Did humans evolve into separate races that differ in mental traits?

[Over 9000]

Using skin colour to classify humanity into groups

Stopped reading there. What does it say for your position when you have to repeat the same childish lies?

[Memammal]

^ At least get you facts straight before you nosedive into it again. As you should come to realise by now (you seem somewhat thick-skinned though), I was raising a point with the poster of the part that I quoted and it goes back to his earlier statement, to this:

It doesn't matter if I call them race or not, it doesn't freaking matter where I draw the line northern/ lighter skinned populations will almost always have higher IQs relative to their darker more southern counterparts.

Capisce..?

Just read between the lines (oh sorry, not even necessary as it is quite blatant) of the post that I quoted in my last post (that I reacted to). For example asking whether the article referred to white Americans in comparing them with east Asians. That is so sad. I repeat, it is a poor reflection on those who drive this agenda (read you & co). Enough said, I am out of here.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Memammal

[Over 9000]

^ At least get you facts straight before you nosedive into it again. As you should come to realise by now (you seem somewhat thick-skinned though), I was raising a point with the poster of the part that I quoted and it goes back to his earlier statement, to this:

Capisce..?

Just read between the lines (oh sorry, not even necessary as it is quite blatant) of the his post that I quoted in my last post. For example asking whether the article referred to white Americans in comparing them with east Asians. That is so sad. I repeat, it is a poor reflection on those who drive this agenda (read you & co). Enough said, I am out of here.

 

That's accurate. His point was that all of the nitpicking about the race concept doesn't change the fact that there is a global pattern of indigenous IQ, which you fail to/avoid addressing by nitpicking concepts. He wasn't "using skin colour to classify humanity into groups" (your strawman), he was saying that even if we did a pattern exists which needs to be explained.

 

 

And after race has been defined by ancestry, you go back to this comment and misrepresent it to make your opposition look bad.

 

Just read between the lines (oh sorry, not even necessary as it is quite blatant) of the his post that I quoted in my last post. For example asking whether the article referred to white Americans in comparing them with east Asians. That is so sad. I repeat, it is a poor reflection on those who drive this agenda (read you & co). Enough said, I am out of here.

 

Yeah, I get it. You have an emotional response to this kind of discussion. I suggest you just go do something else. You're not really posting much science here, just how upset you are.

 

These kinds of debates hold zero benefit for science or for society, it does not achieve anything, it is a waste of time, it is a poor reflection on those driving the race/intelligence agenda and it only serves to insult those implicated by vague allegations of different (read inferior) "mental traits". I will have no further part in this.

 

One area I can think of practical utility would be immigration poilicy.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Over 9000

[Delta1212]

I find it interesting that a reverse image search of that completely unsourced map provides but a single result going to The Daily Stormer.

[Memammal]

Yeah, I get it. You have an emotional response to this kind of discussion. I suggest you just go do something else. You're not really posting much science here, just how upset you are.

One area I can think of practical utility would be immigration policy.

Just sick and tired of the likes of you who abuse grey data to reach agenda-driven black & white conclusions and want to implement unfounded policies accordingly. What do you propose? To discriminately consider immigrants based on different mental traits, or races/ancestries? And how do you intend to measure those? It somehow reminds me of this: The Jew has always been a people with definite racial characteristics and never a religion - Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

 

Which is why I am so reluctant to participate. It is like being dragged down to a level where I don't want to be. Fortunately the poll result is pretty conclusive.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Memammal

[zapatos]

I find it interesting that a reverse image search of that completely unsourced map provides but a single result going to The Daily Stormer.

 

 

Wow. That racist site leaves me speechless.

[Ophiolite]

@ Over 9000: I don't understand what you mean by saying that race is defined by ancestry. So if the Chinese are a race, how do we define that race? You say they are defined by ancestry, but what does that mean. How can I take an individual and know, from their ancestry that they are Chinese and not Hottentot, or Scandinavian? (Substitute other names if any of these are not considered by you to be races.) What are the step by step processes that allow you to make the decision?

 

I am not trying to trap you, trip you up, or confuse the issue. I really do not understand how you actually use your definition of race by ancestry to identify individuals of a particular race. It may be because I am thick, but it might be because you have so far failed to explain the method.

[koti]

 

 

I would like to know if can tell me the race of this person:

 

 

 

 

 

I've no idea. She looks kind of Med with some possible Negroid ancestry. Has she had any plastic surgery? I think one would need a CT scan or at least a closer examination to call it. Her skull would be informative.

 

 

I find this sociopathic lack of empathy extremely disturbing.

[Arete]

It can do. It's just semantics really. Subspecies really means below species. In the narrow sense it's the level immediately below species. In the broad sense it's any level below, such as race, which is a subdivision of the subspecies sapiens sapiens.

 

The term subspecies is certainly not used ubiquitously to describe any level of genetic partitioning below the species level, and I'm repeating myself, but it's generally used using criteria specific to each organismal group as a matter of convenience - see previous "irrelevant" Trypanosoma example.

 

Repeating myself again, one can certainly make some sort of case that human populations represent "subspecies" - however I would suspect that broad acceptance of such a classification would be impeded by the fact that the vast majority of genetic variation is within groups, and identification of hybrids (e.g. F1, F2, backcrosses) would be challenging due to long term genetic transfer between groups, rendering such a classification system of limited practical utility.

 

This is not to say that humans can't be separated into genetic clusters, or that this is a fruitless task - from my first post in the thread:

 

2) Yes, distinct human populations exist - see Rosenberg et al.

3) In some cases distinctions are useful e.g. Scandinavian populations are ~90% lactose tolerant, East Asian populations ~10%. There are some ethnically associated genetic disorders (e.g. sickle cell anemia, Tay Sachs disease, etc.) and some ethnically specific drug metabolic responses that can be quite dramatic, even fatal. So identifying distinct human populations is possible and worthwhile.

Now the heritability of IQ. In the case of lactose tolerance, we have differential expression of LCT caused by population level variation of the MCM6 promoter. Sickle cell anaemia can be tracked via allele frequencies in HBB,, etc. For genetic diseases we can track the frequencies of specific genetic variations in populations to determine disease risk.

For IQ, we do not have specific alleles to track (that I'm aware of, but it's not my field so I'm happy to be informed of any). It's also intensely related to the environment one lives in - deleterious environments can reduce the heritability of IQ to almost zero, so one can neither identify explicit units of heritability for IQ, nor rule out plastic response to environment when explaining geographic variation in IQ. What one cannot do is simply look at average IQ values on a map and determine that human populations inherently vary in heritable IQ quotient.

This is not specific to humans, but all claims of differential heritability in traits between populations. Studies trying to tease apart environmentally driven plasticity from adaptation have been conducted on a multitude of taxa - water striders, lizards, frogs, birds, etc. When I criticize hand waving speculation about differential IQ between human populations, it's not because I'm making a special case for humans, but because I'm expecting the same level of rigor as I do for other traits and other species, i.e.

1) Identification of a gene/s causatively linked to IQ

2) Demonstration that there is population variation in this gene with causative variation in the function of the gene

3) Demonstration that there is differential variation of the gene between populations

4) There is trait variation between populations that persists in a common garden experiment

If one was to satisfy these conditions I would happily accept that human populations vary in IQ. I find the current level of evidence to be lacking to move beyond acceptance of the null hypothesis.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Arete

[Ophiolite]

That is certainly the most elegant, eloquent and effective "Up Yours!" I have seen for some considerable time. Concise, comprehensive and convincing.

[Over 9000]

The term subspecies is certainly not used ubiquitously to describe any level of genetic partitioning below the species level, and I'm repeating myself, but it's generally used using criteria specific to each organismal group as a matter of convenience - see previous "irrelevant" Trypanosoma example.

 

Repeating myself again, one can certainly make some sort of case that human populations represent "subspecies" - however I would suspect that broad acceptance of such a classification would be impeded by the fact that the vast majority of genetic variation is within groups, and identification of hybrids (e.g. F1, F2, backcrosses) would be challenging due to long term genetic transfer between groups, rendering such a classification system of limited practical utility.

 

Yeah, that's exactly what I said: "It can do. It's just semantics really." Why would you lecture somebody about a term not being "ubiquitous" when they just pointed out several different senses of the term? Just seems like a self-absorbed waste of time. Nice one bringing up Lewontin's fallacy again. Did you miss that I posted subspecies Fst in other species regularly goes under 0.5? That the inventor of F statistics said 0.05 Fst or under was significant? Did you forget? Shall I link to the post again? Hybrids again? Your ad nauseam race denial fallacies grow tiresome.

 

This is not to say that humans can't be separated into genetic clusters, or that this is a fruitless task - from my first post in the thread:

 

2) Yes, distinct human populations exist - see Rosenberg et al.

3) In some cases distinctions are useful e.g. Scandinavian populations are ~90% lactose tolerant, East Asian populations ~10%. There are some ethnically associated genetic disorders (e.g. sickle cell anemia, Tay Sachs disease, etc.) and some ethnically specific drug metabolic responses that can be quite dramatic, even fatal. So identifying distinct human populations is possible and worthwhile.

Yes. Those are also referred to as races. More semantics.

 

Now the heritability of IQ. In the case of lactose tolerance, we have differential expression of LCT caused by population level variation of the MCM6 promoter. Sickle cell anaemia can be tracked via allele frequencies in HBB,, etc. For genetic diseases we can track the frequencies of specific genetic variations in populations to determine disease risk.

For IQ, we do not have specific alleles to track (that I'm aware of, but it's not my field so I'm happy to be informed of any). It's also intensely related to the environment one lives in - deleterious environments can reduce the heritability of IQ to almost zero, so one can neither identify explicit units of heritability for IQ, nor rule out plastic response to environment when explaining geographic variation in IQ. What one cannot do is simply look at average IQ values on a map and determine that human populations inherently vary in heritable IQ quotient.

IQ is highly polygenic. So is height. Is height heritable? Listing single gene traits is totally irrelevant. Please don't waste everybody's time doing it again.

Turkheimer 2003 didn't replicate. It's an outlier study commonly cherry picked.

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=6271

This is not specific to humans, but all claims of differential heritability in traits between populations. Studies trying to tease apart environmentally driven plasticity from adaptation have been conducted on a multitude of taxa - water striders, lizards, frogs, birds, etc. When I criticize hand waving speculation about differential IQ between human populations, it's not because I'm making a special case for humans, but because I'm expecting the same level of rigor as I do for other traits and other species, i.e.

1) Identification of a gene/s causatively linked to IQ

2) Demonstration that there is population variation in this gene with causative variation in the function of the gene

3) Demonstration that there is differential variation of the gene between populations

4) There is trait variation between populations that persists in a common garden experiment

If one was to satisfy these conditions I would happily accept that human populations vary in IQ. I find the current level of evidence to be lacking to move beyond acceptance of the null hypothesis.

 

Obviously sometimes traits have low heritability. Do you have some kind of problem with heritability estimates per se?

 

Are you aware of the arguments suggesting high BG heritability of IQ in humans? Trans-racial trans-national adoption? Consistent global IQ patterns? What multitude of imaginary environmental variables do you propose all combine in different ways in different places to produce the same IQ pattern? Not one single environmental variable has been identified. Yet some combination of variables are responsible for the global pattern? What are they? A consistent genetic difference is far more parsimonius. It satisfies Occam's razor.

 

One doesn't need to "find the genes" to establish heritability. Especially for a highly polygenic trait. We haven't for height. Is that 100% environmental? No, sounds ridiculous right?

 

Saying this, GWAS has found IQ genes. They have been associated with variation in Whites, and then the same genes, all of them, were favorably expressed in East Asians, and unfavorably expressed in Blacks. What are the chances of that?

 

The default hypothesis in this case would be genetics. Not the imaginary cocktail of environmental variables you conjure from nowhere.

@ Over 9000: I don't understand what you mean by saying that race is defined by ancestry. So if the Chinese are a race, how do we define that race? You say they are defined by ancestry, but what does that mean. How can I take an individual and know, from their ancestry that they are Chinese and not Hottentot, or Scandinavian? (Substitute other names if any of these are not considered by you to be races.) What are the step by step processes that allow you to make the decision?

 

I am not trying to trap you, trip you up, or confuse the issue. I really do not understand how you actually use your definition of race by ancestry to identify individuals of a particular race. It may be because I am thick, but it might be because you have so far failed to explain the method.

 

We infer ancestry phenotypically or genomically. Blumenbach used non-metric skull traits. Genetic clustering is an almost perfect indication of shared ancestry. Simple visual inspection is accurate enough to make some scientific inference. Studies usually use self-report (SIRE), which matches ancestral cluster well. It's good enough to make general findings between major races.

 

Admixture studies can resolve this issue. That is, correlating to genomic ancestry/apparent ancestry simultaeneously. The "discrimination" model versus the "ancestral genetics" model can be tested. Since appearance and brain genes recombine at least partially separately.

 

See eg

http://laplab.ucsd.edu/articles2/Lee2010.pdf

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=5974

 

Genomically inferred ancestry is the "gold standard", and will quickly resolve this question. Unsurprisingly it's not funded, although it could easily be done.

 

"So if the Chinese are a race"

 

No, they aren't. The Japanese are incidentally.

 

That is certainly the most elegant, eloquent and effective "Up Yours!" I have seen for some considerable time. Concise, comprehensive and convincing.

 

It's also possible you just don't understand what's being discussed and are impressed by the "big science words" and the "good guys" who show "everybody's equal". Just a possibility!

Edited November 2, 2016 by Over 9000

[Delta1212]

Ophiolite is not generally one to be impressed by "big science words."

 

He's also not the one who attempted to use an unsubstantiated map of IQ scores taken from a neo-Nazi white supremacist site to back up his argument. That's not exactly something I would describe as "rigorous" in the science department.

[Over 9000]

Ophiolite is not generally one to be impressed by "big science words."

He's also not the one who attempted to use an unsubstantiated map of IQ scores taken from a neo-Nazi white supremacist site to back up his argument. That's not exactly something I would describe as "rigorous" in the science department.

 

Hey! Godwin will be proud. Bonus points for painting yourself as "scientific" at the same time.

 

So let's get this straight. "You found my graph on a Nazi website".

 

OK I admit it. I love Hitler. Can we return to the science now?

Edited November 2, 2016 by Over 9000

[Delta1212]

Hey! Godwin will be proud. Bonus points for painting yourself as "scientific" at the same time.

It's only a Godwin if it's a comparison to Nazis and not a discussion of actual Nazis. Being a Nazi doesn't give someone free reign to declare themselves the winner of every argument by default.

[Over 9000]

It's only a Godwin if it's a comparison to Nazis and not a discussion of actual Nazis. Being a Nazi doesn't give someone free reign to declare themselves the winner of every argument by default.

 

Fascinating points!

[Delta1212]

 

Fascinating points!

They are, aren't they?

 

And as long as we're laying cards on the table, meLothedestroyerofworlds' frog avatar is a character currently being used as an icon by the white nationalist/"alt right" movement.

 

Throw in your own use of arguments and resources that only exist bouncing around that same ecosystem, and I'm becoming suspicious that the both of you might have motivations in this discussion beyond a deep and abiding scientific curiosity about the utility of taxonomic categorization as applied to the human species.

[Over 9000]

Throw in your own use of arguments and resources that only exist bouncing around that same ecosystem

 

You're a liar. In my last post that wasn't related to your science detached character assassination, I referenced:

 

Analysis of East Asia Genetic Substructure Using Genome-Wide SNP Arrays, PLOS ONE

Review of intelligence and how to get it: Why schools and cultures count, Personality and Individual Differences, James J Lee (Harvard)

Emil Kierkegaard referencing Large Cross-National Differences in Gene × Socioeconomic Status Interaction on Intelligence

I googled "global IQ map" and picked an image at random. Here, there are lot. They are all pretty much the same.

This is your argument? I chose a random image that happened to be hosted on a Nazi website?

Let's say for the sake of argument that I'm a full scale Nazi extremist. Let's say all of my sources are Nazi websites. Does this contradict my scientific points on IQ heritability? Can you say ad hominem? Genetic fallacy?

More interesting would be why my opponent Arete cherry picked a study (Turkheimer 2003). Did he find it on a Communist website?

But I wouldn't make that argument. It's cheap.

Edit: The image actually originates here.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Over 9000

[Delta1212]

At best, you picked up a map that was created as a piece of white nationalist propaganda with no explanation for where the data used to create it, if any, came from and reused it to bolster your argument without taking a critical look at either the source or accuracy of the image.

 

Perusing the source that you provided as an alternative doesn't do much to refute this.

 

Cherry picking would be one thing and certainly is to be frowned upon. Uncritically regurgitating propaganda that you found on the Internet without first looking at where it came from or how it was created simply because it seems to line up with your own argument is considerably worse.

 

Edit: As far as me being a liar. I did not state that you had only made use of materials from the white nationalist ecosystem. I said that you had made use of materials that are only found in the white nationalist ecosystem.

 

There is a subtle but important distinction there. For what I said to be correct, any of your materials must have come exclusively from that environment, not all of them. Since the map did, in fact, come from that environment, I'm neither a liar nor incorrect.

 

Perhaps you picked it up innocently, but that still doesn't reflect well on your ability to vet the sources you use for accuracy.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Delta1212

[Over 9000]

At best, you picked up a map that was created as a piece of white nationalist propaganda with no explanation for where the data used to create it, if any, came from and reused it to bolster your argument without taking a critical look at either the source or accuracy of the image.

 

Perusing the source that you provided as an alternative doesn't do much to refute this.

 

Cherry picking would be one thing and certainly is to be frowned upon. Uncritically regurgitating propaganda that you found on the Internet without first looking at where it came from or how it was created simply because it seems to line up with your own argument is considerably worse.

 

It's based on Lynn's figures. I checked that. In fact I'm already very familiar with them. Would you like to contradict my data or carry on speculating from your genetic fallacy position?

 

What are your thoughts on the heritability issues I raised above? It's quite complicated.

 

If you can't cope with that material you can go and on about an image I found with a google search.

Perhaps you picked it up innocently, but that still doesn't reflect well on your ability to vet the sources you use for accuracy.

 

Perhaps I picked it up because I'm a Neo-Nazi extremist. Or "guilty" according to your subjective-normative argument. Is the data incorrect though? Surely the accuracy is established independently of the source? You don't think so?

Edited November 2, 2016 by Over 9000

[meLothedestroyerofworlds]

Using skin colour to classify humanity into groups, to further attempt to correlate such separate groups (typing these words give me the chills having grown up during Apartheid in South Africa) with IQ's and then saying that the NH "races" almost always (those were your words, which is a gross generalization) have higher IQ's than the SH "races" are hideously unintelligent and irresponsible. I am not sure if the matter of IQ as an accurate tool to measure intelligence, mental traits or cognitive ability has already been debated in this thread, but it has been raised numerous times in other similar threads and it is something that is being widely disputed. Which brings me to the reason why I inserted those two opinions/links (that you referred to above). These kinds of debates hold zero benefit for science or for society, it does not achieve anything, it is a waste of time, it is a poor reflection on those driving the race/intelligence agenda and it only serves to insult those implicated by vague allegations of different (read inferior) "mental traits". I will have no further part in this.

 

Race is definitely more than skin color. Again race is simply a correlation of average geographically influenced traits like, morphology, diseases, twinning rates, height etc. Is that how you really view other africans? As "hideously unintelligent and irresponsible"? I never said those words. What has led you to believe that I am a racial supremacist? Why does it need an inherent benefit for it to be studied? not everything in science has practicality or applicability. I don't agree that HBD is useless but your logic is still flawed. Your links proved nothing, unfortunately.

 

^ At least get you facts straight before you nosedive into it again. As you should come to realise by now (you seem somewhat thick-skinned though), I was raising a point with the poster of the part that I quoted and it goes back to his earlier statement, to this:

Capisce..?

Just read between the lines (oh sorry, not even necessary as it is quite blatant) of the post that I quoted in my last post (that I reacted to). For example asking whether the article referred to white Americans in comparing them with east Asians. That is so sad. I repeat, it is a poor reflection on those who drive this agenda (read you & co). Enough said, I am out of here.

 

How? it's very fallacious to establish east asians as a group for comparison but then use a nationality as it's contrast. How can you test different problem solving techniques between ethnic groups when one of the groups isn't even an ethnic group? That's why i asked the question. The term "Americans" is analogous to blacks, hispanics and whites all living in the US. East asian usually means: china, japan, korea, etc. So how is that a meaningful comparison? wouldn't the other ethnic groups skew the results?

 

I find this sociopathic lack of empathy extremely disturbing.

 

What lack of empathy? Don't pretend like you know me, and don't come on here just to throw insults and then contribute nothing to the conversation itself. Pathetic.

 

For IQ, we do not have specific alleles to track (that I'm aware of, but it's not my field so I'm happy to be informed of any). It's also intensely related to the environment one lives in - deleterious environments can reduce the heritability of IQ to almost zero, so one can neither identify explicit units of heritability for IQ, nor rule out plastic response to environment when explaining geographic variation in IQ. What one cannot do is simply look at average IQ values on a map and determine that human populations inherently vary in heritable IQ quotient.

This is not specific to humans, but all claims of differential heritability in traits between populations. Studies trying to tease apart environmentally driven plasticity from adaptation have been conducted on a multitude of taxa - water striders, lizards, frogs, birds, etc. When I criticize hand waving speculation about differential IQ between human populations, it's not because I'm making a special case for humans, but because I'm expecting the same level of rigor as I do for other traits and other species, i.e.

1) Identification of a gene/s causatively linked to IQ

2) Demonstration that there is population variation in this gene with causative variation in the function of the gene

3) Demonstration that there is differential variation of the gene between populations

4) There is trait variation between populations that persists in a common garden experiment

If one was to satisfy these conditions I would happily accept that human populations vary in IQ. I find the current level of evidence to be lacking to move beyond acceptance of the null hypothesis.

 

Well myopia is one of these genes https://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/cleere.htm

 

https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/08/22/myopia-iq-and-race/

 

Also nobody said that the gap is completely genetic it probably is environmental in some aspects. But heritibility is a measure of variance and tells little about how much control genes have on a particular trait. Earrings at one point, had a very high heritibility. Enviromental influences like parenting and socio economic status have shown to have very little affect on IQ Non- shared environment has the biggest influence http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/03/16/non-shared-environment-doesnt-just-mean-schools-and-peers/

 

They are, aren't they?

 

And as long as we're laying cards on the table, meLothedestroyerofworlds' frog avatar is a character currently being used as an icon by the white nationalist/"alt right" movement.

 

Throw in your own use of arguments and resources that only exist bouncing around that same ecosystem, and I'm becoming suspicious that the both of you might have motivations in this discussion beyond a deep and abiding scientific curiosity about the utility of taxonomic categorization as applied to the human species.

 

It is?! Do you have the source? If i had known that, I would have not used it as my avi at all. I thought it was cool. It's a frog with a joint and an AK, plus his eyes are red because he's been smoking weed. Stop with the strawmans I am FAR more liberal than I am conservative.

Edited November 3, 2016 by meLothedestroyerofworlds

[sethoflagos]

 

It's based on Lynn's figures. I checked that. In fact I'm already very familiar with them. Would you like to contradict my data or carry on speculating from your genetic fallacy position?

 

But Lynn's figures have been thoroughly discredited haven't they?

 

Your own reference cites the case of his estimate of the national average IQ of Equatorial Guinea being based solely on tests carried out on 'a group of children in a home for the developmentally disabled in Spain'.

 

I presume you must believe this level of scientific rigour to be acceptable?

 

Rather than, say, profoundly dishonest?

[koti]

 

 

What lack of empathy? Don't pretend like you know me, and don't come on here just to throw insults and then contribute nothing to the conversation itself. Pathetic.

 

 

I wasn't talking to you. Unless ofcourse you are the same user as "Over 9000" and you've been debating youreself here for weeks now. Which would make you a psychopath.

Edited November 2, 2016 by koti

[Delta1212]

 

Race is definitely more than skin color. Again race is simply a correlation of average geographically influenced traits like, morphology, diseases, twinning rates, height etc. Is that how you really view other africans? As "hideously unintelligent and irresponsible"? I never said those words. What has led you to believe that I am a racial supremacist? Why does it need an inherent benefit for it to be studied? not everything in science has practicality or applicability. I don't agree that HBD is useless but your logic is still flawed. Your links proved nothing, unfortunately.

 

 

How? it's very fallacious to establish east asians as a group for comparison but then use a nationality as it's contrast. How can you test different problem solving techniques between ethnic groups when one of the groups isn't even an ethnic group? That's why i asked the question. The term "Americans" is analogous to blacks, hispanics and whites all living in the US. East asian usually means: china, japan, korea, etc. So how is that a meaningful comparison? wouldn't the other ethnic groups skew the results?

 

 

What lack of empathy? Don't pretend like you know me, and don't come on here just to throw insults and then contribute nothing to the conversation itself. Pathetic.

 

 

Well myopia is one of these genes https://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/cleere.htm

 

https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/08/22/myopia-iq-and-race/

 

Also nobody said that the gap is completely genetic it probably is environmental in some aspects. But heritibility is a measure of variance and tells little about how much control genes have on a particular trait. Earrings at one point, had a very high heritibility. Enviromental influences like parenting and socio economic status have shown to have very little affect on IQ Non- shared environment has the biggest influence http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/03/16/non-shared-environment-doesnt-just-mean-schools-and-peers/

 

 

It is?! Do you have the source? If i had known that, I would have not used it as my avi at all. I thought it was cool it's a frog with a joint and an AK, plus his eyes are red because he's been smoking weed. Stop with the strawmans I am FAR more liberal than I am conservative.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/29/pepe-the-frog-alt-right-mascot-racist-anti-semitic

Edited November 2, 2016 by Delta1212

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

I have hidden a number of posts in this thread that were off topic.

 

A reminder also that we discourage the use of the word, 'retard(ed),' on this forum. There are no instances where using it to describe something that is bad or stupid is acceptable.

[meLothedestroyerofworlds]

 

But Lynn's figures have been thoroughly discredited haven't they?

 

Your own reference cites the case of his estimate of the national average IQ of Equatorial Guinea being based solely on tests carried out on 'a group of children in a home for the developmentally disabled in Spain'.

 

I presume you must believe this level of scientific rigour to be acceptable?

 

Rather than, say, profoundly dishonest?

 

Here's a more credible source of national IQ: http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/The-g-factor-of-international-cognitive-ability-comparisons-the-homogeneity-of-results-in-PISA-TIMSS-PIRLS-and-IQ-tests-across-nations.pdf