasian civillisations have been contemplating mathematics for centuries. Africa have only been contemplating mathematics for a shorter period of time hence they are not so accomplised. I find generally Africans have a different concept of time this is because only a few generations ago they were living a hunter gatherer life style. North Europeans are the most time obsessed since time is money. None of this implies anyone is inherently inferior.

    Like


  355. None of this implies anyone is inherently inferior.

    You are right. It does imply however, that people who believe that tripe are inherently stupid.

    Like


  356. @ narayan

    Asian and Caucasian civillisations have been contemplating mathematics for centuries. Africa have only been contemplating mathematics for a shorter period of time hence they are not so accomplished.”

    Actually that’s not true. Africans were contemplating mathematics long before the Europeans began that practice. The Lebombo and Ishango bones are the earliest mathematical tools ever discovered (both in Africa).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishango_bone

    The Egyptians created an accurate 365 day calendar and as early as 4200 B.C. which would not have been possible without advanced mathematics and astronomy. The Jewish and Roman calendars were accounted on a 360 day year, and needed leap months to make occasional corrections.

    The Moors brought Algebra (an Arabic invention) into Europe with their invasion. So Africans have known mathematics for longer than Europeans, but perhaps the average African on the street has had less need of advanced mathematics it in their daily lives in the past millennium.

    Bear in mind also that although there certainly are parts of Africa who practiced a hunter/gatherer lifestyle, there have also been herdsmen in Africa long before there ever were on North America. Africans also have been farmers for many generations, but it is true that the abundance of large game animals has made hunting a historically prominent lifestyle on the continent

    Africans who do decide to leave Africa and move to the West who participate in Academics, actually do quite well – better than most White people and equal the success of Asians (in the United States).

    Like


  357. @ Bulanik

    I think he’s saying that Africans had a later exposure to mathematics, but that’s not the case. However, he doesn’t seem to be making the “Africans are inferior” argument, just behind the curve, at present

    Like


  358. Bulanik: The achievement of African immigrants shows that there is a growing intelligentsia in Africa which bodes well for the future. Don’t see the point in indulging in revisionist history Africa has been behind recently. civillisations pull ahead often and sometime they fall behind lets not deny the pendulum swings of history which exalts and humbles all nations. Europe pulled ahead in science and maths mostly because result were published in journals which meant a collective mind was acting rather than isolated individual minds.

    The important thing here is the future, maybe the present carbon based society is dumb: we are after destroying our home, how do we switch to a clean energy?

    For the record I find the title of this article to be provocative. I won’t expect a person from an industrial society with a 70 IQ to be know how to survive in the dessert like the Bushmen and other aboriginal people who have an equivalent IQ measurment. Its like comparing apples with oranges.

    Like


  359. I’ve also wondered if IQ test determine the amount/or the quality of education one receives?
    The reason I ask this is because I’ve set out of school for 2 years – from 2004 to 2006 – and took an IQ test twice – which the results of both were 97 and 93.

    I’ve gone back to school now and about to graduate. I’ve taken an IQ test again and the results jumped to 118.

    I believe that going to a University has increased my “thinking” process and speed. I was able to answer questions much faster, because in College, you are forced to study multiple subjects at one time, which improving one’s cognitive abilities. Compared to 2004 when I was setting at home doing nothing. I know underprivileged individuals – like the one’s in African countries – are worse off than me.

    Like


  360. From what I remember, the average IQ in America of whites goes up during high school and university. For blacks it goes DOWN during high school but goes up during university, more so than for whites.

    For Africans there is even a more direct effect between IQ and education. In part because most IQ tests are given in a foreign language that is learned at school (English) and because the average IQ is brought down by those who lack any education at all and so do not even know how to hold a pencil.

    Like


  361. The sad fact is that Africans can not compete with the west in a western cultural and economic system – which is what runs most modern socities including African. Therefore, we are destined to African nations being unable to make the system work properly and this will always result in corruption and crime. It has always been that way and always will. They may have a different form of intelligence to white westerners but it is no use to them in today’s western society.

    Westerners are like they are because of two ice ages that killed off most of those that did not have the intellect or wherewithal to survive – a form of natural selection. Present day westerners are the survivors of that – as are orientals. They are thrifty, resourceful and think for the long term. Africans, Aboriginees and South American Indians that avoided Ice ages all live for the moment and their socities reflect that. Very sad but true. Left to their own devices they will never make a western system of society work and we can see evience of that in Zimbabwe and South Africa as they descend into chaos now that wester white influence is diminishing. Again sad but true.

    Therefore who really cares about the IQ number, the reality is they do not have the IQ fit for purpose in a modern society.

    Like


  362. Oh, come on, IQ is just a number expressing how well you adoing with IQ-tests.

    Like


  363. @ Nick James

    Yes we are not the brightest people in the world! Thanks for clarifying that for me. Oh dear what would we as Black Africa ever do without the white man?

    Frankly, if I could ask God for one thing, just one thing, it would be that the white man never would have stepped in Africa. I rather we be “inferior”, low-IQ having people than to ever have the white man on our land. I am sorry that’s how I feel.

    And to whether we would ever develop into a Western society uhm why should we? Those are not our cultures or our values so why should we aspire to them so that we are deemed more intelligent. “Civilization” means different things to different societies. You would be surprised at how many Africans think some things in Western society is uncivilized.

    You sir, do not hold the truth scrolls on intelligence and civilization. And maybe next time take a trip to Africa, Kenya to be specific and speak to some Africans. You may be surprised!

    Like


  364. If Africans are retarded that would explain a lot of things.

    Like


  365. @ Nick James

    Do you think the constant famines in Africa over the course of it’s history has killed off the less intelligent/able people?

    If not why? If so doesn’t that contradict your comment that the ice age was responsible for higher intelligence in whites since it equally killed off less intelligent or able folks?

    If survival requires a certain amount of intelligence (throughout human history), its safe to assume the problem is not cognitive capacity but epistemology (knowledge and how to use it).

    Most of Africa is in the equivalent of the dark ages. Very similar to medieval Europe. Actually exactly the same.

    – Low life expectancy
    – High rates of religiosity
    – Rampant superstition (i.e. raping babies to cure aids)
    – High rates of corruption
    – Dictators and autocratic rule etc

    Its exactly the same as Europe 700 years ago. The issue, contrary to your claims, is not race.

    Like


  366. @ Nick James

    Then by that logic of yours, every single Inuit today, is more intelligent than Stephen Hawking.

    Like


  367. This reindeer must be smarter than most humans! See the smile on his face? He’s laughing at the foolish cretinous assumptions posited by the lowly humans! It’s as cold as a well diggers arse where he’s from, that explains his genius capabilities!

    Like


  368. The potential of the brain

    It is known that the average person uses 4-5% of the capabilities of its mind. At present, the reason for this is the wrong development of the individual itself. Our way of life, education, training, all of our “civilization” only hinders the intellectual development of a man! System of ideas and values imposed on us everywhere is fundamentally flawed, and leads to stagnation of the human brain.

    Today, modern science recognizes that there is an imperfect view of the surrounding matter. This, as we know today, is approximately 4-5%. And those crumbs which it managed to learn are usually far from the truth. In principle, it’s a natural process of learning to civilizations that exists in the initial stage of its development. And everything would be fine, if this whole situation was not hidden from the public and was not supported by many “scientists”, and people would not foisted a false representation, leading to the degradation and destruction … I think that 95-96% of allegedly sleeping brain are used to the fact that we could see 95-96% of invisible dark matter. It is known that for the full body only 20% of the initial volume of the liver is enough, i.e. 80% of the liver can be amputated without consequences for the organism as a whole, but it will not work with a human brain.

    Like


  369. This has been used by all criminals since criminals came into existence, they want something but they know they just can’t take it so they lie, cheat, and to get it, its just they way of the caucasion beast savage, shame their still alive.

    my youtube channel: xxphantommasterxx

    Like


  370. I’ve always known that Blacks have lower IQ’s than whites. Heck, any observant and objective person who graduated from a public high school knows this. Some folks know this deep down inside, but refuse to discuss it or admit it publicly. Others want to justify it by claiming that Blacks have lower IQ’s because they are from the inner city or they haven’t had the same opportunities as whites. However, even they know the truth.

    The bottom line is that there is about a 20-30 point difference in average IQs of Blacks (dark blacks, not someone who is more than 50% white) and Whites. Its also a fact that Blacks have the ability to run faster and jump higher than Whites, on average. Are Whites ashamed of the fact that Blacks dominate in many sports? Probably not. But, for some reason no one wants to talk about the fact that Whites and Asians dominated over Blacks with regard to intelligence.

    Like


  371. Johathan,

    Some people just always like to be in competition with others.
    The fact is that there are dumb people and clever people in all races.

    IQ is based on or can be affected by a number of factors. Even the most intelligent people can be lacking in other areas, Everyone has their gifts and talents regardless of colour.

    Also, if you were so clever yourself, you would know these things.

    Like


  372. Most recent data from Britain does not show significant racial gaps.

    Analysed here:

    http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/more-evidence-uk-math-and-reading-achievement-gaps/

    http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/a-gaping-hole-in-the-masters-evolutionary-theory/

    also in many other posts from February to mid April

    Like


  373. There are recent studies from Africa that show iq rises.
    Here is one:
    “Environmental Affordances Predict IQ Test Performance of
    Kenyan High School Students”
    abstract:
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2026172

    Like


  374. A rather interesting friend of mine has an I.Q. of 154, he is a Jew, so for them it is common.

    Like


  375. “As it turns out, Lynn’s 67 is based in part on children who lost points because: Some were not used to pencils and could not draw. One boy said it was the first time he ever drew a picture…”

    The test was Raven’s Progressive Matrices. Raven’s Progressive Matrices is essentially a multiple choice test involving pictures alone. You don’t need to be able to read any particular language in order to take it. A French kid, a Russian kid, and an English kid can use photocopies of the same test papers and perform fully well without requiring anyone to do any translating.

    The test-taker’s job is to examine a series of line drawings at the top of the page, and then select from the bottom of the page the line drawing that best completes the series. A dot becomes a small circle. The small circle becomes a medium-sized circle. The medium-sized circle becomes a big circle. The choices at the bottom are: (1) A small square. (2) A small triangle. (3) A very big circle.

    That’s the kind of question you’ll find on Raven’s Progressive Matrices. The language is pure logic, without any intervening symbolism of human speech or writing.

    You DO need to use your eyes to take Raven’s Progressive Matrices. But you DON’T need your hands. Blind people cannot take the test. But persons who have had both arms amputated can. Although pencils are often used by the test-takers to make their answers, the test can be set up so that the test-taker doesn’t need to hold a pencil. He can be told just to indicate the correct picture, whether by pointing at it or by referring to it verbally, and the test-giver will record the mark for him.

    You don’t need to make drawings of any sort to complete Raven’s Progressive Matrices.

    You don’t need to recognize objects that are familiar in Western countries but uncommon in the African bush. The test does not use drawings of such objects.

    If you have eyes and a brain, you can take the Raven’s test. How well you do depends on how good your brain is. The first questions involve only the simplest of logical relationships. The later ones illustrate progressively more intricate ones.

    I read Wicherts’ criticism of Lynn. His objection seems to be that Lynn allegedly didn’t use demographically representative samples in sub-Saharan African countries. In other words Wicherts essentially accuses Lynn of cherry-picking, with the bias in favor of the duller test-takers.

    On the other hand, I noticed that nobody is saying that Africans are as smart as Europeans. The fuss is all about how dull the average African really is. Are they merely IQ 80 dumb? Or are they so retarded as IQ 70? Maybe their average stupidity is somewhere in the middle, say about IQ 75. None of these professional psychologists is arguing for a conclusion that would make an Afrocentrist historian or anthropologist happy.

    Many decades worth of intelligence testing in the United States has given these values for the average and standard deviation of the normal distribution that best fits the data.

    For whites:
    IQ 103 ± 16.4

    For blacks, who are on average about 25% white by ancestry:
    IQ 85 ± 12.4

    There is, in addition, a significant correlation between IQ in mulattoes and the percentage of white ancestry.

    Like


  376. If the reason that black africans do so poorly on cognitive ability tests is that the tests have a caucasian/western bias, why do asians that still live in asia perform better on these tests that africans that were born and raised in the united states and other western nations? Also, why would asians in asia score higher than caucasians in western society?

    Like


  377. ‘Given their PISA scores and other measures of school achievement, you would expect an IQ somewhere near 82.’

    I don’t know if this is the study you based the post on. It comes to the same conclusion and is an excellent critique of Lynn’s number. It shows that his sample was arbitrary, he never explained his selection criteria, and if you include all raven’s tests done in Africa, the average is 80.

    http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/wicherts2010.pdf

    I have another study somewhere which shows an IQ of 80 based on other kinds of iq tests. Tell me if you want me to post it.

    Like


  378. Sorry I should have looked at your bibliography! duh

    Like


  379. abagond, you seem to be trying to knock proven facts with hearsay or opinions

    Like


  380. The tests are reliable until they give us a result we don’t like. They use the fact that they don’t do line drawings and other common things as some sort of disparaging comment about the test, however, all it does is reinforce the test. The fact that you haven’t invented a freakin pencil or drawn is a CLUE, guess what?, neither has a chimpanzee or a dog.

    Like


  381. Galacactus, if you took the time look anywhere anywhere within the Intelligence Testing industry, you would find that many to MOST of the latest understandings about intelligence measurement favor a much broader interpretation of intelligence than can be surmised as a result of taking a western style, high school type, pencil and paper test. I think Joseph Perla has it mostly right in the statements on his blog:

    http://www.jperla.com/blog/post/iq
    http://www.jperla.com/blog/post/how-to-ace-an-iq-test

    Have a read.. that is, if you have the IQ to keep up with what’s being discussed.

    Like


  382. @ King

    You’re wasting your time with these morons. For people who claim to be so intelligent, these bigots always show a limited capacity for learning anything outside their social programming. Just let them rant; they’ll soon tire and go away if they don’t receive the attention they desperately crave.

    Like


  383. Hi SomeGuy

    Well, in this case they won’t be returning anyway. David Sims (above) thinks he knows something, what a pity he’s gone away.

    Like


  384. King, absolutly about the new discoveries of how to measure intelligence….

    And,the discovery that our intuition is actualy controling how we act more than our logical thinking brain, will open up even more new ways to measure real intelligence

    Like


  385. The tests are reliable until they give us a result we don’t like.

    You’re right. I have an Iq, or is it an rq of 500 billion give or take a few million, they miscalculated it and it is actually 499 billion. I understand where you are coming from!

    They use the fact that they don’t do line drawings and other common things as some sort of disparaging comment about the test, however, all it does is reinforce the test.

    I can’t wash windows so I guess that is what knocks my iq down another couple of million!

    The fact that you haven’t invented a freakin pencil or drawn is a CLUE, guess what?, neither has a chimpanzee or a dog.

    Yes, but the dogs are cute.

    Just let them rant; they’ll soon tire and go away if they don’t receive the attention they desperately crave.

    Either that, have some laughs at their nonsensical ramblings!

    Like


  386. I read some articles and i’ve read “70”, “85”, “75” and even “68”. Since the figure can not be determined then obviously it could not be treated as a fact. A fact is something that is solid. The figure seems to change every hour, lol

    BTW: An IQ of 70 and under is considered retarded so trying to convince somebody that a whole continent of people is retarded is just ridiculous.

    It’s obvious that people just like to pull these numbers out of their butts. Clearly anybody who believes it has an agenda or wants to boost their self esteem.

    Like


  387. end of the world today ? ? hmmm anyone

    Like


  388. http://www.vdare.com/articles/iq-why-africa-is-africa-and-haiti-haiti

    Assuming that, like university students elsewhere, the African university students on average score 15 points above the general population, the African general population average of about 70 would appear to be corroborated.

    One way to comprehend an IQ of 70 is to think in terms of mental age. For example, for adults an IQ of 70 is equivalent to a mental age of 11 years. So the normal range of mental ages in Africa is from 7 to 16 years, with an average at 11 years.

    Eleven-year-olds, of course, are not retarded. They can drive cars, build houses, and work in factories—if supervised properly. They can also make war.

    In terms of mental age then, the Africans who drop out of primary school correspond to 7-year-olds. Those who get to high school correspond to 11-year-olds. The top university students we tested correspond to 16- and 17-year-olds.

    Adult Whites, by contrast, have mental ages ranging from 11- to 24-years, with an average mental age of 16- to 18-years.

    This is an astonishing fact, with sweeping implications for both domestic and foreign policy.

    But it seems to be very difficult for people to grasp. One reason put forward by Arthur Jensen in The G Factor (P 367-9): many sub-70 IQ whites are retarded as a result of in utero misfortunes, with visible deficiencies in motor skills and speech. The majority of sub-70 IQ blacks, in contrast, are technically normal. They appear fully functional.

    Like


  389. duke, I’ wondering if you don’t have a “mental age” of 11 yourself.

    Assuming that, like university students elsewhere, the African university students on average score 15 points above the general population”

    Would you assume that the average score gap between university students and the general population would be the same in a wealthy country, (where 12 years of education is compulsory for the general population) as it would be in a poorer country where most of the population has no access to a post-primary education? That assumption itself is at about a 5th grade level of deductive reasoning.

    One way to comprehend an IQ of 70 is to think in terms of mental age. For example, for adults an IQ of 70 is equivalent to a mental age of 11 years. So the normal range of mental ages in Africa is from 7 to 16 years, with an average at 11 years.

    Eleven-year-olds, of course, are not retarded. They can drive cars, build houses, and work in factories—if supervised properly. They can also make war.”

    Are you serious? How can you possible be this naive? A “mental age” of 11, what does that mean? Think of the vast differences in expectation and responsibility for 11 year olds around the world. There is no such thing as a “mental age of 11” because there would be so much variance in the definition as to render it useless. However there are some generalities that hold, and one of those is that there is nowhere on earth that 11 year olds could independently run a complex society, led by intrepid 16 year olds. Are you really this dense?

    Adult Whites, by contrast, have mental ages ranging from 11- to 24-years, with an average mental age of 16- to 18-years.”

    So what you’re saying is that most 54 year old White people have a “mental age” of about 24? Wow, that’s 30 years without developing any further… Interesting, I wonder why?

    This is an astonishing fact, with sweeping implications for both domestic and foreign policy.”

    What is astonishing is that you can be this ignorant while having a conversation about IQ and be unaware of the irony of it. Where exactly are you getting your “facts” from, sport? [site sources other than third-hand “race realism” blogs]

    One reason put forward by Arthur Jensen in The G Factor (P 367-9): many sub-70 IQ whites are retarded as a result of in utero misfortunes, with visible deficiencies in motor skills and speech. The majority of sub-70 IQ blacks, in contrast, are technically normal. They appear fully functional.”

    So the retarded population brings down the average for Whites, but it somehow doesn’t bring it down for Blacks – ostensibly because Blacks don’t have “in utero misfortunes.” Again, your powers of reasoning are sub adult.

    Like


  390. Two books:
    “The Mismeasure of a Man”
    And
    “Race and IQ”
    They’re all you need.

    Like


  391. why Africa is backward http://deley71.blogspot.com

    Like


  392. I live in south Africa and have an IQ of 140. I can tell from experience that the african IQ range of 70-80 ,depending on estimate, is correct! Walking in the street, dealing with a black person in a business situation or just having a conversation is utterly unstimulating and frustrating. There are rare cases of intelligence but like I said their rare. It may be hard to fathom that they are that unintelligent but we who live here in the “motherland” know it to be true. The air of intelligence that some people might feel (except from the exceptions) is due to a more sociable nature and outgoing personality as proven in many studies. These as they were are the facts.

    Like


  393. […] Caveat 1: Lynn estimates African IQ as about 67, but says that the “genetic IQ” of Africans is probably 80. But I’m rounding that up to 85 since Lynn is relatively extreme. In the comments, BK has pointed out to the work of Jelte Wicherts which casts some doubt on Lynn’s pessimistic estimates, and suggests that current IQ in South Africa is about 80, which suggests that the “genetic IQ” may be around 85 (see also here). […]

    Like


  394. Funny thing, comparing the IQ differences of whites in 1920 to whites today, you will find that the average white IQ in the 1920s would only be 75 in comparison to white IQ today. Cognitive training and Education and the major drivers in higher IQ.

    Like


  395. ITS TRUE.
    CUZ THEY REDID STUDAY AND STILL SCORED ABOUT SAME
    DO NO BREED WITH BLACKS.. HUGE GENE DONWGRADE!!
    AND BABIES WAY WAQY UGLIER.. NASTY

    Like


  396. @MIK

    WOW!!! Breeding with you would be scrubbing the bottom of the barrel for any race.

    Like


  397. Haha! You gotta love that the guy who’s worried about breeding into a gene downgrade says “CUZ” and “REDID.” —Spells “DONWGRADE” wrong, spells “STUDAY” with an “A,” and spells “Way” with a Q!.

    What is that… like 6 errors in one sentence?

    Yup… gotta be careful about them GeAN DWnGrAidsz!

    Like


  398. @ King

    LOL

    Like


  399. Not true – the average African IQ is 96!

    Like


  400. I would guess that the revelations in this article have some merit. My question is this: why do sub-Saharan Africa and African-American communities continue to struggle so profoundly with poverty, extreme corruption, crime, extremely low living standards, poor formal education?

    This cannot possibly all be the white mans fault or because of environmental factors, institutional racism etc. Japanese Brazilians were brought to that country as indentured servants, on the lowest rungs of society and within a 100 years they became one of the most highly educated and affluent groups in there. I wish with all my heart that we of all colors could be intellectual equals. However, my experience as a teacher and tutor suggests a different, complicated story.

    Why do these differences remain? To blame them continually on white people seems delusional. But what can we do?
    If other races offer to help, we are denounced by others as paternalistic, carrying the the white mans burden. If we claim that we should leave people be and allow them to work out their own problems with their solutions specific to their cultures, we are denounced as heartless and greedy and these people continue in many cases to suffer tragically in their problems. In these cases they are incapable of finding a solution.

    The rest of the world is modernizing, truly giving the west a run for its money and in many cases, getting closer to surpassing the West in terms of economic capabilities. But Ss Africa remains stagnant, stuck somehow. Resources are not to blame— a nation like Nigeria should be far wealthier than it currently is due to its massive oil and and gas reserves. But the average citizen reeps no reward, rather cursed to poverty as if it were a barren sea of its coast. The leaders are beyond corropt, many with careless attitudes you would expect of children.

    We all need each other, in our neighborhoods, communities and now in this highly connected world. But please do not blame ss Africa’s woes all on the evils of Western colonialism. India, China, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Japan, Korea, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Türkey, Iran were all subjected to the same atrocities and somehow have found a way to pull themselves in varying degrees out of disaster into coherent forms of government. Not all societies need to live and think like westerners. Modernization by western standards shouldn’t necessarily by the goal. But a stable, safe system where resources are utilized for at least partially the common good has been achieved almost everywhere but ss Africa. Eventually a solution will be found to end these disasters and create street systems in Africa and to make African Americans as safe and efficient and educated as other communities in that country. We are however a very long way off. White and Asian people cannot fix these problems. The only was is if African Americans and ss Africans revolutionize their community systems and priorities in life. There is really no other solution. It could be much more fruitful than blaming whites and other races.
    -Respect to all human brothers and sisters in all places.

    Like


  401. @Atillah_kasimeyoglu

    “why do sub-Saharan Africa and African-American communities continue to struggle so profoundly with poverty, extreme corruption, crime, extremely low living standards, poor formal education?”—I can assure you it does not have to do with iq. I have heard of plenty of business major etc. being put in a position where they are now living under a bridge with no way to get a break. It is heartbreaking I assure you but it has little to do with his iq.
    “However, my experience as a teacher and tutor suggests a different, complicated story.”—I am not a teacher but I have had several experiences with individuals from low income families across the board. Some white and some black. The issues they face are the same and not assigned because of their race. This is why it boggles me when people claim to be teachers or tutors and really are ignorant on some of the underlining factors in these cases. Even more so when they try to point to “race” when there are so many poor whites in the exact same situation. Yet no question of iq for that poor white family.

    Anyway as to not get caught up in the non-sense, I have found that some actually have learning disorders. Disorders that teachers are usually too lazy to catch or have no time to pay enough attention to catch, disorders that parents can’t really afford to have corrected, disorders that parents are not even aware of and matched with poor teachers then it just really goes unnoticed.

    The rest of your post really comes off as ignorant American thinking; where you believe that these places will be better if they had xyz. What makes you think that? Just because you have this idea that it would be better does not mean it will. Many of white people attempted this and it made the continent worse and as they interfere and sought to impose their ideas and ways on these areas it really only seeks to worsen the situation. Your way is not every bodies way and because certain whites believe that they keep seeing wrong in something and then trying to go in and fix it their way. This is why everyone is so hard up on the US because it wants to interfere in the life of everyone and make it worse.

    Like


  402. Sharina please re-read my post. I state specifically the Wests way is not the only way, it’s just one of millions in fact. However, in many ways African American communities demonstrate to be incapable of improving the situation. This affects us all. I don’t have a solution and in no way am trying to impose my will on anyone.

    Reading to children, trying to teach them about finances, about literature, other language and other countries is nt indoctrinating them. Reading Nelson Mandela, Malcolm X, and Marcus Garvey is hardly indoctrinating them with white supremacy. These children remained ignorant because no one in the community was teaching them. No one. Why not???

    Like


  403. @Atillah_kasimeyoglu

    Please let us not start playing games. You make that statement in the midst of saying things such as “The rest of the world is modernizing, truly giving the west a run for its money and in many cases, getting closer to surpassing the West in terms of economic capabilities. But Ss Africa remains stagnant, stuck somehow.” So your post is contradictory and it is quite allusive of you to try to fall back on one statement in a sea of statements centered on how these countries need to fall in line to be up to your standard of GOOD. You say the west is not the only way yet you are putting this people up to westernized standards of approval. Your whole post is telling them that there way is bad xyz and this is based on YOUR idea and an AMERICAN idea of what is right way and wrong way. So perhaps it is simply you who need to think about and readdress what it is your are saying.

    “Reading to children, trying to teach them about finances, about literature, other language and other countries is nt indoctrinating them. “—This is beside (because it really does not matter what you read to them) the point and it would be much appreciated if you stop the deflect attempts. The point is if you are so busy dealing with that and ignore the possibility that those children may have learning disabilities then you are going to chalk it up to low iq instead of the fact that the little kid may have some disorder that keeps him from retaining the information or even understanding what you are saying.

    Like


  404. “These children remained ignorant because no one in the community was teaching them. No one. Why not???”—Another ignorant statement. In my experience some remain ignorant for that reason and then there are those who parents simply do not know how to teach them (usually have a learning disorder gone unnoticed by parents and lazy teachers). They do not have the same problem or issues and if you were a better teacher then you would be able to asses that and address it as needed.

    Like


  405. @ Atillah_kasimeyoglu: Comment deleted for use of racial slur.

    https://abagond.wordpress.com/comment-policy/

    Like


  406. You’re suggesting 90 % of African American children have learning disabilities? ? ?

    Compare ss Africa to the rest of the post colonial global south? These are facts. Name one prosperous African nation.

    When Mugabe expelled all the whites Zimbabwe was thrown into famine. None of the black citizens knew how to farm on a scale that could feed everyone!

    Like


  407. Resorting to name calling and speaking of things you don’t know about isnt helpful.

    All I know are my experiences. I left the Bay Area and now work with low income Natives and Latinos where the responses are much better. I hope you’ve had better experiences and honestly am glad you have. I started out as an earnest idealist. I come from generations of southern civil rights liberals. I want equality, I want the level playing field. However I found working in low income black communities the most thankless. There is a difference between learning disabilities of varying stripes and children who’ve been raised to think that reading is “white”. The black community will NEVER move forward if this continues to dominate. Please don’t tell me they all have learning disabilities and the teachers are all lazy. We as teachers only have them for 8 hours a day maximum. We cannot change what goes on in the homes. The black families unfortunately are always the most likely to point the finger elsewhere: it must be someone else’s fault.

    It’s not. Black communities can do better. But no one else can do it for them. At the moment, it remains the same. This is denial of basic awful truths. I’m sorry but there is a genetic component.

    Like


  408. Racial slur? Please show.

    Like


  409. You figure it out with your non-racist self.

    Like


  410. How are you supposed to foster an honest dialogue if you police opinions that aren’t yours. I did not and would not utter a racist slur. I’m not at all. White supremacist and want us all equal. I’m just pointing out things many of us (clearly you included) are uncomfortable with. I’m not making this up.

    Like


  411. What, I should put up with racial slurs? You got to be fucking kidding me.

    Like


  412. Brother, I said no racist slur. You’re making this up. There’s no evidence I said that. Not sure what kind of discussion you’re trying to garner if you’re just going to make up lies about people with different opinions.

    Show the “slur” or admit to lying.

    Like


  413. @Atillah_kasimeyoglu

    “You’re suggesting 90 % of African American children have learning disabilities? ? ?”—Nope and you don’t even know that so I would not be quick to pull up percentages you can’t back up. What I am saying is that of the black and white families I have worked with in low income homes that usually the kids have a learning disability vs kids that don’t. In fact if you care to read my comments then you will see I list a few other factors to why this happen as well and even agreed to an extent that some families just don’t teach their kids. Frankly each kid is different and again if you were a better teacher you would be looking into that.

    “Compare ss Africa to the rest of the post colonial global south? These are facts. Name one prosperous African nation.”—Facts that you have yet to back up with real knowledge or sources, but I promise you if you keep pretending like you know Africa then one individual in here will quickly reeducate you on it. But this is just more proof of you throwing around your ignorant American ideas laced with one size fits all.

    “When Mugabe expelled all the whites Zimbabwe was thrown into famine. None of the black citizens knew how to farm on a scale that could feed everyone”—Is that the case or was the land raped of any meaningful nutrients to produce a plentiful crop? I will research that and make a more educated comment.

    Like


  414. @ Atillah_kasimeyoglu

    Listen, with your superior intelligence you should be able to figure it out.

    Like


  415. Lol ok I’m realizing you’re not open to different opinions, Socratic method or basic honesty. Come on man don’t just make stuff up. I used no racial slur.

    I’m far from intellectually superior and never claimed to be. There are brilliant black people and stupid whites. You do realize billions of non-black people think similar things I’m saying, but are uncomfortable saying them? I don’t want they’re to be racial intellectual differences. I want hope and brotherhood man. I’m just tired of the attacks, blaming others and evasion of facts. It’s not all biological; there is hope. IQ is a small fraction of full intelligence. But African American communities and as Africa continue to lag behind everyone else in terms of education, development, infrastructure, medical care, infant mortality rate, violent crime etc.

    Don’t make stuff up about people you disagree with. Engage in a debate, cite facts. This is a joke if you’re going to resort to not only name calling but outright lies.

    Like


  416. Abagond,

    I’ve been thinking about asking you this question for some time:

    “is a it possible to have an ‘Africa’ link, all by itself, sitting next to your ‘Open Thread’ link?”

    Because all your racists and race realists who come here like to put out misinformation about Africa and no one seems to challenge them.

    but Africa can speak for itself– it just needs a platform

    a easy to find link which contains information about different African countries, their prosperity and other positive news that the western media NEVER talks about would go a long way in combating the IGNORANCE that abounds here….even the “rationale and explanations” about what is really going on in and between African ethnic groups.

    because most people don’t actually take the time to look up (nor do they care) to see the real Africa… just a lot of generalizations and stereotypes that need to stop…

    Obviously, being that this is your blog, you might not find this idea productive but you have a large viewer ship and I think this would help to ‘educate’ black/brown people as well.

    Like


  417. Trolling? You’ve got to be kidding me. It’s called debating my friend.

    Like


  418. Respect to you for countering my argument with facts. Thank you. I look forward to you proving me wrong with regards to Zimbabwe. Peace.

    Like


  419. Atillah_kasimeyoglu

    “Resorting to name calling and speaking of things you don’t know about isnt helpful.”—Please do quote where I called you a name? If I did not know about it then I would not speak.

    “All I know are my experiences.”—That is great but didn’t you just try to shut my experiences down by saying I don’t know what I am talking about? I not only have my experience as a person who works with low income, but I also have the experiences of my cousin who teaches for a living and tutors. She was invited to teach at Harvard one summer as well as asked to teach a group of African students in California, so I will say she has a little bit of an up and up here. As to your life experiences I don’t need them as there are some things you need to keep to yourself online and it only serves to divert from the facts.

    “There is a difference between learning disabilities of varying stripes and children who’ve been raised to think that reading is “white”.”—This may have been true in maybe the 1990s but I have found this to be an excuse perpetuated by educators who are too lazy or even fear the kids and would rather make up this as a means for it not to look bad on them. I have 2 white female friends who are white and a white social worker friend and none of them have used that as the problem they faced with low income families. All of thme have consecutively found that the kids are looking for someone to care and the parents don’t know what to do or how to teach them. I have spoken with other blacks who tested and had low scores, we given proper help and took the test again and made higher scores. Many of them had a learning disability. Usually dyslexia.

    “Please don’t tell me they all have learning disabilities and the teachers are all lazy.”—-I never once said that, so please don’t jump the gun and interpret my comments. I understand teachers work long hours for low pay, overcrowded class rooms, and pretty much get the crap end of the stick, but it is good teachers who love their job that take the time to work with a kid they see struggling . If grades are low they talk with the parents and try to see what they actual problem is rather than right it off as black iq. The problem goes both ways because as the educator you are with the kids enough to catch things where low income families usually have no clue what they are looking for and how to deal with it.

    My daughter’s teacher noticed that my daughter was exceptionally talented and was able to recommend things to nurture her different talents. It is called being a good teacher. My cousin had a few of students in her class who she had concerns about and as of late it was found that two of them had dyslexia. The other parent was not that concerned. Now as much as you want to make this a black thing I am sorry but it is a low income thing dear.

    Like


  420. Correction “I have 2 white female friends who are teachers”

    Like


  421. @Linda

    I think it would be greatly helpful. I am not willing to buy into the bs that these people claim is Africa, but I know very little to argue in its favor.

    Like


  422. It’s not just a class thing. The schools and numbers would look different; they don’t. Enjoy your fantasy world.

    Anyone who points this stuff out is a troll, racist, evil white supremacist, colonizer. Lose-lose argument even if every single IQ test shows African Americans at the bottom and East Asians at the top. 15 points below average demonstrates why blacks do not do well in this society. And contrast the earthquakes and response in Haiti vs Japan. Incomparable. Adios. I tried before being attacked and name called, facts I’ve pointed out completely ignored.

    Keep making excuses if you wish. It won’t make for any progress in yor communities.

    Like


  423. @ Atillah_kasimeyoglu

    I can play the Racist Prick Game too:

    Why did it take the Greeks 2,500 years to catch up to the Egyptians? Why did it take another 2,300 years for the British to pass the Chinese? Why do millions of European Americans still live in poverty? What is wrong Subarctic Europeans? Gee, they must be pretty stupid.

    Respect to all human brothers and sisters in all places!

    Like


  424. @ Atillah_kasimeyoglu

    Get a CLUE: France and the USA drove Haiti into poverty and kept it there. They did not do that to Japan.

    Like


  425. now you’re learning, young George🙂

    but watch how the “race realism” shifts and morphs as this commenter engages with others and starts to get frustrated… this is why I said to you, they come in using “race realism” as a cover… they are not just “race realists”, there is a deeper, more “pro-white” agenda behind these commenters.

    all these types of people come on this blog saying the “SAME EXACT things” almost word for word… they use “race realist” theories as “tools”

    Like


  426. Lol you didn’t read what I wrote. Thu did it because they were advanced and intelligent. I never claimed any white supremacism. I stated the East Asians knocked the top off of the IQs and will likely overtake the Wests dominance.

    Like


  427. @ Atillah_kasimeyoglu

    Mugabe?

    I can be a racist cherry-picker too:

    Hitler, Stalin, Tasmanian genocide, Namibian genocide, Taino genocide, Rosewood massacre, Pequot massacre, Wounded Knee massacre, Sandy Hook massacre, Batman shooter, Sikh Temple shooter, etc. Subarctic Europeans have a “propensity” for violence.

    Or: New York City was nearly driven into bankruptcy in the 1970s by Subarctic Europeans.

    Or: Wall Street was crashed, twice, at least, by Subarctic Europeans. Throwing millions out of work. Good job.

    Or: Subarctic Europeans are sick mofos: Casey Anthony, Jeffrey Dahmer, Christopher Columbus, etc.

    What is wrong with sa Europeans?

    See how that works?

    It is called CONFIRMATION BIAS:

    https://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/08/03/confirmation-bias/

    Like


  428. @ Atillah, your name is Turkish. Are you Turkish?

    Like


  429. And I wouldn’t disagree lol! Almost all serial killers are white males! We went around the world and were pretty efficient at violence. There’s some troubling aspects in the European genes for sure!

    Like


  430. Atillah_kasimeyoglu

    “It’s not just a class thing. The schools and numbers would look different; they don’t. Enjoy your fantasy world.”—What are you even talking about? What does low income have to do with the schools or the difference in the numbers? Perhaps it is time for you to get out of your fantasy world and stop trying to equate two things that really have no bearing. Perhaps if you knew what you are talking about then you would not be scrambling.
    “Anyone who points this stuff out is a troll, racist, evil white supremacist, colonizer.”—Nope just so far ignorant.

    “15 points below average demonstrates why blacks do not do well in this society. And contrast the earthquakes and response in Haiti vs Japan. Incomparable. Adios. I tried before being attacked and name called, facts I’ve pointed out completely ignored.”—You presented an opinion and I asked for source and you keep taking over it to avoid the fact that you have no facts or source to back you.

    “Keep making excuses if you wish. It won’t make for any progress in yor communities.”—Considering that I mentioned low income blacks and whites I am curious on who it is I am making an excuse for and an excuse and a reason for problems are two different things. I suggest you educated yourself on the difference. In the mean time I found a source for you.

    http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/speced/2011/07/a_new_report_from_the_1.html

    Like


  431. @ Atillah_kasimeyoglu: Another comment deleted for use of racial slur.

    Like


  432. Atillah, you say

    But please do not blame ss Africa’s woes all on the evils of Western colonialism. India, China…Türkey, Iran were all subjected to the same atrocities…and somehow have found a way to pull themselves in varying degrees out of disaster into coherent forms of government.”

    What atrocities and disaster was Turkey left in…and from who?
    Are you saying Turkey was colonised?

    Turkey had an empire in the form of the Ottomans.
    Turkey committed at least 2 genocides in the last century….so, what are you saying?

    Please explain so that we can all understand your reasoning because it’s not hanging together.

    Like


  433. @ George

    She is also using the model minority argument if I am not mistaken.

    Like


  434. We went around the world and were pretty efficient at violence.

    We?

    Sounds like Atillah is a Muslim Asian who wants to run with the whites.

    Like


  435. anyway Abagond,

    just to touch somewhat on what your poster brought up about Zimbabwe —
    and Robert Mugabe

    your concerned commenter forgot to mention some of the REASONS why Mugabe kicked the white people out: land reform

    “Robert Mugabe has to be one of the West’s worst nightmares. He is certainly one amongst the handful remaining Africans that is open against white oppression. Africa needs African leaders rooted in Africa not African leaders that the West hero worships because they are ready to continue white supremacy.

    This was the difference between Mugabe and Mandela. Robert Mugabe is fighting to reverse the legacy of colonialism, Mandela was prepared to continue Apartheid economy in exchange for black political power that really meant nothing for the blacks.

    The whites possessed the title deeds for the finest agricultural land upon which they established 70,000 mega-farms. And they farmed the land for 110 years. The physical labour was provided by the natives of the country. And these people were virtually enslaved.

    Mr Mugabe said he embarked on the land-grab programme in 2000 to address the expropriation of land from blacks during white rule that ended after a civil war in 1980.

    How wrong can Mugabe be when he says the land and natural resources belong to Zimbabwe and not to white colonialists?”

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/why-is-zimbabwes-robert-mugabe-not-a-hero/5362220

    I also find it highly interesting that after Mugabe enacts “land reform” and orders these white farmers to leave (which many of them didn’t and fought back)

    then that all of a sudden Zimbabwe is experiencing “food shortages” aka famine according to the western media. (hmmm, suspicious anyone?)

    now if you’re commenter had been genuine, then he would have been willing to discuss the pro’s and con’s of Mugabe wanting to remove these white immigrant descendants… but he only mentioned the “con”…

    how do your caring concerned white commenters expect to hold any meaningful dialogue if they are only concerned with the Negative ?!
    (and you know I’m being rhetorical)

    Like


  436. I’ve stated over and over again that evidence suggest the global south is rising in many places inspite of colonialism by Europe in the past.

    All of the countries I listed were perfect examples with the exception of Türkey. It was occupied after the Ottoman Empire fell and the European powers did try to split it up but miscalculated.

    Lol it’s really bizarre to watch people read and hear only what they want to.

    And I did not say any racial slur. The guy is deleting my comments because they bother him I guess. Cowardly. Bye bye everyone. Sorry if truths hurt.

    Like


  437. @ Linda

    Thanks. I am going to have to do a post on Mugabe – and Detroit.

    The Africa tab is a good idea too since it is always thrown in our face, Broken Africa stereotype and all.

    Like


  438. What the whites did to Zimbabwe was wrong no one would deny this. Expeing whites go invades sounds like an understandable option. I would never disagree. The problem was that after Mugabe expelled the white and had black farmers take over the farms, they weren’t able to produce the food on a mass scale and a huge famine resulted. Do you see that connection? No famine until the whites were kicked out.

    Like


  439. Atillah_kasimeyoglu

    “I’ve stated over and over again that evidence suggest the global south is rising in many places inspite of colonialism by Europe in the past.”—I usually don’t go by people’s opinion as opinions are biased and not typically based on evidence but conclusions one came to on their own. So if you could please provide a source I would be interested in reading it on my own.

    “Lol it’s really bizarre to watch people read and hear only what they want to.”—I am glad you noticed that you are doing that. Perhaps upon furthering this exchange you can avoid it.

    “Sorry if truths hurt.”—I know it hurts you but