Racial intelligence is a function of both nature and nurture

Thomas Wainwright · June 18, 2012

Please start taking you own advice and cite some actual evidence to prove any of your assertions and stop arm waving.

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.

This is an appeal to authority. Please show us the data which proves that race significantly explains an observed difference in intelligence.

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?

Adding to the debunking of your stance that has already been shared above, I will remind you that the idea of race is not relevant in biology or genetics. It is only relevant in sociology. It is a social construct generated almost solely by the way people perceive the world around them. It is an emergent property from the way humans classify and categorize things, but not a true demarcation between humans or genetic groups. Despite this, you continue to draw conclusions that are ultimately genetic in nature, and hence your assertions are completely separated from reality. They are baseless, unfounded, and frankly wrong.

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

Edited June 19, 2012 by Thomas Wainwright

**CharonY** · June 18, 2012

The problem here is that you are simply ignoring counter-arguments and data, even for the claims that can and have been proven false. Your arguments are mostly not supported by data or research but are based either on talking points or mere assumptions. Let us talk about body height, for instance. Just by looking at wiki the average body height of white US males is 1.789 m. For black US males it is 1.780. For Mexican Americans it is 1.706 (where you would assume a strong European heritage). In contrast, average height in South Korea is 1.739. In fact, if you plot these things out, you will have a hard time to find a strong correlation to something as crude as skin color. I mean seriously, the average height difference between Germans and English people (1.8 vs 1.776) is larger than between white and black US males.

Or take South Koreans (1.736) vs South Africa (1.690).

Seriously, look at data.

Now that the simple measures demonstrate that the assertions are outright wrong, one could still question the measure of highly complex variables, such as IQ or test scores. Unfortunately, here it is much harder to draw definite conclusions in either way. There are however certain effects (such as the Flynn effect) that show that these measures are certainly not static (and thus, on a firm genetic basis). Socially controlled studies (e.g. adoption) have often found not differences, though on average the data sets are of course somewhat small (e.g. Moore Developmental Psychology, Vol 22(3), May 1986, 317-326), though there are probably newer studies around.

How much the biology plays a role is certainly quite under discussion, but it is clear that it is a poor predictor e.g. of skin color.

Thomas Wainwright · June 18, 2012

There are however certain effects (such as the Flynn effect) that show that these measures are certainly not static (and thus, on a firm genetic basis).

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):

Let us talk about body height, for instance. Just by looking at wiki the average body height of white US males is 1.789 m. For black US males it is 1.780. For Mexican Americans it is 1.706 (where you would assume a strong European heritage). In contrast, average height in South Korea is 1.739. In fact, if you plot these things out, you will have a hard time to find a strong correlation to something as crude as skin color. I mean seriously, the average height difference between Germans and English people (1.8 vs 1.776) is larger than between white and black US males.

Or take South Koreans (1.736) vs South Africa (1.690).

Seriously, look at data.

How much the biology plays a role is certainly quite under discussion, but it is clear that it is a poor predictor e.g. of skin color.

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.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Thomas Wainwright

**CharonY** · June 18, 2012

How about the poor correlation of simple measures such as height (which is associated with certain measures of health status and are therefore more likely to be selective)? And why should complex traits suddenly find strong correlations where the obvious ones cannot?

Again, the issue is not whether sub-populations exist (they do, as a consequence of migration, and limited gene flow between distal populations). See for instance Tishkoff et al Science 22 May 2009: Vol. 324 no. 5930 pp. 1035-1044. Note that the identified clusters (using polymorphic markers) are not sharply delimited but follow (somewhat) geographic differences. Also note that while African Americans cluster within Sub-Saharan populations, they also have (again, based on the used markers) around 13% European ancestry.

Obviously, there is significant mix of many populations (especially African American populations), and certainly African populations are extremely diverse, which makes it nonsensical to use one crude classification scheme (skin color) as proxy.

Now I already hear you rejoicing and claiming that there are races and with all the assumptions mentioned above. However the question is to find evidence there are significant and exclusive associations of these markers with any kind of phenotypic traits (with the caveat that association studies are prone to false positive detection). This approach is akin to biomarker studies especially in the biomedical field and the results are overwhelmingly negative (in terms of predictive power).

Even with simple traits (such as height) the predictive power (i.e. association with a given population) is low. As I mentioned, plotting body heights does not create a nice size distribution Asian-Caucasian-African, as the OP implies. In other words, knowing the height of a person will not lead in to a good estimation of the population he/she may belong to. The same goes for a lot of other traits.

Now think about how much more difficult it is for such a fuzzy concept such as intelligence (which itself is often badly defined and even harder to measure).

And as repeatedly brought forth, socioeconmics is known to have a strong influence on these measures, which is very hard to eliminate from these studies.

Cross-posted: the reason for selection South Koreans is to point out that these averages are meaningless. The assumption of the op is that there are strong correlation with traits, but large variations within population render these distinction meaningless. It is just playing with averages, while neglecting the spread. Why, for instance are South Koreans considered to be an anomaly? The OP assumes that there is an averageness to Asians, but that is based on the assumption that there is an inherent basis for all Asian populations which leads to lower body height than Caucasians. However, as the above example indicates, depending on which Asian population you look at and which Caucasian we see that it is not the case (I could as easily point out that the difference between Japanese and Chinese is still larger than between white and black US Americans. Using the reasoning above it must mean that Japanese, Chinese and South Koreans have a larger difference (especially South Koreans vs Chinese) than e.g. between black and white US Americans.

The OP is effectively operating under the assumption that there must be a difference (and only among the demarcation the OP arbitrarily defines), and all evidence pointing out the opposite have to be anomalies, which is actually the scotsman fallacy.

Edited June 18, 2012 by CharonY

Arete · June 19, 2012

"as it's extremely foolish to deny there's a heritable component to almost anything"

Including phenotypic plasticity.

Look, this is not about political correctness. This is about science. Stop arm waving and provide a statistically validated correlation between an intelligence metric and race instead of evasion, arm waving and logical fallacies.

It is what everyone else in evolutionary biology is required to do in order to establish a phenotypic difference between two populations, regardless of species.

If you then wish to establish a genetic basis for the difference between these two statistically differentiated phenotypic clusters, establish common inheritance in a controlled environment.

If you cannot do this you cannot establish a genetic basis for trait difference between populations.

Thomas Wainwright · June 19, 2012

Including phenotypic plasticity.

Please cite at least one example of adaptive intelligence which is inversely correlated with the fitness of an organism?

Stop arm waving and provide a statistically validated correlation between an intelligence metric and race instead of evasion, arm waving and logical fallacies. It is what everyone else in evolutionary biology is required to do in order to establish a phenotypic difference between two populations, regardless of species. If you then wish to establish a genetic basis for the difference between these two statistically differentiated phenotypic clusters, establish common inheritance in a controlled environment. If you cannot do this you cannot establish a genetic basis for trait difference between populations.

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

Edited June 20, 2012 by Thomas Wainwright

Ringer · June 20, 2012

I don't think anyone is saying that intelligence is not, in part, heritable. That is not your argument, your argument is that one phenotypic characteristic, melanin concentration in skin, is directly correlated with another, intelligence. As of yet you have not shown that there is a large enough variation in intelligence that cannot just as easily be explained by other factors. You have also ignored the data that brings doubt to your claim, which is even hurting your credibility more than a mistaken argument ever could.

**CharonY** · June 20, 2012

In addition, one should note that Rushton is not an evolutionary biologist. His ventures into evolutionary explanations were pretty much shown to be wrong as he misapplied evolutionary models and apparently lacked fundamental understanding of biology. See Graves 2002, Anthropological Theory

Abstract

The last decade of the 20th century experienced a resurgence of genetically based theories of racial hierarchy regarding intelligence and morality. Most notably was Herrnstein and Murray's The Bell Curve (1994), that claimed genetic causality for long-standing racial differences in IQ. In addition, it raised the time worn argument that the over-reproduction of genetically deficient individuals within our population would lead to a serious decline in average American intelligence. These authors provided no specific rationale for why these genetic differences should exist between human `races'. Instead, they relied heavily on the work of Canadian psychologist J. Philipe Rushton (in The Bell Curve, 1994, Appendix 5: 642—3). Rushton has advanced a specific evolutionary genetic rationale for how gene frequencies are differentiated between the `races' relative to intelligence. He claims that human racial differences result from natural selection for particular reproductive strategies in the various racial groups. Rushton's theory is based entirely on the concept of r- and K-selection, first explicitly outlined by MacArthur and Wilson in 1967. This article examines both the flaws in the general theory, and specifically Rushton's application of that same theory to human data. It concludes that neither Rushton's use of the theory nor the data that he has assembled could possibly test any meaningful hypotheses concerning human evolution and/or the distribution of genetic variation relating to reproductive strategies or `intelligence', however defined.

That being said there are others who looked into the matter and an interesting approach using archaeological evidence was presented (MacEachern, World Archaeology 2006 38:1, 72-92).

Over the last two decades, a number of psychometric researchers have claimed that very substantial
diﬀerences in intelligence exist among modern human racial groups, as these groups are traditionally

deﬁned. According to these researchers, African populations suﬀer severe cognitive deﬁcits when

compared to other modern humans. Philippe Rushton, particularly, places these claimed mental

deﬁcits in an evolutionary context, advancing environmental explanations for such deﬁcits and

asserting that such cognitive diﬀerences existed prehistorically as well. Such substantial cognitive

diﬀerences should be evident in human behavioural patterns, and thus in the archaeological record.

Archaeological data can thus be used to test these claims about human evolutionary development

and modern human cognitive diﬀerence. Examination of the archaeological record does not support

the claims made by these researchers. This suggests that regional diﬀerences in IQ test score results

should not be ascribed to variations in human evolutionary development.

Arete · June 21, 2012

Please cite at least one example of adaptive intelligence which is inversely correlated with the fitness of an organism?

Check citation 1 in post 3 in this thread.

http://pss.sagepub.c.../14/6/623.short

It describes a twin study in which one twin was raised in a low socioeconomic environment and the other was raised in an elevated socioeconomic environment - which resulted in significant variation in the plastic response and heritable components of intellect -

"The models suggest that in impoverished families, 60% of the variance in IQ is accounted for by the shared environment, and the contribution of genes is close to zero; in affluent families, the result is almost exactly the reverse."

How about diet -

http://www.nature.co.../pr197611a.html

and climate-

http://www.amsciepub...0.107.4.251-254

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?

I'm not sure you're understanding. Phenotypic plasticity is a phenomenon in which the same genotype, exposed to differential environments (and sometimes identical environments) can produce a range of different phenotypes. As shown above with socioeconomic status, climate childhood diet, and a quick literature search will show, exposure to radiation, peer associations, exposure to lead, etc, etc, all result in environmentally induced plasticity in IQ in humans.

So, even in the case you were able to provide a study which showed statistically validated differentiation in intelligence between human populations (which you haven't) defined by race (which is a poor categorization of genetic variation in humans as gene flow between races is historically high http://mbe.oxfordjou.../26/8/1823.full and differentiation between races is clinal http://mbe.oxfordjou.../26/8/1823.full) there exists substantial potential and evidence that hypothetical differences in intellect between human populations could be driven by environmental factors rather than genetic - which means that to prove any heritability of the differential conditions you need to control for environment.

Here is a study which proves there is no genetic basis in significant phenotypic differences between allopatric snail populations. http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/18840773

Cross sectional field studies show significant differences in body size between populations - common garden experiments show no significant difference in size between offspring from these differentiated populations when raised in a homogenous environment.

It is the type of study you would need to produce to validate your speculations.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Arete

Thomas Wainwright · June 22, 2012

IMPORTANT NOTICE

I will endeavor to provide some detailed response to the recent comments after Sunday, 24 June, 2012.

OUSA Conference 2012.pdf

iNow · June 22, 2012

You and I must use different definitions of the term "important."

immortal · June 22, 2012

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.

You're mistaken, irrespective of whether the aryans came from the steppes of Russia or the Indo-Germanic or from the Indus-Valley civilization itself whose origins are unresolved till date, women had equal freedom in every aspect of their life competing with man and they did not discouraged women.

Yajnavalkya gave all his assets to his wife before he left to the forest. The aryans weren't nomadic, Misogyny came into existence at a later time when the aryan culture started to deteriorate.

The most pleasing feature of this period is the presence of women teachers, many of whom possessed highest spiritual knowledge. The famous dialogue between Yajnavalkya and his wife Maitreyi and Gargi Vachaknavi show how enlightened the women of that age were. According to the Sarvanukramanika, there were as many as 20 women among the authors of the Rig Veda. These stories stand in contrast to the later age when the study of Vedic literature was forbidden to women under the most severe penalty.

**CharonY** · June 22, 2012

I kind of missed that part

For instance, Africa has no historical or indigenous civilization to boast,

That is simply not true, unless one redefines the meaning of civilization. There are numerous kingdoms throughout history in Africa that actually often had extensive contacts to the other, better known civilization. Using memories from Latin lessons:

Examples include Aksumite empire (major commerce center from 100 BC, vanished 800 years later), which was located roughly where Ethiopia an Eritrea is located. Was an important hub in the trade between the Roman and Indian empire.

Nubia was a famous empire and was at its peak a major rival of Egypt. And since skin color seems to be terribly important to certain people, they were depicted as dark skinned.

Actually, before I make a hole mess out of it, I'd rather just provide this link to wiki rather than to rely on memory Wiki link.

Thomas Wainwright · June 22, 2012

That is simply not true, unless one redefines the meaning of civilization.

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]

There are numerous kingdoms throughout history in Africa that actually often had extensive contacts to the other, better known civilizations. Using memories from Latin lessons: Examples include Aksumite empire (major commerce center from 100 BC, vanished 800 years later), which was located roughly where Ethiopia an Eritrea is located. Was an important hub in the trade between the Roman and Indian empire.

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.

Nubia was a famous empire and was at its peak a major rival of Egypt.

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.

**swansont** · June 22, 2012

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.

So basically you've moved the goal posts from "no historical or indigenous civilization to boast" and now require that it rival some other arbitrarily-chosen civilization. Bollocks to that.

To establish any effect as being due to genetics, you must first account for and normalize ALL environmental effects, and you haven't even begun to do that. So what we're left with is a lipstick-on-pig bunch of racist viewpoints with a dab of science to try and justify them.

Arete · June 22, 2012

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)".

Aside from the wild inappropriateness of sharing personal emails on a web forum:

of 11,000 coding regions analyzed in this study, 797 were found to be fixed (i.e. identical) between not only all the human samples analyzed, but between humans and chimpanzees. This indicates that there is in fact a 7.2% likelihood that a randomly chosen gene is conserved between all humans and chimps. It is therefore considerably plausible - given some actual data rather than arm waving generalization, that two humans, from different populations could share identical alleles at one of the many genes which contribute to intelligence.

Even more damning for your generalization is the level of migration between human populations. This study shows that "genome-wide polymorphism data from about 40 West Eurasian groups to show that almost all Southern Europeans have inherited 1%–3% African ancestry" and This study shows that bidirectional gene flow has been occurring between European and African human populations since their seperation. This means that if an allele which conferred an intellectual advantage arose in Europe, it is entirely possible that it was transferred to African human populations, or vice versa.

For the nth time if you're going to claim there is significant difference between two things, you need to demonstrate that there is a significant difference. If you're going to attribute a correlation between two things, you need to demonstrate a significant correlation.

Edited June 22, 2012 by Arete

Thomas Wainwright · June 22, 2012

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

Edited June 23, 2012 by Thomas Wainwright

Thomas Wainwright · June 22, 2012

It is therefore considerably plausible that two humans, from different populations could share identical alleles at one of the many genes which contribute to intelligence...This means that if an allele which conferred an intellectual advantage arose in Europe, it is entirely possible that it was transferred to African human populations, or vice versa.

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?

Aside from the wild inappropriateness of sharing personal emails on a web forum:

This is argumentum ad hominem which has nothing to do with science.

This study shows that bidirectional gene flow has been occurring between European and African human populations since their separation.

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.

For the nth time if you're going to claim there is significant difference between two things, you need to demonstrate that there is a significant difference. If you're going to attribute a correlation between two things, you need to demonstrate a significant correlation.

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?

So basically you've moved the goal posts from "no historical or indigenous civilization to boast" and now require that it rival some other arbitrarily-chosen civilization. Bollocks to that.

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.

To establish any effect as being due to genetics, you must first account for and normalize ALL environmental effects, and you haven't even begun to do that. So what we're left with is a lipstick-on-pig bunch of racist viewpoints with a dab of science to try and justify them.

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

Edited June 23, 2012 by Thomas Wainwright

Gaylord · June 22, 2012

Could epigenetics have anything to do with this? According to epigenetics, experiences can influence gene expression for generations.

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.

Ringer · June 23, 2012

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?

Off the top of my head, lactase in adults.

This is argumentum ad hominem which has nothing to do with science.

It also wasn't part of the argument, and still wasn't an ad hominem. It wasn't about you, but a statement regarding something you have done.

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.

First it has nothing to do with environment and culture, now it does?

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.

Again, you are now arguing that it has to do more with culture which completely changes your argument.

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.

Source?

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?

That's not how science works. You made a claim and it is your responsibility to back it up, not ours to show the opposite is true. You have done next to nothing to show your stance is true and shifting the burden of proof doesn't change that. Many examples have been given for why it could be assumed intelligence and race don't have a special relationship, if you can't look at the evidence already given why give more?

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.

Do you know what arbitrarily chosen means? You made a statement that it had no civilizations, then choose another comparison when your position is shown to be wrong. Also, Greece and Rome were fairly advanced for their time, but there's no reason to assume that it is because they were genetically superior. Unless, of course, you want to take the stance Arabic people where genetically more intelligent during medieval times, but it just so happen to coincide with them having large amounts of texts.

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

There has been ample evidence given to show that intelligence probably doesn't have a direct correlation with skin tone, it's not anyone else's fault that you refuse to see them.

Edited June 23, 2012 by Ringer

Thomas Wainwright · June 23, 2012

Off the top of my head, lactase in adults.

Off the top of your head, but you're not sure?

It also wasn't part of the argument, and still wasn't an ad hominem. It wasn't about you, but a statement regarding something you have done.

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

First it has nothing to do with environment and culture, now it does?

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.

Again, you are now arguing that it has to do more with culture which completely changes your argument.

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.

Source?

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.

Many examples have been given for why it could be assumed intelligence and race don't have a special relationship, if you can't look at the evidence already given why give more?

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.

Also, Greece and Rome were fairly advanced for their time, but there's no reason to assume that it is because they were genetically superior. Unless, of course, you want to take the stance Arabic people where genetically more intelligent during medieval times, but it just so happen to coincide with them having large amounts of texts.

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.

There has been ample evidence given to show that intelligence probably doesn't have a direct correlation with skin tone, it's not anyone else's fault that you refuse to see them.

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?

Edited June 23, 2012 by Thomas Wainwright

hypervalent_iodine · June 23, 2012

!

Moderator Note

Thomas,

This stops now.

Firstly, in relation to this post. I have removed the private correspondence that you pasted as it is rather inappropriate to go around making personal conversation public without the consent of all parties involved.

You were warned here that you were in violation of rule 2.1c of the forums rules, which you agreed to abide by in signing up here. This is where the racial slurs end. If you cannot do this, the thread gets closed.

Additionally, it is worth noting that soap boxing is also not permitted here.

Ringer · June 23, 2012

Off the top of your head, but you're not sure?

No, off the top of my head means an example I can give without having to think in depth about it.

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

I know what an ad hominem is, as I said the remark had nothing to do with your argument, your characteristics, or your beliefs. It was an off hand remark about your action.

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.[/font]

[/size]

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.

Except culture is not a characteristic of one's genetic make-up, but the environment in which one grows up. Culture in any geographic region is going to be different than culture in another geographic region, all other things being equal, due to the different ways one would survive in those areas.

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.

Again, technological advancement isn't an indicator of intelligence. A place would never be able to sustain a rapidly growing technological civilization if it didn't have the resources to exploit, good environment for agriculture, trading, etc. Not to mention one of the most advanced civilizations of it's time was in Africa (Egypt).

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?

The distribution of sickle cell anemia, plants and animals that are not from those particular geographic regions, historical trading documents, wars, etc.

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.

No archaeology? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_archaeology

No records? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Carthage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbuktu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nubia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horn_of_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.

It has been considered and refuted by multiple people.

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.

No, biology is plenty to demonstrate this is false. By and large, from a biological standpoint, since Africa is more genetically diverse it is superior. Here's some more stuff on how race is meaningless:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/298/5602/2381.short

http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1050&context=pscpapers&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fstart%3D20%26q%3Dgenetic%2Btransmission%2Bafrica%2Beurope%2Bhistoric%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D0%2C5%26as_vis%3D1#search=%22genetic%20transmission%20africa%20europe%20historic%22

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1288178/

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.

In what way? The middle east developed the system of numerals that allows us to do math quickly and easily which allowed them to do much more than the Roman's and Greeks from a mathematical standpoint. Again, using an arbitrary measurement such as civilization, which in itself means nothing, does nothing to show intelligence. We also get back into the point that by that measure most of Asia is more intelligent, which is odd because the poorer Asian countries score worse on intelligence tests. Why would this happen if it was mostly genetic variation and not environment.

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.

Look at the wiki links posted earlier.

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.

See what was said above.

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.

Your claim needs to be backed. I haven't made a claim except that you don't have enough evidence to show variation in IQ is directly related to race. Every claim made so far is either blatantly false or is based on some misconception (which is the problem with most of your sources).

I have to leave right now, maybe when I have time I'll get to the rest of the post.

Arete · June 24, 2012

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?

No it isn't speculation. You made the general remark that it was "highly improbable" that a gene would be shared between African and European populations. I countered that assertion with peer reviewed literature showing that the likelihood of a gene selected at random being fixed across humans and chimps is 7.2% and long term gene flow between Europe and Africa considerably increases that probability between African and European populations, which further peer reviewed literature I cited shows are indistinctly differentiated in the first place.

Given you're the party making the positive assertion that such a gene a) exists, b) is fixedly different between these two populations c) significantly contributes to the phenotype of intelligence d) this phenotype is significantly different between these populations, I'd say the burden of proof lies squarely on your shoulders - my point was merely that even if it does exist, it's not "highly improbable" to be shared in human populations with long standing geneflow between them - the data shows allele sharing is highly likely and claims of fixed differences between two such populations require substantiation beyond yet another arm waving generalization.

You've ignored repeated requests to evidence any of these speculative assertions, and whenever anyone tries to counter any of the blatantly false statements you're making, you counter with a comment such as the one quoted above which simply restates these unproven assumptions, which attempts to shift the burden of proof onto others to prove your assertions false. It's becoming circular and obfuscating.

This is argumentum ad hominem which has nothing to do with science.

I think you need to read your own link on ad hominem attacks - I did not attack you at all. I brought into question the appropriateness of your post (not you) because it was a private communication sent to you which you aired publicly, a point which was validated when the moderators decided to moderate your post. If I had of said "Your post is inappropriate because you are a narrow minded bigot so everything you say is inappropriate" that would have constituted an ad hominem fallacy - see the difference?

I further question the appropriateness of "wall of texting" us with copypasta of what appears to be your undergraduate essay in a discussion forum. If you were having a verbal discussion, you wouldn't stand up and give a half hour monologue, so why do the virtual equivalent? It seems to me that such behavior falls under the definition of "soapboxing".

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.

Culture and ideas are not heritable - there's no genetic basis for their inheritance and the argument is fundamentally and completely flawed. To preempt - it is not up to me to demonstrate that they aren't as you are making the positive assertion that they are - if you use words like "will always" and "correlated", you need to provide data. Yet again, you're making unsupported assertions and treating your own opinion as fact.

Where is your evidence to demonstrate that the Environmentalist position is more valid than the Hereditarian perspective?

Did you miss post #3 of this thread:

"The models suggest that in impoverished families, 60% of the variance in IQ is accounted for by the shared environment, and the contribution of genes is close to zero"

http://pss.sagepub.c.../14/6/623.short

"IQ, is perhaps 48%; narrow-sense heritability, the relevant quantity for evolutionary arguments because it measures the additive effects of genes, is about 34%."

http://www.nature.co...l/388468a0.html

"large environmentally induced IQ gains between generations suggest an important role for environment in shaping IQ"

http://psycnet.apa.o.../rev/108/2/346/

The above peer reviewed scientific publications provide a basis for the assumption that observed variance in intelligence is more attributable to environmental factors than genetic - which you are yet to counter.

Where is your evidence to demonstrate that all human populations have identical genotypes for intelligence?

Where is your evidence that they are distinct? The null hypothesis of any test for genetic differentiation (e.g. AMOVA, Bayesian clustering, Mantel test) assumes no difference between populations. The burden of proof is on you.

Edited June 26, 2012 by Arete

too-open-minded · July 13, 2012

I'm sorry, did I misunderstand you or did you say black people are biologically inferior to other races like whites? If by chance you happen to think less inferior people shouldn't be on this planet, I'm laughing at the irony.

Africa has been in turmoil since guns were introduced to the continent and their just supposed to bounce back from that?

You expect people to be slaves, migrate north in the largest human migration ever recorded to only to end up stuck in cities where they are taken advantage of by white factory owners to be at the same economic level 200 years later?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, their the inferior ones?

I think biologically, your not inferior. You just wont open your mind. I actually think your an intelligent person, I can tell by your organization and vocabulary. Your just narrow-minded, but you don't have to be

Sign In

Racial intelligence is a function of both nature and nurture

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Important Information