Thomas Wainwright

Off the top of your head, but you're not sure? Argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it: Ad hominem Culture is all-important in this example, because it is a phenotypic expression which indicates a superior genotype for intelligence; which, in this example, goes to demonstrate that Semite people in the Arabian peninsula are genetically more intelligent than the Negroes in E. and W. Africa. No, it doesn't change the argument at all; as indeed, the argument is predicated on the premise that Negroids are less intelligent than Semite people in the Arabian peninsula, and the cultural superiority of the latter is simply meant to demonstrate that they were able to develop a superior culture, which is on account of their superior genes for intelligence. The extent to which a civilization is advanced and sophisticated is an indicator of the respective genotype for intelligence. The development of sophisticated culture and civilization is simply a phenotypic expression, which is positively correlated with the superior genotype for intelligence. There can be no doubt that Semite people are genetically more intelligent than Negroids, because the latter have never managed to develop a culture and civilization which is on a par with the Arabian peninsula. What evidence do you have to demonstrate that, historically, there has been a significant transmission of culture from E. and W. Africa into the Arabian peninsula? On the contrary, all the existing data goes to demonstrate that, historically, Islam has exerted a far greater cultural influence on E. and W. Africa than the case of Africa exerting a cultural influence on the Arabian peninsula; as indeed, there is little if any archaeological, historic, and recorded data to demonstrate that there is a bidirectional transmission of culture, which would entail a necessary and significant contribution from Africa. The examples that you have provided is simply one set of evidence; but as a scientist, it is also your incumbent task to account for ALL the evidence; but so far, you have refused to consider any of evidence I have provided, i.e. J.P. Rushton, Hans Eysenck, Arthur Jensen, and Richard Lynn et al. This is a classic case of a logical fallacy by the environmentalist camp, who have argued that the rise and fall of civilizations in different historical epochs can somehow be used to demonstrate that the theory of racial superiority is false. However, such an argument is fundamentally flawed because the blacks have never developed any civilization which is on a par with the Semites, Persians, and Europeans. Furthermore, it is a logical fallacy to suggest that Arabic people were genetically more intelligent during medieval times, because the antecedent Greek and Roman civilizations were more advanced and sophisticated than the Islamic civilization during the medieval period. Moreover, it is suffice to remind you that the Arabs have never managed to develop a civilization which is on a par with contemporary Europe and N. America; which is consistent with J.P. Rushton's claim that Europeans are genetically more intelligent than South Asians/North Africans. Needless to say, the Negro race has never managed to develop any civilization which is on a par with the dominant civilizations of the Ancient Mediterranean and the Ancient Near East, nor have they managed to develop any civilization which is on a par with Islam during the medieval period; and thereby, it is suffice to remind you that the traditional civilization of Africa doesn't begin to compare with the contemporary civilization of N. America, Europe, and Japan. In summary, it is suffice to remind you that the Negro race has never managed to develop any culture and civilization, which is on a par with other human populations at any period whatsoever since the first human migrations from E. Africa. Since the development of sophisticated culture and civilization is an outward phenotypic expression of the respective genotype for intelligence, it is suffice to conclude that the Negro race is bereft of any superior genotype for intelligence. You have cited selective evidence which is non-conclusive to demonstrate your point. By definition, selective evidence can be easily challenged by other evidence, which does not support your claim that all human populations have identical genotypes for intelligence. Moreover, I have never claimed that intelligence is directly correlated with skin color; otherwise, it would naturally be the case that Europeans should have the highest IQ, which is not according to the existing literature on psychological studies conducted to examine the relationship between race, IQ and intelligence. In actual fact, N. Asians have the highest recorded-IQ, which is despite the fact that on average they have a slightly darker skin tone. According to the studies on race, IQ and intelligence, it is observed that "race" and brain size is directly correlated with intelligence, which is the only consistent, plausible, and acceptable argument to explain the race difference in IQ. De facto, I have already cited all the key evidence of prior studies conducted by J.P. Rushton, Hans Eysenck, Arthur Jensen, and Richard Lynn et al, which is based on a large sample of international data from family studies, adoption studies, and the study of identical/fraternal twins. Controlling for all the environmental factors, it is demonstrated that there is still a strong, positive, and consistent correlation between brain size and intelligence, and the General Intelligence factor (g) is strongly correlated with "race" if not the skin color: According to studies on "adopted and biological children, Scarr & Weinberg (1978) compared specific intellectual abilities of parents and their adopted or biological children and siblings. They administered the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) test on the sample Wechsler_Adult_Intelligence_Scale. They found that the correlation between biological relatives was higher than those of adopted relatives. This indicates genetic factors played a more significant role than environment, except in regards to vocabulary (Cilia, 2012, p.5)". "The Colorado Adoption Project (1975) compared the correlations between more than 200 adopted children and their birth and adoptive parents with the correlations of a control group of children raised by their biological parents. Adopted children are seen to resemble their adoptive parents slightly in early childhood but not at all in middle childhood or adolescence. In contrast, during childhood and adolescence, adopted children become more like their biological parents, i.e. cognitive ability, verbal ability, spatial ability, speed of processing, and recognition memory. Concurrently, the scores of identical twins were consistently and substantially more similar than those of fraternal twins on all four domains of English, mathematics, social studies and natural sciences. These results suggest that genetic factors account for about 40 percent of the variation on such achievement tests (Cilia, 2012, p.6-7)". Twin studies compared the "differences between identical (same DNA) and fraternal twins (different DNA)". According to the studies, it is observed that "across the life span, the similarities between identical twins is greater and identical twins reared apart still showed similarities in IQ tests which were higher than fraternal twins reared together. The results indicate that by the time people reach age 16 genetic factors account for 50 % of the variance for verbal ability and 40 % for spatial ability (Cilia, 2012, p.8)": Lecture on the Role of Nature and Nurture in Intelligence. In other words, the genetic contribution to spatial ability (40%) is significant if not as important as environmental factors; but the genetic contribution to verbal ability (50%) is seen to be equally important as a causal determinant of intelligence. "A meta-analysis of 9 family studies was conducted by Daniels, Devlin and Roeder (1997): it included 212 correlations and produced very similar results to those quoted by Matt Ridley. These authors conclude that heritability can account for 48% of the variation in people's IQ. The highest estimates have come from reviews of research by Herrnstein & Murray, 1994 (74%) and Eysenck (80%) (Haileybury Psychology, 2012, p.6)": Genetic Inheritance and Intelligence A safer bet is probably to calculate the average of these figures:- Average heritability contribution to differentiated IQ = (48 + 74 + 80)/3 = 67.33 % Consequently, the average percentage would seem to suggest that the heritable component is, in this case, crucial and far more important than environmental heterogeneity as a causal determinant of the plasticity of phenotype -- which, in this case, is the differential IQ of fraternal twins and the differentiated IQ of biological and adopted siblings, as a statistically correlated intelligence metric. Race differences in average-IQ are largely genetic, (2005 p.1) has stated that "Studies of Black, White, and East Asian twins, for example, show the heritability of IQ is 50% or higher in all races. Studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) find a correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40. Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. Race differences in brain size are present at birth. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks. Race differences in IQ remain following adoption by White middle class parents. East Asians grow to average higher IQs than Whites while Blacks score lower. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found race differences were even greater than at age 7: White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89". Furthermore, p.2 of the article declares that "IQ tests are not biased against English speaking minorities and that Black-White-East Asian differences in brain size and IQ belong in an evolutionary framework (i.e. biological determinism)": Race differences in average-IQ are largely genetic That you refuse to consider the evidence I have provided does not, by itself, invalidate my argument. Seriously, do you deny that brain size is positively correlated with the intelligence metric of IQ; and do you still deny that traditional societies in Pre-colonial Australia and Africa are the least advanced of any civilization in the ancient, medieval, and modern world?

This is speculation; rather than speculate, what evidence do you have to demonstrate that the frequency of such an allele amongst the European population is distributed equally amongst the African human population? This is argumentum ad hominem which has nothing to do with science. Be that as it may, it doesn't imply that the ratio of African to European genes is the same among the respective populations. Consequently, a bi-directional gene flow does not, in anyway, imply that the transmission of culture is likewise a bi-directional flow of ideas. As in the case of an electrical current, the exchange of culture is likewise characterized by a necessary "potential difference" between two places or two populations; which means that the population with "superior" genes -- which, relatively speaking, is positively correlated with high culture & sophisticated art -- will always have a tendency to transmit its cultural influence to a population with "inferior" genes -- whose genes are inversely correlated with high culture & sophisticated art. Consequently, it is little if any surprise at all that, historically, the Arabian peninsula has transmitted more of its cultural influence to E. and W. Africa; but concurrently, there has been little if any transmission of cultural ideas in the opposite direction; in other words, the bi-directional gene flow that you refer to, does not in anyway reflect the historic cultural exchange between the two populations since their separation. Whereas on the one hand, there is plenty of evidence of Indo-aryan peoples transmitting their cultural influence to Sub-Saharan Africa, there is concurrently little if any evidence at all of cultural exchange in the opposite direction. But, the same argument can work both ways. As of yet, you also need to demonstrate that there is no significant difference between two populations in regards to the General Intelligence factor (g); moreover, you still need to demonstrate that there is no significant correlation between two phenotypic traits, such as race and intelligence. But, where is your evidence to demonstrate that there is no significant genotype difference between human populations; and where is your evidence to demonstrate that there is no significant correlation between two phenotypic traits such as race and intelligence? Rather than presume that the onus is on one person to demonstrate one-side of the argument, the onus is equally on yourself to provide evidence in favor of the Environmental postulate. To claim that another person has no evidence to support his argument does not in itself demonstrate that the counter argument is more valid than the hypothesis. As of yet, you have simply made a number of attempts to cast doubt on the hypothesis; but at the same time, you have provided no evidence whatsoever to substantiate your claim. Where is your evidence to demonstrate that the Environmentalist position is more valid than the Hereditarian perspective? Where is your evidence to demonstrate that all human populations have identical genotypes for intelligence? This statement is nonsense because there is no such thing as an "arbitrarily-chosen" civilization. On the contrary, it is a widely held view that the Graeco-Roman civilization is far more advanced, and superior to any other civilization in the Ancient Mediterranean. So far, you have simply attempted to cast doubt on my theoretical perspective; but at the same time, you have provided no empirical data to demonstrate that the counter argument is valid -- namely, that "all human populations have identical genotypes for intelligence". However, I will try to address your concerns by drawing your attention to the following data contained in this article: The Nature-Nurture Debate - The Complex Causation of Race Difference in IQ

The Nature-Nurture Debate – The Complex Causation of Race Difference in IQ "Nature/nurture is a false dichotomy (The Open University, 2012)." Absolutely. There is overwhelming consensus in the field of genetics and evolutionary biology that both heritable and environmental factors are important contributors to the General Intelligence Factor (g). However, it is still the case that within the academic community in general, such a basic principle in genetics and biology is not correctly understood. Although, it is "widely accepted that race differences in intelligence exist, but [at the same time] no consensus has emerged on whether these have any genetic basis (Lynn, 2006, p.3)". Consequently, a "number of authorities have concluded that there is no compelling evidence for genetic factors. This position has been adopted by Flynn in his Race, IQ and Jensen (1980), Brody in Intelligence (1992), and Mackintosh in IQ and Human Intelligence (1998) (Lynn, 2006, p.3)". However, Jim Flynn is a political scientist, who is not regarded as an expert in biology and genetics; but he is, nonetheless, widely considered to be an authority on one-side of the debate, which is for no other reason than the fact his findings on race and intelligence (namely, The Flynn Effect) has attracted a huge following, both within and outside of the academic community: Department of Politics University of Otago Neither, Nick Mackintosh and Nathan Brody are considered to be experts in evolutionary biology or genetics, which implies that their counter-argument to the genetic hypothesis is, at best, nothing more than speculative. Again, it must be stressed that both are widely considered to be "authorities" in the environmental hypothesis -- which attempts to cast doubt on the hereditarian hypothesis -- which is for no other reason than the fact they have both attracted a significant following, both within and outside of the academic community: Department of Experimental Psychology University of Cambridge Department of Psychology Wesleyan University On the other hand, there is overwhelming consensus in the field of evolutionary biology and genetics that the General Intelligence factor (g) is a very plausible result of interaction between nature AND the environment; in other words, intelligence is a phenotypic trait, which is the result of complex interaction between an organism's DNA and the ontological development of the organism concerned. According to studies on "adopted and biological children, Scarr & Weinberg (1978) compared specific intellectual abilities of parents and their adopted or biological children and siblings. They administered the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) test on the sample Wechsler_Adult_Intelligence_Scale. They found that the correlation between biological relatives was higher than those of adopted relatives. This indicates genetic factors played a more significant role than environment, except in regards to vocabulary (Cilia, 2012, p.5)". "The Colorado Adoption Project (1975) compared the correlations between more than 200 adopted children and their birth and adoptive parents with the correlations of a control group of children raised by their biological parents. Adopted children are seen to resemble their adoptive parents slightly in early childhood but not at all in middle childhood or adolescence. In contrast, during childhood and adolescence, adopted children become more like their biological parents, i.e. cognitive ability, verbal ability, spatial ability, speed of processing, and recognition memory. Concurrently, the scores of identical twins were consistently and substantially more similar than those of fraternal twins on all four domains of English, mathematics, social studies and natural sciences. These results suggest that genetic factors account for about 40 percent of the variation on such achievement tests (Cilia, 2012, p.6-7)". However, it's important to note that although "genetic factors account for a mere 40 percent of variation on such achievement tests", the variation is between Mono-zygotic twins (whose genes are exactly the same) and Di-zygotic twins (who share a mere 50 percent of the biological parents' genes); but obviously, the degree of genetic variation between biological and adopted siblings is usually more than 50 percent; which implies that, controlling for the environment, and on the balance of probability, it is highly probable that there is a corresponding greater disparity in the IQ of individuals who are not biological kin. Twin studies compared the "differences between identical (same DNA) and fraternal twins (different DNA)". According to such studies, it is observable that "across the life span, the similarities between identical twins is greater and identical twins reared apart still showed similarities in IQ tests which were higher than fraternal twins reared together. The results indicate that by the time people reach age 16 genetic factors account for 50 % of the variance for verbal ability and 40 % for spatial ability (Cilia, 2012, p.8)". In other words, the genetic contribution to spatial ability (40%) is significant if not as important as environmental factors; but the genetic contribution to verbal ability (50%) is seen to be equally important as a causal determinant of intelligence. "A meta-analysis of 9 family studies was conducted by Daniels, Devlin and Roeder (1997): it included 212 correlations and produced very similar results to those quoted by Matt Ridley. These authors conclude that heritability can account for 48% of the variation in people's IQ. The highest estimates have come from reviews of research by Herrnstein & Murray, 1994 (74%) and Eysenck (80%) (Haileybury college, 2012, p.6)". A safer bet is probably to calculate the average of these figures:- Average heritability contribution to differentiated IQ = (48 + 74 + 80)/3 = 67.33 % Consequently, the average percentage would seem to suggest that the heritable component is, in this case, crucial and far more important than environmental heterogeneity as a causal determinant of the plasticity of phenotype (which, in this case, is the differential IQ of fraternal twins and the differentiated IQ of biological and adopted siblings, as a statistically correlated intelligence metric). Race differences in average-IQ are largely genetic, (2005 p.1) has stated that "Studies of Black, White, and East Asian twins, for example, show the heritability of IQ is 50% or higher in all races. Studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) find a correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40. Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. Race differences in brain size are present at birth. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks. Race differences in IQ remain following adoption by White middle class parents. East Asians grow to average higher IQs than Whites while Blacks score lower. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found race differences were even greater than at age 7: White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89". Furthermore, p.2 of the article declares that "IQ tests are not biased against English speaking minorities and that Black-White-East Asian differences in brain size and IQ belong in an evolutionary framework (i.e. biological determinism)". Nevertheless, there is at the same time, a large consensus of academic opinion which has "suggested that socioeconomic disadvantages, lack of intervention and opportunities are the main causes of ethnic differences in IQ; namely, Flynn, Brody, and Mackintosh et al (Cilia, 2012, p.12)". "Adoption studies seem to indicate that SES (social economic status) has a strong, causal effect on intelligence: Well-controlled adoption studies done in France have found that transferring an infant from a family having low (SES) to a home where parents have high SES improves childhood IQ scores by 12 to 15 points or about one standard deviation (Wahlsten). · Children with black fathers, brought up in white family - no evidence of lower IQs · Adoption studies - e.g. black children brought up by white families only slightly lower IQs than white adopted children (Howe, 1997) (Cilia, 2012, p.12-13)" However, such "controlled" experiments do not necessarily imply that the environment is homogenous because Wahlsten has ignored a large body of scientific data relating to differential parental investment in regards to biological and adopted children: "The results show that parents invested more in adopted children than in genetically related ones, especially in educational and personal areas (Gibson, 2009, p184-p189)". Consequently, the adoption studies do not, in any way whatsoever, suggest a controlled environment; but instead, the concurrent data on differential parental investment does no less than to demonstrate the reality of environmental heterogeneity as a result of adoption: Differential parental investment in families with both adopted and genetic children Nevertheless, it is still a consistent argument amongst the environmentalist camp that "a lack of opportunity doesn't mean a lack of intelligence…For instance, it takes a lot of 'intelligence' to survive in the harshest conditions of Africa (Cilia, 2012, p.11)". However, Richard Lynn has refuted such a claim: "All living species are adapted effectively to their environment or they would not have survived, but many living species such as snakes and other reptiles cannot be regarded as intelligent. In economically developed nations, the underclass with its culture of long-term unemployment, crime, drug dependency, and welfare-dependent single mothers, is well adapted to its environment in so far as it is able to live on welfare and reproduce, but it has a low average IQ, as shown in detail by Herrnstein and Murray (1994), and is not intelligent in any reasonable sense of the word or as measured by intelligence tests (Lynn, 2006, p.4)". More importantly, it is crucial to note that the Flynn Effect does NOT, in anyway, deny that there is a plausible and heritable component, which could well be responsible for the differential IQ -- which is strongly correlated with differentiated intelligence -- of statistically differentiated phenotypic clusters; although the environmental gap might very well be closed in due course, it is indeed, practically impossible to close the genetically-based IQ gap, which is in part responsible for the statistically differentiated phenotypic clusters (which, in this case, is in regard to the general intelligence factor g) [1:40/3:57]: Finally, Dr. R. Lynn, Emeritus Professor of Psychology at the University of Ulster has concluded that "The position of environmentalists that over the course of some 100,000 years peoples separated by geographical barriers in different parts of the world evolved into ten different races with pronounced genetic differences in morphology, blood groups, and the incidence of genetic diseases, and yet have identical genotypes for intelligence, is so improbable that those who advance it must either be totally ignorant of the basic principles of evolutionary biology or else have a political agenda to deny the importance of race. Or both". (Lynn, 2006, p.159-160) DISCUSSION Why should the race differences in IQ -- and the Bell Curve -- be different to other statistically differentiated phenotypic clusters, such as hair type, brain size, physiognomy, anatomical structure, body size, skin tone, blood groups, athletic prowess, and the incidence of genetic diseases etc, which are invariably the result of differential selective pressures -- such differential selective pressures are plausible, and likely to have caused the evolution of differentiated genotypes for intelligence? REFERENCE Cilia, T. (2012). Lecture on the Role of Nature and Nurture in Intelligence. Available: Lecture on the Role of Nature and Nurture in Intelligence. Last accessed 21 June 2012. Haileybury College. (2012). Genetic Inheritance and Intelligence - The Nature-Nurture Debate. Available: Genetic Inheritance and Intelligence. Last accessed 22 June 2012. Lynn, R. (2006). RACE DIFFERENCES IN INTELLIGENCE. Available: http://www.velesova-...telligence.html. Last accessed 21 June 2012. Malloy, J. (2006). A World of Difference: Richard Lynn Maps World Intelligence. Available: Richard Lynn Maps World Intelligence. Last accessed 21 June 2012. Gibson, K. (2009). Differential parental investment in families with both adopted and genetic children. Available: Differential parental investment. Last accessed 21 June 2012. The Nature-Nurture Debate - The Complex Causation of Race Difference in IQ.pdf

I disagree. Here is an excerpt from my recent correspondence with the OU Science moderators, which will explain precisely the reasons why I disagree:- PM conversation removed. On the contrary, there is plenty of archaeological, historic, and recorded evidence to demonstrate that Africa has a lot of historical development of its own; but, such development doesn't begin to compare with the high civilization of the Ancient Egyptians, Semites, Persians, Greeks, and Romans: "The IQ differences between the races explain the differences in achievement in making the Neolithic transition from hunter-gathering to settled agriculture, the building of early civilizations, and the development of mature civilizations during the last two thousand years (Lynn, 2006, p.159)". Whilst there is plenty of evidence to indicate that Africa made the "Neolithic transition from hunter-gathering to settled agriculture", there is concurrently no archaeological, historic, and recorded data to demonstrate that they have ever participated in the "building of early civilizations, and the development of mature civilizations during the last two thousand years". In other words, (Sub-Saharan) Africa has never managed to develop any civilization that is on a par with the Ancient Greeks and Romans, let alone the modern civilization of North America and Europe. However, if you go to the diagram on Wikipedia, then there is evidence of archaeological data, cultural relics and artefacts in prehistoric E. Africa (namely, Historyof Ethiopia, History of Somalia, and the History of Sudan); but the Horn of Africa's proximity to the Arabian peninsula makes it highly plausible, and likely that, since time immemorial, there has been significant and consistent genetic flow, and the concurrent transmission of culture between the two continents (with priority accorded to traffic headed in one direction) is directly a result of migration and genetic flow. If in doubt, then I am confident that genetic testing of a large sample will be suffice to settle the debate as to whether in fact prehistoric Africa is largely responsible for its own historical development. Genetic testing, along with archaeological data and similarities from the Arabian peninsula will no doubt be sufficient to demonstrate whether in fact such a cultural exchange over the course of millenniums would have been one-sided, with priority accorded to traffic headed in one direction. In any case, the historical development of (Sub-Saharan) Africa doesn't even begin to compare with the high culture of the Ancient Greeks and Romans, and the Persian civilization. Such a strident pronouncement as this does not reflect any form of prejudice or ethnocentric bias, nor is it simply a matter of opinion that I make such a statement; but on the contrary, it is simply a statement of world historical fact that the prehistoric civilization of Africa (by definition) does not even begin to compare with the civilization of Mesopotamia, which is "the first urban and literate civilization in the Ancient world (Cambridge University, 2000)". Whilst it is debatable whether in fact the high rate of crime is attributed to genetics, it is at the same time highly implausible (and improbable) to posit any claim that differential selective pressures over the course of millenniums have caused the evolution of "identical genotypes for intelligence (Lynn, 2006, p.159)". Best regards, Thomas Wainwright Sent: Thu 21/06/2012 22:01 [End Quote] Africa's diplomatic ties with the dominant civilizations in the Ancient world does not, in anyway, imply that the Africans would be culturally on a par with the sophisticated high civilization of Ancient Rome and the Indian subcontinent. Although Nubia (Sudan) could well have rivaled Egypt at the height of its power, we need to examine whether in fact Egypt was at the height of it's own military and economic power when this happened. Moreover, the ability to rival Egypt in military and economic terms does not in any sense imply that the Nubians (Negroids) could even begin to compare with its regional rival in respect of the sophisticated high culture of the Egyptian civilization. De facto, we only need to be reminded about the destruction of the Western Roman empire in 476 CE to realize that the sophisticated high civilization of the Romans did not necessarily give them the right to rule over barbarians. Historically, although there is usually a positive inter-correlation between cultural, economic, and military domination of one country by another, cultural superiority by itself does not equate with the military and economic superiority of a country, which is largely dependent on the size of a given population, inter alia other variables.

IMPORTANT NOTICE I will endeavor to provide some detailed response to the recent comments after Sunday, 24 June, 2012. OUSA Conference 2012.pdf

Please cite at least one example of adaptive intelligence which is inversely correlated with the fitness of an organism? Why should the plasticity of phenotype (in this case, intelligence) and the norm of reaction be different between the two statistically differentiated phenotypic clusters, unless there is some degree of genetic differentiation? The Bell Curve is a statistically validated correlation between the intelligence metric of IQ and "race" as defined by statistically differentiated phenotypic clusters. During the last 30 years, there have been various studies in North America, Europe & Australia in regards to adopted children, mono-zygotic twins, di-zygotic twins, and fraternal siblings, which have suggested varying levels of genetic contribution to the intelligence metric of IQ; nevertheless, all the studies have converged on the significant and plausible contribution of genetic differentiation as the causal determinant of differential IQ. During this period, J. Philippe Rushton has collated a panoply of international data from psychometric testing, which have consistently demonstrated that different population clusters are statistically differentiated according to IQ. Which begs the question as to why the plasticity of phenotype for one population should be differentiated from another in terms of the intelligence metric of IQ, unless there is some degree of genetic differentiation, which is the causal determinant of differential intelligence. Why should selective pressures cause two sympatric populations to have differentiated gene expression (e.g. intelligence) if the differentiated phenotypic cluster is negatively correlated with the overall fitness of a population - Unless of course, the statistically differentiated phenotypic cluster is in, whole or part, attributed to genetic difference between the two populations? REFERENCE: J.Philippe Rushton. CURRICULUM VITAE. Available: http://www.charlesda...rg/JPRvitae.htm Last accessed 20th June 2012 J. Philippe Rushton, Arthur R. Jensen. (2005). THIRTY YEARS OF RESEARCH ON RACE DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY. Available: http://www.udel.edu/...nsen30years.pdf (Last accessed 20th June 2012). J. Philippe Rushton, Arthur R. Jensen. (2005). WANTED: MORE RACE REALISM, LESS MORALISTIC FALLACY. Available: http://psychology.uw...pdfs/pppl2.pdf (Last accessed 20th June 2012). J. Philippe Rushton, Arthur R. Jensen. (2010). The rise and fall of the Flynn Effect as a reason to expect a narrowing of the Black-White IQ Gap. Available: http://www.charlesda...telligence.pdf (Last accessed 20th June 2012). J. Philippe Rushton, Arthur R. Jensen. (2006). The Totality of Available Evidence Shows the Race IQ Gap Still Remains. Available: http://www.charlesda...06%20PSnew.pdf (Last accessed 20th June 2012). J. Philippe Rushton, Donald I. Templer. (2009). National differences in intelligence, crime, income, and skin color. Available: http://www.charlesda...28Crime%29.pdf (Last accessed 20th June 2012). J. Philippe Rushton, Donald I. Templer. (2011). IQ, skin color, crime, HIV/AIDS, and income in 50 U.S. states. Available: http://www.charlesda...telligence.pdf (Last accessed 20th June 2012). J. Philippe Rushton, Elizabeth W. Rushton. (2002). Brain size, IQ, and racial-group differences: Evidence from musculoskeletal traits. Available: http://www.charlesda...sIntell2003.pdf (Last accessed 20th June 2012). J. Philippe Rushton. (1997). Why The Bell Curve Didn't Go Far Enough On Race. Available: http://www.charlesda...ugh%201997.pdf (Last accessed 20th June 2012). Ms. Tracey Cilia. (2012). The role of nature and nurture in intelligence. Available: http://www.um.edu.mt/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/149899/lecture_4_THE_ROLE_NATURE_AND_NURTURE_IN_INTELLIGENCE.pdf Last accessed 20th June 2012. Richard Lynn. (2006). RACE DIFFERENCES IN INTELLIGENCE. Available: http://www.velesova-sloboda.org/antrop/lynn-race-differences-in-intelligence.html (Last accessed 20th June 2012). Robert J. Sternberg. (2005). THERE ARE NO PUBLIC-POLICY IMPLICATIONS A Reply to Rushton and Jensen (2005). Available: http://www.udel.edu/...-on-30years.pdf (Last accessed 20th June 2012). Brain size and national IQ.pdf Brain size, IQ, and racial-group differences.pdf Genetic-Inheritance-and-Intelligence-2bc8o5q.pdf Wanted - More Race Realism, Less Moralistic Fallacy.pdf lynn-race-differences-in-intelligence (1).pdf lecture_4_THE_ROLE_NATURE_AND_NURTURE_IN_INTELLIGENCE.pdf

Yes, you are most definitely right; but the Flynn Effect does NOT, in anyway, deny that there is a plausible and heritable component, which could well differentiate the median-IQ -- which is strongly correlated to intelligence -- of different groups (1:40/3:57): Yes, I agree that the average height in South Korea is 1.739 metres, which compares favorably to Hispanics, Blacks, and Europeans; and the essential point you try to demonstrate is that people in N. Asia -- namely, Korean peninsula, N. China, and Mongolia -- have an average height that compares favorably to the rest of the world; but your argument is also based on selective evidence, which does not demonstrate that the average height in S. China, Indo-China, and S.E. Asia is equivalent to South Korea. Unless we have data to demonstrate that average height in the latter is equivalent to S. Korea, then of course, there will be a general depression in the average height of the global diaspora of East Asians. It's obvious where the debate is headed. Whilst I do not deny that there is a considerable overlap between the Bell Curve representing all the major racial groups, it is generally the case that, on average, the median-IQ of East Asians and Europeans is significantly higher than the corresponding IQ for blacks. Although blacks who have an IQ of 140 are said to be more intelligent than East Asians and Europeans who fall within the standard deviation, such anomaly cannot be used as a conjectural starting-point to dismiss, and disregard all the existing data which demonstrates that blacks, on average, have a lower IQ than East Asians and Europeans. Likewise, the average height in South Korea cannot be regarded as an indicator of the average height in regards to the global diaspora of East Asians. Consequently, the anomaly of S. Korea cannot be used to dismiss the general observation that, on average, East Asians tend to have a shorter stature than Blacks and Europeans. Nor could any analogy be drawn to dismiss the fact that Blacks are, on average, superior athletes compared to the rest of the global population; although there might well be a small handful of East Asians and Europeans who would excel in competition with blacks, it still doesn't negate the fact that, on average, blacks have a superior athletic prowess.

There is already plenty of evidence which is included in the reference section of this article; namely, Steve Jones' remark that "it'll be extremely foolish to deny there's a heritable component to intelligence, as it's extremely foolish to deny there's a heritable component to almost anything". Which begs the question: Why should differential I.Q. (and the Bell Curve) - which is strongly correlated with skin colour - be different to any other phenotypic trait, such as skin tone, hair type, brain size, physiognomy, and athletic prowess etc, which are invariably the result of genetic differentiation? Seriously, do you deny that, on average, Blacks and Europeans have a physical stature which is taller than East Asians in terms of the standard deviation of height; and that such observed differentiation is partly genetic? Notwithstanding several generations of adaptation to a Western environment, it is still the case that, on average, East Asians will generally have a shorter height than Blacks and Europeans, which cannot be wholly attributed to nutrition, lifestyle, and other environmental variables. Do you have any evidence that the median-height of East Asians is not partly attributed to any heritable component pertaining to the aggregate DNA of this population? Concurrently, do you have any evidence at all to demonstrate that differential I.Q. (and intelligence) between East Asians, Europeans, and Africans is not partly attributed to a differential, plausible, and heritable component to the aggregate DNA of the respective populations? Consequently, where is your evidence to demonstrate that the inferior cognitive ability of blacks -- which is the causal determinant of black people's lower IQ, educational attainment, socioeconomic class, household income of blacks in N. America and Europe, economic growth and per capita income of African states, and the technological and scientific development of African countries etc -- is not partly due to a heritable component to the aggregate DNA of the black diaspora in N. America, Europe & Africa? What evidence do you have to support your claim that "Blacks are genetically predisposed to be just as intelligent as any other race"? Unless you can produce evidence to support your hypothesis, then your claim is nothing more than supposition; and your guess is as good as mine. I am not one to be taken in by your intellectual prevarication. It's obvious to everyone that this argument is a well worn cliche, which does not in anyway disprove my point that the biological concept of race is valid. Appeal to authority doesn't mean that it's not valid. There is already plenty of evidence by the Office for National Statistics in London and the Pew Research Center in Washington, D.C. which demonstrates a very clear correlation between the social construction of "race" and other variables, such as educational attainment; socioeconomic class; household income; residential area; marriage, family & relationships; crime; health; and life expectation etc. De facto, it would be "extremely foolish" to deny that there is any heritable differentiation in relation to such variables, which is strongly correlated with "race" as a social construction: Census data by the Office for National Statistics Pew Social & Demographic Trends Of course, the correlation between such variables is neither direct nor conclusive evidence that there is such a thing as differential intelligence between different populations; but the biotechnology revolution will, in the decades ahead, prove once and for all that blacks are, on average, less intelligent than East Asians and Europeans. Footnote: I think it's catch-22. Whereas on the one hand, those who argue the case for the "superior" intelligence of Whites (namely, J.P. Rushton, Hans Eysenck, Richard Lynn, Arthur Jensen, Tatu Vanhanen, Richard J. Hernstein, Charles Murray, Linda Gottfredson, Thomas Bouchard, Criminologist Anthony Walsh, and Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson etc) have neither direct nor conclusive evidence to demonstrate that such a claim is based on biological differentiation between human populations; but at the same time, the left-wing academia who refute such a claim have neither direct nor conclusive evidence to support their counter claim: The Pioneer Fund. Consequently, in the absence of any real hard evidence, I think we can safely conclude that your guess is as good as mine. H1 is simply a theoretical position on one-side of the debate; which does not, in any sense, imply that your ideological persuasion is any better, nor does it imply that H1 is more valid in terms of genetics and biology. Aside from the ethical considerations, who are you to say that black people are the intellectual "peers" of Chinese, Japanese, and Europeans? Well, let me tell you something; believe it or not, there's at least one other person on this forum who is of the viewpoint that "race is a valid concept in biology": Channel 4 to stoke race debate I hereby cite a remark made by one of the respondents, jcas0167, who commented on p.1 of the article, which was published by The Guardian on 14 October 2009: "Official statements by the American Sociological Association and the American Anthropological Association even endorse the view that race is not a valid biological concept, which is clearly incorrect". Therefore, who are you to say that such a hypothesis, evaluation, and theoretical approach is not scientifically valid? jcas0167 reply to race debate in the Guardian.pdf

No, the correlation is based on statistical data from previous Olympic games, which can be used to forecast that a higher percentage of the winners will be black as far as track and field events go - which is on the basis of the existing data demonstrating that black athletes tend to excel, and outclass other competitors. Obviously, there is no certainty that all the winners in track and field events will be the same colour -- and it's by no means guaranteed that Mongoloid or European athletes will always be the winners as far as the 100 metres breast stroke is concerned -- but the existing data can be used to statistically predict that the majority of winners will be black. On the balance of probability, it is highly likely that most if not all the winners in track and field events will be black; because on average, they are superior to other people who compete in the same event. The law of probability will also predict that the best gymnastics competitors will usually be Mongoloid or European; seldom have we been witness to a black person winning the Gold Medal for gymnastics. At the same time, it's my bet that amongst all the winners in track and field events, the percentage who are black will be far greater than the percentage of whites who compete in the same event. Such a correlation implies that, on average, there is an observable differentiation in terms of athletic prowess, which is strongly correlated with skin colour. Obviously, such a differentiation cannot be wholly attributed to the "plasticity of phenotype according to environmental heterogeneity" (and it would be implausible to suggest otherwise); but instead, it is logically, and partly attributed to the fact that differential athletic prowess is, to some extent, biologically determined. Why should the observable differential in I.Q. (and educational attainment) be any different from the observable differential in athletic prowess, which is strongly correlated with skin colour?

.

I think you like to cite any evidence that supports your hypothesis, but you also have a tendency to ignore other evidence which doesn't support your argument. Did I not tell you that "Ian Jones PhD is a Sociology professor who has derived his opinion on the basis of his consistent interaction with the scientific community at Harvard"? However, you conveniently ignored the fact that Dr Jones' opinion is premised on the prevalent scientific opinion at Harvard; but instead, you say that his opinion is not scientifically valid, based on the ostensible grounds that his expertise is Sociology instead of biology/genetics. Nevertheless, I can assure you that I am far better acquainted with Jones than any other person on this forum. Whatever his field of specialism, it is of no consequence whatsoever to the content of this debate, because the only thing that matters in this case is the actual source of Jones' information, which I can assure you is the prevalent scientific opinion at America's top research university. De facto, Harvard is consistently rated as the top research institution in the world by the Times Higher Educational Supplement. Given that this is the case, who are you to say that Jones' opinion is not scientifically valid? Also, you have conveniently ignored all the evidence of a recent study by Dr Neil Risch at Stanford (published in the American Journal of Human Genetics, 2004), which postulated that race is a real biological classification because there is always a strong correlation between a person's racial classification and other phenotypic variables such as intelligence: I absolutely agree that the genes of two people of different "races" can, in fact, very often be MUCH more similar than the genes of two people who belong to the same "racial" classification. The premise of your argument is that "race" is not a real biological category, because there is always more genetic variation within the same "racial" category, and less variation between different "races". For instance, two people of the same height can have a lower proportion of genes in common than two people of different height. Hair color is another example, whereby, two people with the same hair color can often have a lower proportion of genes in common than two people whose hair is a different color; and in the latter case, the genes can be much more similar. Whereas on the one hand, you say that "race" or phenotype does not statistically correlate with intelligence; but on the other hand, there is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that the African phenotype has a strong positive correlation with a person's ability to excel in track and field events, and other sports, whereby such a phenotype is far better adapted than the Mongoloid or European. On average, Europeans cannot go toe to toe with blacks in a boxing match, nor is it the case that they can often out maneuver a black person belonging to the same weight division. At the same time, the Mongoloid phenotype is strongly correlated with a relatively smaller stature than Blacks and Europeans. Given that there is always a positive/negative correlation between "race" and other phenotypic traits such as height and athletic prowess, then it is indeed a curious anomaly that you somehow deny that there is any such correlation between "race" (as a phenotype) and intelligence (as a phenotypic trait). If it's not "racist" to draw the observation that blacks are superior athletes, then why is it "racist" to observe that White people are more intelligent? If you had adapted a more studied approach at the outset, then you would have understood that this article is hinged on the conjectural premise that intelligence (as a phenotypic trait) is not wholly a function of environmental variables; but on the contrary, intelligence is to a certain degree biologically determined, which is strongly correlated with racial classification as a phenotype. De facto, conjecture is a powerful scientific method to infer the existence of laws and phenomena which cannot be directly observed, i.e. the world of imaginary numbers, formal logic, mathematical theorem, anti-matter, black holes, big band theory, relativity, quantum physics, sub-atomic particles, and Darwin's theory of evolution etc. Consequently, the conjectural premise of this article belongs to a different order, which is essentially far superior to any supposition, i.e. "the earth is flat; the earth is at the center of the universe; the different species of plants, insects, and animals have no common genetic ancestor" etc.

Controlling for social, cultural, and economic factors in deciding the outcome of elections, Hamiton's rule in regards to genetic altruism can be used to predict whether or not a candidate for office is likely to succeed: rB > C Kin selection Consequently, there are some who argue that Barack Obama's historic election by White voters on November 4, 2008 was partly due to the fact that he is partly of European stock. Contrast the example of Obama with Jesse Jackson and other black candidates who have never made it to the top, and we therefore have a compelling case to argue that Obama's landslide was partly as a result of his Mixed-Race heritage, and his popular appeal amongst the black AND white voters. Then, what are the chances of success for candidates who have no visible trace of any European ancestors? How will they succeed and get to the top in a political climate that is predominantly White if they have no European heritage? How does genetic altruism predict the likely route to success for those candidates who are without any immediate European ancestors? Well, the most recent examples of high profile non-White candidates who have reached the top of the political ladder would, of course, be the last two women to occupy the position of Governor General of Canada:- Michaëlle Jean Adrienne Clarkson Some would argue that despite their non-White background, they still managed to elicit the popular approval and support of Canadian voters (mostly White), as well as support by the Canadian Parliament, which is on account of the White racial identity of their respective husband. Such a hypothesis is based on Hamilton's rule, which postulates that White voters are more likely to support a non-White candidate who has a conjugal relationship with a White partner. This is premised on the fact that such a relationship is likely to produce offspring (and descendants) who are genetically related to the vast majority of the voters who are White; and thereby, the non-White candidate can be more or less treated as "kin", which is by virtue of of his or her intimate blood ties with the voters (who are mostly White). On the other hand, a non-White candidate who is bereft of any blood ties with the White voters is far less likely to elicit their approval and support, which is a different outcome predicted by the theory of genetic altruism. Which begs the question: Would this be a valid interpretation of Kin selection, kin recognition, and genetic altruism; and thereby, is it feasible to apply the rule to statistically forecast the outcome of a general election?

Perhaps you could explain why it is that, historically, Europeans who have migrated to Africa did not descend to the same level as the natives in terms of their intellectual faculty? Conversely, you might also try to explain why those blacks who have migrated to developed countries have never managed to attain the same I.Q. level as the host society, which is a consistent reality over several generations of the immigrant descended peoples being adapted to a different environment? There is no reason at all why the immigrant descended population should not have the same median-IQ as the host society because there is no reason that their environment should be any different to the indigenous population. If there is any observable difference over the course of several generations, then that is surely a result of heritable differentiation.

Not according to Dr. Ian Jones, lecturer in Sociology at the University of Gloucestershire, who is a Visiting Professor at MIT and Harvard. Strictly speaking, although Jones is neither a geneticist nor biologist, he still has the benefit of rubbing shoulders with some of the top scientists in America who've said that race is a biologically recognized variable, which is contrary to your opinion. Race is biologically real, according to Dr. Neil Risch, which he expounded in a study by Stanford University, and subsequently published in The American Journal of Human Genetics, 2004:

Yes, I agree that in the absence of such a controlled experiment, all we have is speculation. However, it wouldn't be impossible to manipulate the environment in order for such an experiment to take place. At the same time, it's important to remember that such a controlled experiment would be interdisciplinary, which would involve the collaboration of experts from several disciplines (namely, psychology, anthropology, and genetics); that would literally involve the use of human guinea pigs, which is completely against the ethics of contemporary social science practice in the West. However, such an experiment could still be carried out in non-Western countries, such as Russia and China, which is on account of their appalling record on human rights:- Objective: To create a suitable and controlled environment (social, cultural & economic) for the purpose of studying human guinea pigs. The purpose of the experiment would be to control for variables, such as a child's formative experience, socioeconomic class, cultural background, and differential opportunities; which would be carried out for the purpose of observing individual difference due to heritable factors, such as hereditary intelligence in this case. Method: To procure an abandoned country estate in the former Tsarist empire for the purpose of this experiment. The estate must be several hundred acres of premium farm land. The palace or country house must have several hundred rooms, which are nearly identical for the purpose of the experiment. The subject of this experiment would be several hundred neonatal and adopted children who are from every conceivable racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic background. For the purpose of the controlled experiment, all the subjects under study will be either male or female, which is important to eliminate the variable of gender or biological sex difference. The subjects under study must be neonatal infants who are no more than 3 months old, which is important to control for the variable of socioeconomic, cultural, and linguistic difference. It is important to procure as large a sample as possible, which is important to reduce the amount of error in the experiment. The subjects will be reared and educated in a homogenous environment to control for racial, ethnic, cultural, and socioeconomic difference; which will be necessary to observe the extent of genetic variation among the sample in respect of differential IQ. The sample will be ordered and classified according to racial and ethnic origin without the knowledge of the people being studied. Racial classification will be used for statistical purposes to derive a correlative relationship between race and median IQ i.e. The Bell Curve. If there is deviation in the median IQ of different groups within the sample, then I think we can safely conclude that there is indeed a genetic component which is responsible for differential IQ between the races. This would prove once and for all, that some races are biologically more intelligent than others. However, it is not absolutely crucial to carry out such a controlled experiment in the first place. Already, there are circumstances favorable to observing the hereditary component to intelligence, which does not require the homogenization of social, cultural, and economic factors. Take for example, the case of post-Apartheid South Africa which is politically dominated by the blacks (which rules out any chance of racial discrimination by the Whites, and one would expect the blacks to have priority of access to social, economic, and political resources). Nevertheless, we find that the blacks still have a lower per capita income and the number of black graduates is still proportionately less than the respective figures for the Whites in South Africa. Statistically, such differences cannot be wholly accounted for by the "plastic response of phenotype to environmental heterogeneity" because the difference between black and white per capita income, and the difference in educational attainment, is too great to be wholly accounted by human adaptation. If black and white people occupy the same geographic territory, then there is no reason why the blacks shouldn't have the same standard of living and education as white people. Statistically, such differences between the black and white community are too great to be wholly accounted for by human adaptation to environmental heterogeneity. By inference, we thereby observe that it is highly probable that such differences are indeed the manifestation of a biological base for intelligence, whereby, the level of intelligence will naturally differ according to the biological variable of race.

Racial intelligence is like any other human trait, which is a complex interaction between a person's genetic makeup AND the environment in which a person is socialized. Consequently, those who argue that racial intelligence has no biological component are extremely likely to be mistaken. Although psychometric testing is neither a reliable nor accurate measure of intelligence, it doesn't imply that we cannot, and should not look to other sources as a barometer and indicator of racial intelligence. For instance, Africa has no historical or indigenous civilization to boast, except for the civilizing influence of the Arabs, Persians, and Europeans; as indeed, without the civilizing effect of Indo-Germanic peoples they would have no culture, and no civilization whatsoever. Suffice to say that the Ancient Egyptian civilization was built by people who are not wholly of African descent; which means that black people cannot be wholly credited for creating one of the most dominant civilizations of the Ancient Mediterranean; as on the contrary, the Ancient Egyptian civilization is mostly attributed to the cultural, ethnic, and biological heritage of misogynized populations (mostly, Semitic and Indo-aryan) in the Horn of Africa. Moreover, African states generally have the LOWEST per capita income, Gross Domestic Product, Purchasing Power, and scientific and technological development out of any continent across the globe (with South Africa as the only exception, which is only the case because S.A. still has a powerful mercantile-class that is White, a largely White bureaucratic-class, and a scientific community which is predominantly White). Suffice to say, the majority of African American children still live below the poverty line and there has been little if any improvements to the standard of living of blacks in America since the Civil Rights Act was signed into law in 1965. Consequently, the economic disadvantage of African Americans cannot be solely attributed to economic discrimination by the White majority, because such discrimination applies to any other minority in America; but Asian Americans (Korean, Chinese, Japanese....and Indian etc.) have more or less managed to overcome the worst of racial prejudice and discrimination, and are generally more successful in economic terms than the African American population. Furthermore, Dr Ian Jones of the University of Gloucestershire, UK, a Visiting Professor at MIT and Harvard is a leading expert on race and racism, who has commented that the African American population is mostly "working-class", but the majority of Asians and Whites are Middle-class in America. Suffice to say, there is compelling evidence that the economic disadvantage of blacks is not entirely a result of racial discrimination by Whites because Asians are generally more successful than blacks despite also being the target of discrimination by Whites. In other words, the economic disadvantage of blacks is not entirely a result of the environment, such as black culture, structural disadvantage, and racial discrimination by the White majority in America. On the contrary, it is highly probable that the economic disadvantage of blacks has a biological component, which is responsible for the racial intelligence of black people in general. As indeed, almost every human trait conceivable has some sort of biological component and it would be foolish to suggest that any particular trait is solely the result of a person's environment. Among the mainstream scientific communities in North America and Europe, it is well documented that almost every human trait conceivable has some sort of biological base, with the exception of racial intelligence; which is a curious anomaly in the scientific paradigm of "nature AND nurture" as being the complex and causal determinant of phenotypic evolution (which includes racial intelligence); as both the scientific community and political establishment are bent on promoting "good race relations"; but such a moral imperative would be called into doubt, and indeed, there would be a sound rationale to implement discriminatory policies if it could be proven that Asians and Whites are more intelligent than Blacks. So far, no one has yet managed to provide any direct and conclusive evidence to demonstrate that there is, indeed, a genetic base attributed to differential IQ; but that is not to say that we cannot or should not use the "nature AND nurture hypothesis" as a conjectural premise that racial intelligence is, indeed, like any other human trait, which is not solely dependent on cultural factors, nor the social environment of an entire group of people. In other words, black intelligence is not entirely a result of black culture, structural disadvantage, and racial discrimination by Whites; but rather, it is highly probable as a result of the black genome as much as being a result of the socially-diverse environment of the global diaspora of black people. Likewise, the fact that blacks in America are over-represented amongst the prison population is not solely the result of black culture and the social deprivation of black people generally; but the criminality of blacks must also have a biological base, which makes them more prone to criminal activity than any other race in America. Which begs the question: As concerning the scientific community, academia, and politicians, when will they ever come to terms with the evidence of America's history, and therefore, come to terms with the reality of black intelligence, criminality, and sexual prowess, which is not entirely a result of historic and persisting racial injustice at the hands of the White majority; but instead, there is compelling evidence to suggest that such a discerning trait among black people must also have a genetic base, which is one of the causal determinants of such a defining feature among the black people of America? Reference: Dr. Richard Lynn - IQ and The Global Bell Curve: Steve Jones, a professor of genetics at University College London has commented that "it'll be extremely FOOLISH to deny that there is a heritable component in intelligence, as it's extremely FOOLISH to deny that there is a heritable component to almost anything (04:31/09:44)": Biological determinism The Flynn Effect does NOT claim that differential I.Q. between black and white people is not partly attributed to a genetic component based on racial difference between the two groups (1:40/3:57):