The following is based on Zek J. Evets’s post “21st Century Scientific Racism” on his blog Zeitgeist of the Saboteur Academia. He meant it as an angry rant, but he made some good points all the same. So here, as a service to the reader, I took out the rant and present his main points as I understand them:
According to race realism and the field of human biodiversity (HBD), the scientific racism of our day, the following are true:
- Race is genetic.
- Race affects intelligence.
- The races in order of intelligence are: Asians, Whites, Hispanics/Mixed, Blacks.
Why this is wrong:
- Race is a social construct, created by the rules of society not by genetics.
- The differences between people from different parts of the world are too new and too slight to account for differences in IQ.
Your intelligence is determined not by your race but by where you were born, when you were born, a bit from your parents’s genes and the rest from what you make of it.
Scientific racists make four big mistakes:
1. Correlation does not equal causation
Just because blacks in America have a higher crime rate or a lower average IQ does not necessarily mean the cause is mainly genetic. To come to such a conclusion you would have to assume that racism is pretty much dead, that American society is just so gosh-darn fair to everyone that genetics is pretty much all that remains to account for the differences.
2. Confirmation bias
Scientific racists notice the cases that prove their ideas while overlooking those that disprove them. But in science it is the exceptions that disprove the rule. That is why the law of gravity is still a part of science: no known exceptions!
3. Lack of expertise
Look at the race realists and HBDers you hear about most:
- Steve Sailer, journalist/computer salesman.
- J. Philippe Rushton, psychologist.
- Francis Fukuyama, political economist.
- Steve Hsu, astrophysicist.
- Richard Herrnstein, psychologist.
- Charles Murray, political scientist.
- Arthur Jensen, psychology professor.
You notice anything strange? No biologists or anthropologists, much less geneticists.
Why in the world should we trust these people over biologists and anthropologists, the very people who study these things for a living? To leave no stone unturned, some biologists and anthropologists have even written books about race for the general public:
- “Guns, Germs, and Steel”, Jared Diamond, biologist
- “The Mismeasure of Man”, Stephen Jay Gould, biologist
- “Genes, Peoples, and Languages”, Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, geneticist
- “Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Human Race”, Ashley Montagu, anthropologist
These books are good to help you overcome the racist brainwashing of American society.
4. Conspiracy theories
The reason scientific racists give for trusting, say, Steve Sailer, a computer salesman, over Cavalli-Sforza, a professor of human genetics who has, like, studied race, is, wait for it, that people like Cavalli-Sforza secretly agree with them but are too afraid to say so in public! Have they gone mad?
See also:
I feel really bad that one astrophysicist buys into this crap. Shouldn’t they know better?
Oh, yes… And the old “everybody agrees with us, but are too scared to admit it!” trope.
LikeLike
Enlightening post once again!
So, so, so GLAD, I found this blogspace! This place is such a mental respite from the daily gaslighting that I encounter in the US society. THANK YOU to all the commenters (ie. Abagond, The Cynic, King, Zek J. Evets and the like :D) Keep fighting the good fight!
LikeLike
This is stupid. Human populations don’t need major genetic differences to have a genetic based difference in IQ. It’s all just a matter of distribution. You could take a million people and have them randomly split into two groups and they would not be equal on a multitude of measures, including IQ. And it would be partly because of genetics. Practically everyone understands that intelligence is heritable on the individual level. Populations are just groups of individuals. All populations would need to have the same distribution of individual differences to be equal on all measures. They don’t even have to be the same race. You could just take two groups of ten guys from random races and they would have different group averages and yes, their differences in averages would be partly based on genetics because they’re biological beings, not theoretical constructs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A few addendums Abagond,
Diamond is a historian more than a biologist, and Gould is known primarily as a paleoanthropologist. However, both appellations are fine.
That said, haha, I can only IMAGINE how difficult it was to condense my long-winded rant into that post. Good job, bravo! I have another post on the subject, but I’m sure people will find it, and I’m also preparing another post utilizing a new slew of experts, Leon Kamin, Steven Rose, Richard Nisbett, and even Lewontin (who is still considered part of mainstream genetics, despite the assertions by HBDers that he’s been debunked). I plan to add in a bunch of studies that show IQ heritability below 0.5 (less than 50%) as well as related articles on WHY IQ and race — two amorphous concepts — cannot be tied to strict genetics, or a strictly hereditarian/sociobiological approach.
I also plan to get in a few jabs at the recent onslaught of haters in the blogosphere ; )
Thanks again for the plug!
LikeLike
So, if genetics does not play a part in racial intelligence differences, which I believe it does’nt, what has given anglo europeans ‘the edge’ over all other groups, worldwide? It is something, if not ‘raw intelligence’ than is it they were/are more manipulative, persuasive, dangerous, resourceful? What?
LikeLike
@ Sagat
“It’s all just a matter of distribution. You could take a million people and have them randomly split into two groups and they would not be equal on a multitude of measures, including IQ.”
Are you arguing for “racial I.Q.” or something else?
“Practically everyone understands that intelligence is heritable on the individual level.”
But how much? That’s the thing. How much of our intelligence is because of our free choices to form good habits, and avoid or change bad ones? How much do we shape ourselves as individuals and how much is predetermined?
Do you have an idea?
LikeLike
@ Oyan
Circumstance.
LikeLike
Öööh… I’m not quite sure what Sagat is trying to say but it is something about IQ being genetical and therefore n****rs must be stupid, if he goes on for a while longer, just like all the other guys here have done. 😀
Well done abagond and zek! 10/10!
@mira: well, being a scientist is not a waxine against racism. There has been many scientists in the past who have been racists, excuse moi, “race realists/HBDers/realists” etc. Usually in their case they do not understand that they have a belief in this, not a scientific fact. A bit like some of these guys here. They really believe but do not see it. They believe it is science, when in reality it is just a belief.
LikeLike
Hey Sam, where is your countryman, Hannu these days?
LikeLike
@oyan: Read few history books and you see what it was and still is. We the “europeans” are the guys who will go on any land in this planet, maybe excludin China now (it has those nukes, you see), and give the natives a decent beating. We will kill them, smash their houses, kill their kids, steal their riches, do what ever we want where ever we want. And most of all, we all think it is ok.
Does anybody here know how many years there were between 1900-2000 when not one british soldier was killed in a war or armed conflict? One. 1968. Tells you something, doesn’t it?
And how many decades of peace USA has had since 1945? How many years there has been since the fall of Hitler when USA has not been in war somewhere?
Yeap. Makes one think, doesn’t it? 😀
LikeLike
@king: No idea? Haven’t seen him around here too much.
LikeLike
@ Sam: He must have found himself a girl, and now he has no time to argue with racists!
LikeLike
King said
I don’t really believe in racial IQ in the sense that many others do. Though I often make generalizations about races, as I’ve told you before, this is just something I do out of convenience for the conversation.
There are recognized population differences in IQ, even between similar racial groups. For instance, there’s a widely known IQ gap between southern Italy and northern Italy. Though IQ is generally not changeable to any significant degree on the individual level, it is on the group level. A simple change in distribution of intelligent people can change IQ averages. Hypothetically, let’s say you take all the smartest Black people in America and move them to New York and move all Blacks with an IQ under 100 to Alabama. Right there, you’ve changed group averages. Does the difference have some basis in genetics? Of course it does. Intelligence is heritable.
We don’t know. We probably will never fully know. To estimate the amount that is genetic, we have to control for environmental and cultural variables and simply make an educated guess as to how much of the difference is heritable. We don’t have to know every single gene that affects intelligence. You don’t have to be a geneticist or biologist to estimate heritability, as Zek asserts.
LikeLike
“I don’t really believe in racial IQ in the sense that many others do.”
Good. That makes you less wrong than they are.
“[How much of IQ is hereditary] We don’t know. We probably will never fully know. To estimate the amount that is genetic, we have to control for environmental and cultural variables and simply make an educated guess as to how much of the difference is heritable.”
I realize that in an age that has brought us so much scientific progress, in so short a time,l that it’s tempting to think that ANY scientific achievement is possible.
But if you are honest, realistically, we don’t know that we can EVER truly “control” for: environment, culture, diet, psychological well-being, circulation, disease factors, and sleep cycles do we? I mean, that’s a complex little cocktail of variables there, and each of those categories can be further split into many more sub variables. The chances of accuracy in our control factors is pretty low, isn’t it?
LikeLike
King,
Here is a good example of what I am talking about:
Watch the full video and look at Abuja, the capital of Nigeria compared to Lagos. Abuja is a place primarily for Nigeria’s intellectual and economic elites. Are the differences in the two cities only because of genes? No. But if we accept the heritability of intelligence, then we have to accept that genes play a role in the stark differences in living standards. Then, of course, the dispute is how much they do, not whether or not they do.
Now imagine that if over time, these two cities became endogamous (only bred among themselves) and two ethnic groups, the Lagosians and the Abujanians, formed. And if the Abujanians consistently outperformed the Lagosians on all measures of intelligence over years of testing, it wouldn’t be “racist” to suspect that the Abujanians were more intelligent on average and this has something to do with their genes.
LikeLike
King said
Yes, you are right. Even people from the same socio-economic background aren’t brought up the same, don’t have the exact same diet or have the exact same pre-natal care or nutrition. That’s why I readily stated that we probably will never truly know how much the differences are genetic. At best we can make an educated guess based on the available data.
But that does not mean we simply disregard heritability as many here try to do. I mean, I would love to believe that Thais are as intelligent on average as Koreans, but the evidence is not there. But does it matter? Do I think less of my own ethnic kin because of it? No. I take the good with the bad. Thais may have a lower average IQ, but we have a sunnier disposition, for whatever that’s worth. 🙂
LikeLike
“Now imagine that if over time, these two cities became endogamous (only bred among themselves) and two ethnic groups, the Lagosians and the Abujanians, formed. And if the Abujanians consistently outperformed the Lagosians on all measures of intelligence over years of testing, it wouldn’t be “racist” to suspect that the Abujanians were more intelligent on average and this has something to do with their genes.”
The word “racist” has more than a few meanings. Let us instead say that to ascribe the difference to specifically to genetics would be” unscientific.” [Correlation is not Causation]
There would be so many other factors to consider, that deciding on just one as the primary reason would be premature.
LikeLike
@Sam: Read few history books and you see what it was and still is. We the “europeans” are the guys who will go on any land in this planet, maybe excludin China now (it has those nukes, you see), and give the natives a decent beating. We will kill them, smash their houses, kill their kids, steal their riches, do what ever we want where ever we want. And most of all, we all think it is ok.
————————————————————-
I have read the ‘history’ of Western ‘civilization. So you are basically saying that while ‘raw intelligence’ is not the reason for white supremacy/dominace, the fact is that europeans are ‘bad asses’! and take no prisoners, but plenty slaves. ok.
LikeLike
Good post! I don’t know which I like more. The main points or the picture.
LikeLike
King said
It’s not unscientific to look at genes as a cause. We are biological beings, so it’s to be expected that genes play an important role in our differences. What is unscientific is to simply disregard genes as a factor, simply because it makes some people feel uncomfortable.
And I never said that genes are the only or primary factor in our differences. Not here or anywhere else have I said that and I’ve always held the position that IQ isn’t everything with regards to life success. We should look at all the multiple variables that affect individual and group outcomes, including genetic differences. I constantly see this either/or attitude when it comes to the nature/nurture debate here on this blog when the real truth is that it’s both.
LikeLike
Another good post considering the back-and-forths we have with the online race realists who put the authors you mention on a pedestal insisting they’re correct.
It’s only a matter of time before they step in and perform their usual comedy sessions regarding this post.
LikeLike
I constantly see this either/or attitude when it comes to the nature/nurture debate here on this blog when the real truth is that it’s both.
I disagree Sagat. What you see is a reaction to extreme attempts at scientific racism.
Obviously it’s both, and scientists have recognized this for decades. The problem is to what degree? To what end? In this regard most people, most scientists differ greatly from HBDers.
IQ is not overwhelmingly predetermined by a person’s genetics. And even people with significant mental disabilities stemming from genetic causes can develop fully functioning cognitive capabilities. Moreover, race is not genetic, but phenotypic. It is based on morphological characteristics, geographic ancestry, and cultural associations. That is to say, race is a sociocultural construct that does not really exist because it is fundamentally ambiguous. Especially our perceptions of it.
Finally, behavior, intelligence, and other such traits are fundamentally incapable of being accurately measured due to cultural differences and the inability to develop universal standards of measurement. There is no single type of intelligence, and one person’s aggression is another’s passivity. Human biology and genetics do vary, and do exhibit many characteristics grounded in these areas, but they are not the sole cause, or the sole determinant. And because experimentation is impossible due to contamination, the only evidence available are correlations, which leaves scientists unable to definitively determine causation.
These are pretty basic things which, unfortunately, a small and vocal wing of Americans regularly espouse. But more troubling is how readily many people are to believe it even despite the plethora of contradictory evidence. This willingness towards racism is something which is at the heart of every single discussion on this blog. Why be racist? What purpose does it serve? To what end? Questions like these are ultimately what every conversation will come down to.
And when that happens, we will discover that racism is incompatible with our most sacred laws and traditions. But until we examine ourselves, there will always be room for fear to breed hatred and suspicion of Others.
LikeLike
The picture that accompanies this post is effing HILARIOUS!
LikeLike
@zek: well said.
@oyan: yep, that is basically what I am saying. White europeans are not and have not been more intelligent than any others in this planet. What has separated us from any other culture is our incredible willingness to go to war. And when we go to war, we really do.
One example Operation Iraki Freedom: aprox. 300 000 civilians killed. Ok, US finally got rid of that bad dude, but the way to do it: destroy the whole frigging country. I mean hospitals, schools, houses, roads, everything, while doing it.
Yes, true, other cultures and civilizations have had bad guys and have gone to war and have had genocides etc. but something in our culture, in our way of thinking and doing it has made it possible to dominate the world politics. There is something roman in it: “you are either with us or against us. You can fight us once, and we will fight you as long as it takes for you to succumb, but if you rise up again, we will destroy you all”. Dacians were wiped out totally.
@sagat: “What is unscientific is to simply disregard genes as a factor, simply because it makes some people feel uncomfortable.”
I think nobody here disregards genes at all. What I do not, and some others here, do not agree is the attempt to make claims which are unscientific and/or pseudoscientific. “There is more than one human race and it is biological, IQ is biological and race based, that population is more stupid than this one here etc.”
That is the thing. Nobody disregads the genes. It is what some say about the genes. False claims, if you will.
LikeLike
Zek said
I don’t understand your reasoning that allows you to state in the same sentence that race is phenotypic, but not genetic. Our phenotype is the outward expression of our genes. If anything can be said to be heritable, it’s our physical features. It wouldn’t matter where I was born or where I was raised, I would always look like a southeast Asian because my parents are Thai. And that has to do specifically with my genes.
Yes, our phenotype doesn’t reveal the entirety of our genotype, and I think that’s what you are trying to get at. But it’s misleading to state that race is not genetic, but phenotypic, as if our phenotype is caused mainly by our environment.
Most everything that we label is a construct based on our understanding. What’s the difference between a maple tree and an oak tree? Not everyone knows. Probably the majority of world couldn’t tell you and yet a maple tree and an oak tree still exist as two distinct types of trees. We choose to be aware of the differences and assign meaning to those differences. We could choose to ignore the differences and say, “A tree is a tree. They are are mostly alike. The differences are meaningless.” But if we did that we don’t increase our understanding. And that is what science is all about. To ignore the differences, ambiguous as they may be, is unscientific and lessens our knowledge and understanding of the world.
LikeLike
Race affects intelligence. Rubbish.
Intelligence all depends on how individuals apply themselves and acquire knowledge. Knowledge can be acquired by reading widely and extensively, through theory and practice. Of course, it all depends on whether or not you have access to that knowledge in the first place, does it not?
Knowledge is not dependent on race, although some people have the opportunity to apply themselves more through wealth and possibly status.
I’m done with people trying to hoodwink me with false and misleading information.
Also, your environment, food and nutrition, water, pollution, toxins and other factors affects intelligence as well. Let’s not forget about those.
LikeLike
@ Sagat
“Yes, you are right. Even people from the same socio-economic background aren’t brought up the same, don’t have the exact same diet or have the exact same pre-natal care or nutrition. That’s why I readily stated that we probably will never truly know how much the differences are genetic. At best we can make an educated guess based on the available data.”
Finally Sagat is sagacious! I totally agree with you! Wait a minute… how an that be? What kind of an HBDer ARE you??!!
“But that does not mean we simply disregard heritability as many here try to do. I mean, I would love to believe that Thais are as intelligent on average as Koreans, but the evidence is not there.”
Nobody here does that. Sagat, the beef is not with the intelligence, it’s with the heritability. I will agree with you that South Koreans (on average) may be smarter than African-Americans (on average). They certainly test better, at any rate.
But that’s an entirely different argument than saying that African-Americans, as a group, are genetically incapable of making the same kind of decisions and achieving the same kind of results, if they choose to. If you believe in cognitive malleability, then you believe that people can grow smarter by learning.
LikeLike
@ Sagat
Totally irrelevant what Joe Blow knows or not. A maple and an oak tree are genetically way more distinct from one another than 5m high, 20cm thick bamboo and ordinary grass.
Objects in mirror are closer than they appear…
Deliberately choosing to see differences without looking behind the surface, ambiguous as they may be, is unscientific and lessens our knowledge and understanding of the world.
LikeLike
“It’s not unscientific to look at genes as a cause. We are biological beings, so it’s to be expected that genes play an important role in our differences. What is unscientific is to simply disregard genes as a factor, simply because it makes some people feel uncomfortable.”
It is not unscientific to hypothesize that genes MAY be a cause.
It is unscientific to assume that genes are the cause.
LikeLike
[…] has “summarized” some of Zek’s ignorant, hateful, anti-scientific garbage in his Monday post, and the first of my two rebuttals of said garbage in his Tuesday […]
LikeLike
***new slew of experts, Leon Kamin, Steven Rose, Lewontin***
New in the 1970’s? As for Richard Nisbett, have you read Harvard’s James J Lee’s review of his book?
LikeLike
Schwartz,
New as in new for my posts on the subject. All of the science I quote is old hat — part of the basics, part of the fundamentals that every scientist in this field learns and understands before getting their undergrad.
However, I will also include new research into the field, as well as critiques on them.
That said, James J Lee is a psychologist attempting to refute a soft-science explanation of the environmental affects on intelligence by using genetic/biologic data.
The problem with that is that James J Lee is a psychologist. Not a geneticist. Not a biologist. Not any kind of forensic or bio-anthropologist. A psychologist. If he wished to argue on the grounds that Nisbett makes his conclusions, then I’d be happy to give him some credit. That said, Steve Sailer links to his review and that in and of itself makes it sketchy.
Computer salesmen aren’t experts in human genetics either.
Sagat,
Just a quick clarification, in case you’re still reading. Phenotype is coded for by genotype, but unlike the latter the former is subject to changes from the environment. Height, weight, nose shape, eye-color, skin-tone, all such things can be changed in small to large degrees by how you are raised, especially your early health.
That said, I apologize if I seemed misleading. I do believe how we define race is based on genetic traits that are expressed in our phenotype, but due to punctuated equilibrium, these traits change from age to age, so that races do not hold true across time (or space). In this regard, geographic ancestry becomes problematic when you cannot rely on what someone looks like to indicate where they are from, or vice versa.
And I do no disagree in ascribing people to races (provided they consent) I merely disagree to the way in which it is done, and the way in which it is used to oppress others.
LikeLike
Ok, then explain this:
“Studies on over 700 participants show that individuals with larger brain volumes have higher IQ scores. About two dozen studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to measure the volume of the human brain have found an overall correlation with IQ of greater than .40 (Rushton & Ankney, 1996; P. A. Vernon, Wickett, Bazana, & Stelmack, 2000). The correlation of .40 using MRI is much higher than the .20 correlation found in earlier research using simple head size measures, although the .20 correlation is also reliable and significant. Rushton and Ankney (1996) reviewed 32 studies correlating measures of external head size with IQ scores or with measures of educational and occupational achievement, and they found a mean r^2 = .20 for people of all ages, both sexes, and various ethnic backgrounds, including African Americans.”
and
“Race differences in average brain size are observable at birth. A study by Rushton (1997) analyzed recorded head circumference measurements and IQ scores from 50,000 children in the Collaborative Perinatal Project followed from birth to age 7 (Broman, Nichols, Shaugnessy, & Kennedy, 1987). Using the head circumference measures to calculate cranial capacity at birth, 4 months, 1 year, and 7 years, at each of these ages, the Asian American children averaged larger cranial volumes than did the White children, who averaged larger cranial volumes than did the Black children. Within each race, cranial capacity correlated with IQ scores. By age 7, the Asian American children averaged an IQ of 110; the White children, 102; and the Black children 90. Because the Asian American children were the shortest in stature and the lightest in weight while the Black children were the tallest in stature and the heaviest in weight, these average race differences in brain-size/IQ relations were not due to body size.”
Oops.
Those damned racist MRI machines.
Still think you’ve got truth on your side?
LikeLike
Oh, and you might be interested in this paper by Jared Diamond since he’s an authority and all.
Ethnic differences: Variation in human testis Size
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v320/n6062/abs/320488a0.html
Don’t worry, that there are measurable differences in the organs with the most evolutionarily critical function between people from different continents probably means that evolution stopped at the neck. Or that there are no differences between populations of humans who have been isolated for 10,000 years. Definitely one of those two things.
LikeLike
As for the claim that biologists would tell the truth in public about these matters in plain terms – of course that’s true.
Just look at the warm embrace that James Watson got for broaching the subject. It’s not like he was removed from the his post at the research institute that he founded. Nor was he a Nobel Prize winning biologist.
LikeLike
@steve johnson:
“Studies on over 700 participants show that individuals with larger brain volumes have higher IQ scores”.
So you are saying that spermwhales are the most intelligent mammals in the planet? Right?
Oh man, you are so hilarious! Monty Python could not do any better!! 😀
LikeLike
“Oh, and you might be interested in this paper by Jared Diamond since he’s an authority and all.”
Do you mean the very same Jared Diamond who wrote that “Vengeance Is Ours ” article in the New Yorker?
“On 21 April 2009, Henep Isum Mandingo and Hup Daniel Wemp of Papua New Guinea filed a $10 million USD defamation lawsuit against Diamond over a 2008 New Yorker magazine article titled “Vengeance Is Ours: What can tribal societies tell us about our need to get even?”[7] The article is an account of feuds and vengeance killings among tribes in the New Guinea highlands which Mandingo and Wemp claim have been misrepresented and embellished by Diamond.[8] The lawsuit came in the wake of an investigation by Rhonda Roland Shearer which alleged factual inaccuracies in the article, most notably that Mandingo, the alleged target of the feud who was said to have been rendered wheelchair-bound in the fighting recounted by Diamond, is fit and healthy.[9]” Wiki
http://scienceblogs.com/bioephemera/2009/05/jared_diamond_hides_behind_the.php
http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/latest-journalism-news-updates-149.php
Or… am I getting him mixed up with somebody with the same name 🙂
LikeLike
@ Sam:
White europeans are not and have not been more intelligent than any others in this planet. What has separated us from any other culture is our incredible willingness to go to war.
Absolutely. I wonder if in the year 1300, HBDers were sitting around discussing whether Mongols were the brainiest people in the world, since how else would they so dominate the Eurasian continent?
So you are saying that spermwhales are the most intelligent mammals in the planet?
I for one welcome our new sperm whale overlords.
LikeLike
Don’t know if you’ve noticed sam but sperm whales are a bit larger than humans (probably due to their environments – if we just created a Head Start program that could duplicate the early childhood environments of sperm whales, that might change).
Among humans, the groups with the largest body mass actually have the smallest brains. Strangely enough that group with the smallest brains and largest bodies tests worse on every measure of cognitive ability every created. That’s really odd, don’t you think? Eh, don’t bother thinking about it – might make you uncomfortable.
King-
Excellent job pointing out that, yes, Jared Diamond is a liar. When he says what everyone wants to hear – he’s lying (liars tend to do that).
On the other hand, when he does a study with measurable, check-able data he’s likely reporting the truth (but will spin it dishonestly).
In plain terms, Jared Diamond lies (and knows he’s lying) when he says that there aren’t biological differences in cognitive abilities between races and is telling the truth when he is reporting the results of weighing the testicles of corpses of (a statistically significant sample) people from various races.
You should probably take issue with the original post for citing him as an expert.
LikeLike
Here we go again – correlation without a shred of evidence of causality.
The most hilarious part is how those number crunchers are able to get any credibility at all and also from whom they get it. What’s actually sad from a scientific perspective is how they get away with obviously ignoring neuroscientific facts (not hypotheses) such as structural plasticity or neuroplasticity. There are many physiological processes in the brain that control cognitive performance. Size plays a minor role within a given species, if any at all, especially in humans where the differences are small and on an individual level. The brain-to-body mass will not get you any further either. Among mammals, that ratio is greatest in mice, next to humans. It’s even higher in birds.
If you want to look at the absolute amount, here’s a simple example. A Chihuahua and a Rottweiler are able to learn the same tricks although their brain sizes differ considerably. On the other hand, the cognitive capabilities of a Rottweiler are not superior to the Chihuahua proportionally to its brain size. The question then is, what is the rest of the Rottweiler’s brain matter doing if it can’t learn more than its tiny species mate? A plausible conclusion would be that there must be something else at work and that a given cognitive performance is independent of the brain mass of an individual within a given species, (and also brain-to-body mass cross-species.)
Neuroscientists have already found a few answers to that question. Once again, the keyword is plasticity, ie. rewiring of synapses. Directly observable and experimentally reproducible, synaptic rewiring has a strong environmental component.
Apart from that, there are also other parts involved in cognitive processes such as the cerebellum. Neuronal density is also thought to play a big role. However the precise physiological mechanisms are not yet fully understood. Full stop. A bunch of cooked up stats by a handful of quacks will certainly not contribute anything productive to the serious research of neuroscientists.
LikeLike
So then, you are saying that everybody wanted to believe that Mandingo was in a wheelchair, when in fact, he was not. Jared Diamond simply couldn’t resist confirming their misapprehensions in this case.
On testicles.
1) Are you aware of a second study from an unaffiliated and independent researcher confirming Diamond’s results.
2) Can you point us to any peer review information on the study?
3) Can you identify 2 or more studies with opposing viewpoints on the matter that can be weighed against Diamond’s conclusions?
At any rate, my point is that science is science. I thought Germs, Guns and Steel had some good points, and some things that might have better explanations. Sometimes scientists are being objective, and sometimes they are not carefully checking their information.
That is why this habit of pointing to a single study by ANY ONE RESEARCHER is a futile exercise. The current CONSENSUS of the scientific communities of Geneticists, Biologists, and Anthropologists, all hold the the same conclusion, that there aren’t biological differences in cognitive abilities between races. That is not based on one testicle study.
LikeLike
@Steve Johnson
Those damned racist MRI machines.
Lol!!! We’ve already covered the brain size myth. Please enjoy the read. Check section 3
Click to access Wicherts+Reply.pdf
Read the exchange btwn me and Zek
Still think you’ve got truth on your side?
When I see ppl like you quoting Rushton as if he is a credible psychologist… YEP!!! 🙂
LikeLike
The Cynic –
You’ve lost the debate and you know it. In humans (not in dogs or sperm whales for the careful reader) brain size is correlated with intelligence. This correlation is very good – .4 for external skull measurements even greater for MRIs done to measure brain size but this is all besides the point.
Your study is a smoke screen. It doesn’t deny that there are brain size differences between races – it simply says that they don’t explain the entire black white IQ gap. From your study:
“Rushton (this issue) claims that global differences in IQ and development can be explained in terms of (race) differences in brain size. Rushton (2000) has gone to great lengths to show that race groups differ on average in terms of brain size, with Whites averaging 1347 cm3 and Blacks averaging 1267 cm3. The mean difference may appear impressive, but it is virtually meaningless without knowledge of the typical spread of brain size within populations, which is around SD = 130 cm3. So the Black-White difference in brain size is approximately 80/130 ~ .6 SD units.”
The point you’re missing is that this is definitive proof that evolution didn’t stop at the neck nor did it stop 10,000 years ago. Think about this for a second. DIFFERENT BRAIN SIZES EVOLVED IN DIFFERENT RACIAL GROUPS. Now try thinking like a biologist – why would that be so? Lots of reasons possibly. However, the idea that you could have differential selection on brains that didn’t have an effect on cognitive ability is ludicrous.
In short, when you’ve got multiple groups that, when given cognitive tests, show one group consistently far below the others in cognitive measures then you look and find that group has a different (smaller) brain you don’t conclude that it must be racism that’s causing the differences in results – you conclude that it’s something that’s the result of natural or sexual selection namely genetic differences as a result of different selection pressures. You know, in accordance with the theory of evolution. Which you believe in. Or so you claim.
King –
You’d do your own damned research if you were curious but you’re not. You just want to score points by asking infinite questions. The original poster had a standard – Jared Diamond is an expert and Steve Sailer is a computer salesman. Under his standard if Jared Diamond says it you should believe it. When it comes to popular, non-scholarly books Jared Diamond says one thing. When it comes to peer reviewed science he says another. Draw your own conclusions.
LikeLike
I thought this brain size stuff was discredited in the 1800s.
LikeLike
Steve:“You’d do your own damned research if you were curious but you’re not.” <[amateur mind reading attempt]
Translation:“I never really checked… I just cut and pasted this from an HBD website, and I have no idea of the overall state of research on this issue. I just thought that posting one study here would make my assertions seem unassailable.”
Well, in that case, my dear boy, I guess there’s not much science left to discuss.
LikeLike
@Steve johnson
You can delude yourself into believing whatever you want. I really don’t care. Your’e sooooo off-base w/ the brain stuff it’s not even worth arguing. Anyways, I don’t post little links like that for ppl like you. Just the innocent bypassers w/ enough logic, rationality, and common sense to understand whys you are so wrong.
Good day
LikeLike
No, there is not even direct evidence of correlation within any species, let alone causation.
If any causation can ever be determined beyond all doubt it is highly likely to be found in physiological mechanisms inside the brain and its adjacent parts, going by the experimental (direct) evidence that has been reproduced so far. The size of the brain is irrelevant within a species according to neuroscientific evidence.
Literature – Changeux, Edelman, Calvin, Gazzaniga, Greenough et al.
LikeLike
@eurasian sensation: 😀 Well, actually HBDers knew what was the edge the mongols had. They were in cahoots with the devil. Ha! It is scientific fact, they said back then. Well…
@abagond: “I thought this brain size stuff was discredited in the 1800s.”
It kind of was, and has been ever since, but little Stevie here was not born in 1800’s so he does not know it and since he has not read too many books, he can not know it. 😀
@steve johnson: “Don’t know if you’ve noticed sam but sperm whales are a bit larger than humans”
I have indeed, but haven’t you? It was you who said that bigger the brains more intelligent, and since spermwhales are mammals too, I figured they must be the real braniacs.
LikeLike
lol
It seems like this one (amongst others) should be archived in “for entertainment purposes only”.
LikeLike
I thought this brain size stuff was discredited in the 1800s.
Racists always recycle arguments. Presenting debunked theories as modern facts is kind of their calling card.
LikeLike
abagond
I thought this brain size stuff was discredited in the 1800s.
You thought wrong.
Reread the article that The Cynic posted. Everyone acknowledges that there are differences among races in average brain size. The only point of contention is that some people argue that this doesn’t explain the whole IQ gap.
That’s besides the point. What is the point is this:
1) Evolution didn’t stop when humans broke up into racial groups
2) Evolution doesn’t stop at the neck – the brain was under enough selective pressure to evolve different physical characteristics in different racial groups
3) The brain is the organ of cognition therefore any differences in brains across racial groups absolutely, 100% definitively prove that there were different selective pressures for either cognition or other physical effects on brains that would necessarily have to have effects on cognition
In short, if you think that this “brain stuff” was debunked, you’ve been lied to or you’re ignorant of the facts.
LikeLike
Steve,
Nobody said evolution stopped, at the neck or at all. In fact, nobody in the world has said evolution has stopped — except Creationists who believe it never existed at all.
Abagond, I thought this brain size stuff was discredited in the 1800s
Steve, You thought wrong.
Which is, of course, why sperm whales are the smartest creatures on our planet. With elephants a close second.
In short, if you think that this “brain stuff” was debunked, you’ve been lied to or you’re ignorant of the facts.
Brain size is relative to body size, thus absolute brain size does not determine intelligence, because if it did my above statement wouldn’t be universally regarded as “sarcasm”. And Shamoo would be the owner of Sea World. But I digress…
The correlation between brain size and what we label as intelligence is just that. A correlation. Correlation coefficients do not equal causation. I could find a correlation between people who read American Renaissance and racist beliefs, but would that mean the former causes the latter?
More importantly, read this article: http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/129/2/386.full.pdf
And then consult a doctor. Who could easily tell you that brain size and intelligence are only related when the brain size is abnormally large or small for a human’s body-mass, indicting malnurishment, mental disabilities, or physical deformity.
Then go consult a linguist, who would point out to you that brain structures matter far more than encephalization quotients. The capacity for language (one of the few universal requirements for intelligence in humans that separates us from animals according to many) is rooted in brain structures, neural pathways, the connections between axons, and other important physiological requirements.
Then go consult a bio-anthropologist who would slap you for recycling racist nonsense like you’re Samuel George Morton.
But alas, you have already decided you are right and the rest of the world is wrong. And of course, the lack of absolute differences between brains across groups is merely a minor problem in this whole grand delusion of racial superiority ; )
LikeLike
1) Evolution didn’t stop when humans broke up into racial groups
And approximately how long ago was that, do you think?
Evolution doesn’t stop at the neck – the brain was under enough selective pressure to evolve different physical characteristics in different racial groups
So then, the brain decided that if you had darker skin that it should evolve differently than if you had lighter skin, or almond-shaped eyes?
Wouldn’t it stand to reason, that people (regardless their level of melanin content) who lived in similar circumstances worldwide, would evolve similarly? If you lived up in the mountains, or in a fertile plain, or in a dessert, or by the sea? I know of no continent with uniform climate or uniform conditions. And in many cases, the people groups we know of were nomadic and passing through many different climates and conditions as they went along rather than staying in one place and being shaped by a single environment.
Also, understand that for Evolution to be truly “selective” it needs advantages / disadvantages to occur at an extinction or survival level. Slight disadvantages that do not effect direct survival are not evolutionarily significant. In any case, the process takes a while to occur.
LikeLike
@steve; did you know that Albert Einstein had smaller than average brains? Cheezes…
LikeLike
Brain size is relative to body size, thus absolute brain size does not determine intelligence, because if it did my above statement wouldn’t be universally regarded as “sarcasm”.
And if you look at my original quote you’ll see that people of African descent have the largest body size and the smallest brain size of the three major continental ancestries. By your argument people of African descent are probably even less intelligent than their brain sizes would indicate (which is exactly what your earlier source pointed out – that brain size alone doesn’t explain the whole black – white and Asian IQ gap). Races differ in both body size and brain size and blacks measure even worse on brain size to body size ratio than they do on absolute brain size measures.
Also you once again either misrepresent or misunderstand the papers you cite as supporting your position. From your link:
“Numerous studies relating measures of brain size such as brain weight, head circumference, CT or MRI brain volume to different intelligence test measures, with variously defined samples of subjects have yielded inconsistent findings with correlations from ~0 to 0.6, with most correlations ~0.3 or 0.4.”
0.6 is extremely strong for a correlation. 0.3 to 0.4 is strong. This is in flat contradiction to your assertions above.
zek j events –
The correlation between brain size and what we label as intelligence is just that. A correlation. Correlation coefficients do not equal causation.
…
More importantly, read this article: http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/129/2/386.full.pdf
And then consult a doctor. Who could easily tell you that brain size and intelligence are only related when the brain size is abnormally large or small for a human’s body-mass, indicting malnurishment [sic], mental disabilities, or physical deformity.
That statement is flatly contradicted by the source you cited (and your previous sentence). The malnourishment point is also flatly refuted – I’ll repeat – people of African descent have the largest bodies and the smallest brains. Odd sort of malnutrition.
Americans of African descent aren’t exactly underrepresented in professional sports either – this isn’t consistent with widespread malnutrition but is consistent with different genetics caused by different selective pressures.
Then go consult a linguist, who would point out to you that brain structures matter far more than encephalization quotients.
and a linguist would have evidence that the brain structures of blacks are exactly the same (but smaller, of course) as those of whites and Asians? If so I’d love to see you cite a source. I doubt any linguist has tested your hypothesis since you made it up on the spot.
Overall, it’s non-responsive to my argument. That blacks have smaller brains isn’t evidence that they’re less intelligent. It’s known from almost every measure ever created that they’re less intelligent. What the smaller brains show is that the cause is (a) genetic and (b) definitely not due to bad measurements. In other words, it’s a very good explanation for a real world phenomenon. The jumping off point is that blacks have lower intelligence – why and is this difference something that can be expected to disappear for some reason? Not do blacks have lower intelligence – that’s 100% settled.
king –
So then, the brain decided that if you had darker skin that it should evolve differently than if you had lighter skin, or almond-shaped eyes?
Wouldn’t it stand to reason, that people (regardless their level of melanin content) who lived in similar circumstances worldwide, would evolve similarly?
You’re really missing the point. Race isn’t skin color or eye shape. It’s a set of genes that are found together in a group of people who interbred for many generations. Those genes create traits some of which you see – skin color, eye shape and nose shape for example and others that are more subtle – bone density and calf diameter.
But to answer your question – in short, yes, it does stand to reason that people who lived in similar circumstances and bred with the same people would have similar traits. Those groups are called races. Only races were both (a) exposed to the same selective pressures and (b) inbred so genes didn’t flow in.
Also, understand that for Evolution to be truly “selective” it needs advantages / disadvantages to occur at an extinction or survival level. Slight disadvantages that do not effect direct survival are not evolutionarily significant.
This is just wrong. Genes that give disadvantages without advantages get wiped out. Slight advantages spread all the time – there are mathematical formula that explain the exact speed of the spread of a gene that gives a certain sized advantage. It also reinforces itself when it comes to brains. Europeans and Asians evolved larger, better functioning brains and used them to create more complex cultures which then selected for larger, better functioning brains, etc.
In any case, the process takes a while to occur.
This might be a good theoretical objection if there weren’t consistent, measurable differences on a huge number of metrics – including genetic ones between different races. You’re arguing that races are physically and mentally different but that these differences can’t be genetic because 15,000 years isn’t enough time to for groups of humans to evolve different traits? Really? So races have the same skin color but racism causes black people’s skins to turn dark? I don’t think you’ve got a coherent objection but are just gainsaying.
@sam
I take back everything I’ve written above. An assertion with no cite and no back up (and no evidence in favor of it) from some guy on the internet that one particular intelligent person had a smaller than average brain clearly refutes my points above.
LikeLike
Wow Steve,
Way to go off on a rant… and completely miss the point at the same time.
Le sigh… first gorbachev, then randy, then unamused, bd, pete, and now you. Oy vey, it’s like this blog is turd for HBD flies.
I doubt any linguist has tested your hypothesis since you made it up on the spot.
Noam Chomsky said that actually. Take it up with him if you have a problem with it.
And the study I cited provided an extremely weak positive correlation. Since correlations are not causations, and since the correlation was extremely weak, it is evident that brain size does not indicate intelligence.
people of African descent have the largest bodies and the smallest brains.
Tell that to the pygmies in the Congo.
0.6 is extremely strong for a correlation. 0.3 to 0.4 is strong. This is in flat contradiction to your assertions above.
The study I cited had a much smaller positive correlation, but even a 0.6 is not “extremely strong” as an “extremely strong” correlation would 0.8 and higher. But that said, 0.3-0.4 IS strong, yet indicates that the bulk of a person’s intelligence correlates to other factors besides head size. However, as I’ve said (numerous times) correlations do no indicate causation. This is how I know you’re not a scientist.
You seem to flat out avoid facts presented right to your face, which is evidence to me of severe denial. Obviously you’re pretty committed to your racist ideology, and since you don’t have any sources to back it up (and certainly not any that we here haven’t debunked in the past weeks dealing with HBD) I’m going to avoid attempting to lead you by the hand like a metaphorical Moses to the Promised Land of scientific fact.
Shoot, it’s apparent to me that you couldn’t come to a scientific conclusion if someone mapquested the directions for you.
But hey! Keep on hatin’ ; )
LikeLike
And the study I cited provided an extremely weak positive correlation. Since correlations are not causations, and since the correlation was extremely weak, it is evident that brain size does not indicate intelligence.
You’re lost in the clouds. You seem to think that a repeatable positive correlation between variables is proof that one doesn’t cause the other. Correlation shows that if you take two random groups and sort them into smaller brain groups and larger brain groups the smaller brain group would, on average, be less intelligent.
Here’s the argument laid out very simply, since you never actually address it:
1) Brains differ between racial groups, blacks having the smallest ones – agreed to even by everyone, including the authors of a study you cited
2) Every single test shows that blacks are considerably less intelligent than Asians and whites – agreed to by everyone
3) There is some (positive) correlation between brain size and intelligence – agreed to by everyone including the authors of a study you cited
4) If you find some group that evolved smaller brains there are going to be effects on cognitive ability – the brain is energy hungry and evolving a smaller one with the same cognitive ability would be a huge advantage
4) Therefore, it is almost certain that the intelligence differences between blacks and whites / Asians are caused by some differences between their physical brains just one of which is the fact they are smaller
Get it?
Not is caused by their smaller brains – caused by different selective pressures. Demonstrated by every single psychometric examination every created. Confirmed by the agreement between all of these measures and an easily verifiable physical fact – smaller brains.
Get it? Probably not. You really don’t want to.
LikeLike
@steve johnson: Since you seem to be totally unaware fo science I suggest that you enroll back to somekind of school and do some learning.
And your arguments:
1. No they do not. They differ between individuals.
2. No they do not. No test under the sun does that. No science has been able to do that. Racists read some tests as proof of this when they actually do not for various reason (using standard western tests for non-westerns, using highly cognitive tests for small test group of subjects with less cognitive skills etc.).
3. Some correlation? Yes, mosquito has smaller brains than you and is propably less intelligent. This however does not say anything about homo sapiens sapiens. If it would, then the now famous spermwhales would be top geniuses on this planet and the elephants close second. We humans would have no change against them.
4. You are saying What?
5. (4.) Say what? I bet you a thousand euros any day that you could not tell a difference between humanbrains and humanbrains racially. Nor does anybody else. That is so called scientifical fact.
I really would like to understand you, being a white man myself, but you are making no sense at all. Maybe, if you had any science behind your Belief, you might. I do not know. But as it is, you are just one more racist who wants to believe. Sorry about that.
LikeLike
@sam
You’ve managed to demonstrate nothing but your own inability to read and understand written English.
Re 1: “Brains differ between racial groups” is a colloquial expression that actually means “the average brain of one race is different from the average brain of another race”. Again, this isn’t actually denied by anyone – even the scientists that your side cites. It’s a fact of life.
If you fail to understand this you must be completely confused by the idea of “men” being taller than “women”. Hint – it has something to do with averages.
Re 2: Actually every single test that has a g related component ever created does. This includes firefighting employment tests, bar exams, the SATs, the GREs, ASFAB tests, Raven’s progressive matrices (no words in that one), etc. Again, everyone (serious) acknowledges this and the starting point of discussion is making excuses as to why no one has been able to create a test that is predictive and doesn’t show racial differences (apparently the idea of a “right” answer is racist).
Re 3: Some correlation within humans. Try reading what’s been posted just in this thread – even the papers posted by people arguing your side. Within humans brain size correlates with intelligence. I’m sure you’ll ignore this and just repeat yourself as you have done before.
Re 4: It’s pretty clear what I’m saying. A smaller brain that worked just as well for thinking is a very large evolutionary advantage forall groups – you’re always better using less energy. I.e., brain size has the same evolutionary pressure to be smaller but only in some populations have there been lesser demands on cognitive ability so evolution has left that one group with a smaller brain than other groups.
Re 5: That I could? Or that a trained forensic pathologist could? Because forensic pathologists can identify the race of a human by looking at very small skull fragments. If you’re curious try doing a google image search for “African skull vs european skull”. Don’t really need to be an expert seeing those two images side by side and tell which is which.
Try looking at this link:
http://books.google.com/books?id=JdtgE0eHTL4C&pg=PA572&lpg=PA572&dq=forensic+pathology+racial+identification&source=bl&ots=Tdeat0STia&sig=HqSl0U8h6GF0PZBtsuOXCeFh00o&hl=en&ei=LKmmTfWOOMOV0QGIp8T5CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=forensic%20pathology%20racial%20identification&f=false
From Forensic Pathology: principles and practice by David Dolinak, Evan W. Matshes, Emma O. Lew:
If one really looks at people, it is clear that whites, blacks and Asians have discernible features that go beyond the color of skin and into the basic bony structure of the skull. In our experience, these differing bony features can influence the novice evaluation of other demographic features (such as sex and stature) and, therefore, investigators should attempt to determine race before studying other features of the remains.
There’s a nice picture at the link that is helpful for understanding this. The quote below it?
Use this collection of photographs to compare the fundamental differences found amongst skulls of the three major racial affiliations – white (row one), Asian (row two) and black (row three).
I’m sure that the forensic pathology community just makes this stuff up because they’re a bunch of crazy racists though.
LikeLike
@ steve johnson:
“Again, this isn’t actually denied by anyone – even the scientists that your side cites. It’s a fact of life.”
Is is not a scientifical fact and it is denied by scientists. Some morons who cling on victorian ideas think like you do.
“Actually every single test that has a g related component ever created does. This includes firefighting employment tests, bar exams, the SATs, the GREs, ASFAB tests, Raven’s progressive matrices (no words in that one), etc.”
For starters: These are all american tests, not universal tests, dummy. And this also shows how lost you are.
“Within humans brain size correlates with intelligence.”
So according to you Alber Eisntein was an idiot because he had smaller than average brains?
” …brain size has the same evolutionary pressure to be smaller but only in some populations have there been lesser demands on cognitive ability so evolution has left that one group with a smaller brain than other groups.”
And that group is what? Didi you measure all their brains? I don’t think so.
You do know that neaderthals had much bigger brains than you or anyone you know has? How on earth they dissappeared even if they were so intelligent (according to you) with their superior brain sizes??
“Because forensic pathologists can identify the race of a human by looking at very small skull fragments.”
No they can not. Go ask any forensic pathologist. I have. Answer was No. They can guess, but that is all. So in this too, you are full of skit.
I know it is hard to be a little scared white boy in a world full of aliens but remember; they belong to the same race as you do. You mummy and daddy are homo sapiens sapiens just like Shaquille or Mike Tyson. We are all homo sapiens sapiens. All of us belong to the one and only human race.
Relaxing thought and absolute biological and scientifical fact. Ask any real scientist. 😀
LikeLike
Use this collection of photographs to compare the fundamental differences found amongst skulls of the three major racial affiliations – white (row one), Asian (row two) and black (row three).
LikeLike
“people of African descent have the largest body size”
Just out of interest, I’ve never never heard this assertion made before. Not that I object to it, but I just wander if you can point us to your source?
Races different in both body size and brain size
Are you speaking of a difference between the mean or the average body sizes, based on ethnicity? (again, also please site your source)
“But to answer your question – in short, yes, it does stand to reason that people who lived in similar circumstances and bred with the same people would have similar traits. Those groups are called races. Only races were both (a) exposed to the same selective pressures and (b) inbred so genes didn’t flow in.”
I’m afraid that you are guilty of trying to dodge my question. People did NOT live in similar circumstances or the same “selective pressures” because they inhabited the same large land mass.
For instance, here is a climate map of Africa
Here’s one of Asia
Here;’s one of Europe
Even you must see this logic. Africa is not a “climate,” or a “condition,” neither is Europe, or Asia. All of these huge land masses have many different climates, and people who lived on each did so under vastly different conditions. That is the point you should have tried to address.
” Race isn’t skin color or eye shape. It’s a set of genes that are found together in a group of people who interbred…”
Well, thank you for saying that. So many HBDers come here thinking that a certain look = a race, instead of basing it on genetics.
And in the case of of Africans, the GENETIC differences between fellow Africans are so divergent as to identify them a different darker skinned races.
“A 10-year study published in 2009 analyzed the patterns of variation at 1,327 DNA markers of 121 African populations, 4 African American populations, and 60 non-African populations.[25][26] The research showed that there is more human genetic diversity in Africa than anywhere else on Earth. The genetic structure of Africans was traced to 14 ancestral population clusters…” Wikipedia (Human genetic variation)
“People of African descent are more genetically diverse than Middle Easterners, who are more diverse than Asians and Europeans. Native Americans possess the least-diverse genomes.” The Telegraph – Science News (African DNA has more genetic diversity) Feb 21, 2008
How diverse is African genetics?
“Despite the fact that the four Bushmen come from neighbouring parts of the Kalahari, their genetic diversity is astounding. Pick any two and peer into their genomes and you’d see more variety than you would between a European and an Asian.”
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/02/18/genomes-of-desmond-tutu-bushmen-show-africas-huge-genetic-diversity/
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2010/02/sequencing_the_bishop_-_scientists_present_full_genomes_of_a.php
So, given that level of genetic diversity, trying to treat Africans as a massive lump of humanity that are all sharing the same “black genes” that make them good athletes, but kind of dumb (on average) is clearly spurious.
I’ll take on the rest of your mistakes in a second post.
LikeLike
Oh dear, this is tragic. The Don Quixotes of biology. Recent neuroscientific evidence is the windmills and Dulcinea is the sought after confirmation of their ideology.
It’s like staring at fridge magnets and starting to see patterns while behind the door there is a plethora of biologic explanations they can’t see even if it hit them with a hammer.
The only difference is that Don Quixote actually evokes some kind of sympathy. The HBD pseudo-academic masturbators don’t.
LikeLike
[…] Abagond (dutifully “summarizing” Zek by completely rewriting his rant): “The reason scientific racists give for trusting, say, Steve Sailer, a computer salesman, over Cavalli-Sforza, a professor of human genetics who has, like, studied race, is, wait for it, that people like Cavalli-Sforza secretly agree with them but are too afraid to say so in public! Have they gone mad?” (Source: Abagond’s racist cult.) […]
LikeLike
[…] abagond (dutifully “summarizing” Zek by completely rewriting his rant): “The reason scientific racists give for trusting, say, Steve Sailer, a computer salesman, over Cavalli-Sforza, a professor of human genetics who has, like, studied race, is, wait for it, that people like Cavalli-Sforza secretly agree with them but are too afraid to say so in public! Have they gone mad?” […]
LikeLike
[…] has “summarized” some of Zek’s ignorant, hateful, anti-scientific garbage in his Monday post, and the first of my two rebuttals of said garbage in his Tuesday […]
LikeLike
[…] Agabond wrote an article on the cons of Scientific Racism. The whole article is wrong. […]
LikeLike