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

[Memammal]

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?

No, that is not my view. I described one of your earlier statements/assessments as "hideously unintelligent and irresponsible". Go back and connect the dots. Not much has changed. You clearly are a racist...would that be genetically-, environmentally-driven, or both?

 

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.

Yes, I was thinking along the same lines...

[sethoflagos]

 

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

 

Since that paper assumes Lynn's figures and conclusions uncritically as its starting point, how can its credibility be any higher?

 

I'm sure you're well aware that much of Rindermann's referenced source material (Lynn, Jensen, Rushton, Gottfredson, Gordon among others) was heavily financed by the Pioneer Fund, an American foundation established in 1937 by Wickliffe Preston Draper after a visit to Germany to further two causes (according to its incorporation documents)

 

1) Encouraging the propagation of those "descended predominantly from white persons who settled in the original thirteen states prior to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States and/or from related stocks, or to classes of children, the majority of whom are deemed to be so descended".

 

2) To support academic research and the "dissemination of information, into the 'problem of heredity and eugenics'" and "the problems of race betterment".

 

The fund seems to have been extremely generous (and until it was 'outed' extremely secretive) to those researchers who managed to produce results in broad agreement with its aims. Lynn remains heavily involved in its administration.

Edited November 3, 2016 by sethoflagos

[meLothedestroyerofworlds]

No, that is not my view. I described one of your earlier statements/assessments as "hideously unintelligent and irresponsible". Go back and connect the dots. Not much has changed. You clearly are a racist...would that be genetically-, environmentally-driven, or both?

 

How? Again what has lead you to believe that I am racist? I merely pointed to the fact that there are variances in average IQ among ethnicity,race,nations etc.

 

Since that paper assumes Lynn's figures and conclusions uncritically as its starting point, how can its credibility be any higher?

 

What are you talking about? it was simply showing that the g factor is "real" and that Lynn's estimates correlated highly with tests like TIMSS and PISA and showed the same latitudinal pattern.

 

Lynn and meisenburg did the same thing: "In 2010, Lynn and Meisenberg integrated all the international studies of reading comprehension, math and science understanding and showed that they are perfectly correlated with national IQs. Lynn and Vanhanen's national IQ estimates were validated"

 

http://www.ttu.ee/public/m/mart-murdvee/EconPsy/2/Lynn_Meisenberg_2010_National_IQs_calculated_and_validated_for_108_nations.pdf

 

Even the main critic of Lynn's work(Hunt) agreed that his emprical data was correct and praised Rindermann's updated analysis: "Rindermann's analysis found many of the same groupings and correlations found by Lynn and Vanhanen, with the lowest scores in sub-Saharan Africa, and a correlation of .60 between cognitive skill and GDP per capita. According to Hunt, due to there being far more data available, Rindermann's analysis was more reliable than those by Lynn and Vanhanen. By measuring the relationship between educational data and social well-being over time, this study also performed a causal analysis, finding that nations investing in education lead to increased well-being later on"

 

"Regarding several methodology issues of IQ and the Wealth of Nations, Hunt and Wittmann compared contemporary educational data from the Program for International Student Assessment with national wealth. They concluded that Lynn and Vanhanen's empirical conclusion is correct, but they questioned the simple explanation that national intelligence causes national wealth"

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606001425

 

The only bit of controversy here seems to be the nurture/nature debate and accuracy regarding African IQ. Which should be obvious to anyone this means it's a simple tug of war between contrasting ideology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nations_and_intelligence#Studies_of_national_cognitive_ability

 

I'm sure you're well aware that much of Rindermann's referenced source material (Lynn, Jensen, Rushton, Gottfredson, Gordon among others) was heavily financed by the Pioneer Fund, an American foundation established in 1937 by Wickliffe Preston Draper after a visit to Germany to further two causes (according to its incorporation documents)

 

1) Encouraging the propagation of those "descended predominantly from white persons who settled in the original thirteen states prior to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States and/or from related stocks, or to classes of children, the majority of whom are deemed to be so descended".

 

2) To support academic research and the "dissemination of information, into the 'problem of heredity and eugenics'" and "the problems of race betterment".

 

The fund seems to have been extremely generous (and until it was 'outed' extremely secretive) to those researchers who managed to produce results in broad agreement with its aims. Lynn remains heavily involved in its administration.

 

He referenced a hell of a lot more than that but that's besides the point. I'll ask one more time: If hitler claimed 2+2=4 is he wrong because he is hitler?

 

Edited November 3, 2016 by meLothedestroyerofworlds

[sethoflagos]

The only bit of controversy here seems to be the nurture/nature debate and accuracy regarding African IQ. Which should be obvious to anyone this means it's a simple tug of war between contrasting ideology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nations_and_intelligence#Studies_of_national_cognitive_ability

 

 

It's actually a lot more than a matter of contrasting ideology.

 

Lynn has stated "What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the population of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of the ‘phasing out’ of such peoples...Evolutionary progress means the extinction of the less competent. To think otherwise is mere sentimentality."

 

When someone starts discussing the phasing out of whole cultures, several thousand of which are presumably the cultures of sub-Saharan Africa against which he seems to have a particular contempt, and which among many others would include the 'phasing out' of my dear wife, then it goes beyond ideology.

 

I'm not going to argue this in your frame of reference, because your frame of reference systemically denies any view that contradicts your beliefs. It is founded on the logical fallacy of begging the question and goes downhill from there.

 

Instead, I will turn this around. I married my wife because among other things, she has the wit to match me in verbal argument, which frankly is a rare find anywhere. Now her ability to express a coherent argument in English is far superior to what you've been able to bring to the table in this thread. And English is her third language.

 

Now I pass your ridiculous little test with flying colours. Just out of curiosity I took my first IQ test since my early teens (http://www.free-iqtest.net/).After a few bottles of Gulder (and 40 prior years of moderate to heavy drinking) I think 146 pretty well puts me in Ubermensch territory doesn't it? In your terms?

 

The key question is - who do you - according to your terms of reference - think needs to be phased out. My wife, or you. Because let's face it - you're not a high achiever are you?

 

[meLothedestroyerofworlds]

 

It's actually a lot more than a matter of contrasting ideology.

 

Lynn has stated "What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the population of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of the ‘phasing out’ of such peoples...Evolutionary progress means the extinction of the less competent. To think otherwise is mere sentimentality."

 

When someone starts discussing the phasing out of whole cultures, several thousand of which are presumably the cultures of sub-Saharan Africa against which he seems to have a particular contempt, and which among many others would include the 'phasing out' of my dear wife, then it goes beyond ideology.

 

I'm not going to argue this in your frame of reference, because your frame of reference systemically denies any view that contradicts your beliefs. It is founded on the logical fallacy of begging the question and goes downhill from there.

 

Instead, I will turn this around. I married my wife because among other things, she has the wit to match me in verbal argument, which frankly is a rare find anywhere. Now her ability to express a coherent argument in English is far superior to what you've been able to bring to the table in this thread. And English is her third language.

 

Now I pass your ridiculous little test with flying colours. Just out of curiosity I took my first IQ test since my early teens (http://www.free-iqtest.net/).After a few bottles of Gulder (and 40 prior years of moderate to heavy drinking) I think 146 pretty well puts me in Ubermensch territory doesn't it? In your terms?

 

The key question is - who do you - according to your terms of reference - think needs to be phased out. My wife, or you. Because let's face it - you're not a high achiever are you?

 

 

 

Someone's pretty salty I'd say. Lynn was right this is mere sentiment, not a rational conversation. I've never taken an IQ test So i cant definitively say I am above average, but all of my biological correlates tend to be positive for higher intelligence. I'm happy that you and your wife are highly intelligent people, maybe you should breed, if you haven't already. Which test did you take? It isn't that freiqtest link is it? Because that's complete garbage. I could accurately measure your IQ better then any unofficial test.

 

 

In regards to your accusation of genocide, it is still illogical. In this scenario Lynn is hitler, at least in your mind. There is no circular reasoning Intelligence is partially genetic in nature, we know this variation collects in differing averages around geographical regions so race is simply a correlate with IQ patterns, and not causal, r/k selection is apparent in all individuals. So any positive selection of certain traits would be purely individual based. Ubermensch is something I've interpreted as a mentality nearly any individual can obtain but that's is all irrelevant to the HBD-o-sphere and very subjective. You Should stop making strawmans you don't understand any of my justified beliefs, and have only argued semantics like the rest. So i'll ask you the same what has made you think I'm racist? There is no guilt by association here, only facts presented. So what do you think "phasing out" means? Literally killing off millions or preventing them from breeding? Why cant reproduction as a right be taken away? Other rights can be taken away.

Edited November 4, 2016 by meLothedestroyerofworlds

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Let's all calm down and stick to the OP. Moreover, if we could cut down on the argument by way of repeated logical fallacy, that would be great.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Once again, could we please refrain from the use of the word 'retarded.' It won't be tolerated, and if I see it again I am simply going to hide the offending posts.

 

Edit: I have hidden the last offending post as it was also off topic.

[Memammal]

I described one of your earlier statements/assessments as "hideously unintelligent and irresponsible". Go back and connect the dots. Not much has changed. You clearly are a racist...would that be genetically-, environmentally-driven, or both?

 

Again what has lead you to believe that I am racist? I merely pointed to the fact that there are variances in average IQ among ethnicity,race,nations etc.

 

So i'll ask you the same what has made you think I'm racist? [sNIP]

So what do you think "phasing out" means? Literally killing off millions or preventing them from breeding? Why cant reproduction as a right be taken away? Other rights can be taken away.

 

FROM: RACISM

 

Racism is a product of the complex interaction in a given society of a race-based worldview with prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination. [sNIP]

 

The ideology underlying racist practices often includes the idea that humans can be subdivided into distinct groups that are different in their social behavior and innate capacities and that can be ranked as inferior or superior.^[1] [sNIP]

 

According to a United Nations convention, there is no distinction between the terms "racial" and "ethnic" discrimination. The UN convention further concludes that superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous, and there is no justification for racial discrimination, anywhere, in theory or in practice.^[2]

Edited November 4, 2016 by Memammal

[EgalitarianJay]

Anyone who tells you that they are not racist when they try to claim that there are genetically determined racial differences in intelligence is just being dishonest. Of course they are racist. Why would you want to believe such a thing unless you had a racist agenda? Why put so much energy in to it? You might think the claim is true but you are clearly motivated by racist ideology when you spend time trying to prove your claim is true.

[Ophiolite]

Anyone who tells you that they are not racist when they try to claim that there are genetically determined racial differences in intelligence is just being dishonest. Of course they are racist. Why would you want to believe such a thing unless you had a racist agenda? Why put so much energy in to it? You might think the claim is true but you are clearly motivated by racist ideology when you spend time trying to prove your claim is true.

As far as I am able to tell I am not racist. I do have definite cultural prejudices, but when examined closely these seem to be uncorrelated with race.

 

We know that individuals differ in intelligence and we know that a portion of this difference can properly be attributed to genetics. There is no specific reason that the genes responsible for intelligence should be associated with those responsible for what are deemed racial characteristics. However, there is no reason that such an association should not exist. It is therefore plausible that there might be a relationship.

 

The apparent correlation of IQ with racial groupings is superficially suggestive. However, when we consider the cultural biases of IQ tests and the impact of education (or lack of it) the relationship seems much less convincing. As a natural skeptic they do not convince me at all, but that same skepticism prevents me from completely rejecting the possibility.

 

I find it quite plausible that an individual, less skeptical than myself, might genuinely believe the data point towards a strong correlation. If they believe this to be true then stating that belief cannot be, in my view, considered as racist. It may be an incorrect view, or at least a precipitate one, but it is not automatically racist.

 

To illustrate the point: is it racist of me to point out that less than a handful of male sprinters who have run less than 10.0 seconds for the 100m are of African origin and all but one of those are from West Africa.

[koti]

 

To illustrate the point: is it racist of me to point out that less than a handful of male sprinters who have run less than 10.0 seconds for the 100m are of African origin and all but one of those are from West Africa.

You are right that the line is a fine one but when I see some of the comments made by some of the users in this thread, I have absoulutely no doubt that it has been crossed.

I am also convinced that the reasons for someone lacking the ability to distinguish between your above statement and a clearly racist one, lie within the complexity of a sociopathic mind and not a racist one.

Edited November 4, 2016 by koti

[Memammal]

To illustrate the point: is it racist of me to point out that less than a handful of male sprinters who have run less than 10.0 seconds for the 100m are of African origin and all but one of those are from West Africa.

Jamaican sprinters of recent times are a prime example of this phenomena, ditto for long distance runners from [edit] northern Africa (Ethopia). That being said, one must be careful to conclude that it is purely as a result of genes. Winners not only "breed" winners, but they also harness a winning culture. Nature and nurture. What about the origin of historical winners of such events, or what about future winners? We cannot generalize and say OK, we now assume that the Jamaicans will continue to dominate sprint events and Ethopians will continue to dominate long distances.

 

I am not sure if we remotely want to entertain the notion of breeding super races, either intellectually superior or athletically superior. We definitely should not consider a situation where certain groups will be disqualified (or exterminated?), or prohibited to reproduce, based on an ethnic/race differentiation.

 

There is no conclusive evidence that intelligence is directly linked to race or ancestry or ethnicity. The concept of intelligence in itself is somewhat blurry, IQ as a (only) measurement of intelligence or of cognitive ability is somewhat blurry, while there are quite a few studies that have highlighted the contribution of environmental factors in improving so-called cognitive abilities...even to the point of nullifying "racial profiling".

 

As I stated earlier, one should never use grey data/parameters to make and parade black & white conclusions...especially if those kind of conclusions only serve to humiliate and/or to "divide and conquer". That essentially boils down to propaganda and I have seen enough of that through out the last few pages of this thread.

Edited November 4, 2016 by Memammal

[Arete]

To illustrate the point: is it racist of me to point out that less than a handful of male sprinters who have run less than 10.0 seconds for the 100m are of African origin and all but one of those are from West Africa.

 

 

Making the observation is just that, and that's fine - making assumptions about causation with incomplete data is premature and potentially indicative of an underlying prejudice. The issue for me is when it's inferred that the explanation is differential genetics. There are many other plausible explanations - environmentally induced phenotypic plasticity, gene x environment interactions, induced regulatory switching, epigenetic factors, etc.

 

When your groups are arbitrarily defined via k means clustering, the genes influencing the trait of interest are unknown, the degree of heritability of the trait is poorly defined, the environmental factors affecting the trait are complex (and also incompletely understood), and even the measurement of the trait is somewhat contentious, making statements about the cause of differentiation of the trait between populations is premature. I don't care that in this instance the study taxon is humans, I apply the same standards to any study species for e.g. we apply this level of rigor to evolution in stickleback fish, but we're seemingly expected to accept far less evidence for adaptive divergence in intellect for human populations.

 

The tells for me are rapid descent into ad hominem and caustic language, and a refusal to accept standard terminology in population genetics (i.e. populations = genetic clusters, races = karyotypically distinct populations). When one takes a dispassionate and quantitative approach to analysing human population genetics, one should be able to discuss and disagree about data without insults, accusations,claims of conspiracy, and not making special exemptions about terminology for a particular species based on a fear of political correctness.

[Raider5678]

Why cant reproduction as a right be taken away? Other rights can be taken away.

Yes, lets start with yours.

 

Using unscientific propoganda as "science" -- Your right to call your self a scientist has been eliminated until further notice

 

Using Logic in the, it makes sense to me -- Your right to be believed in your logic has been eliminated until further notice

 

Being Racist -- Your respect is now the same as Donald Trump's until further notice.

 

 

Anyways, back on topic.

Is it possible Race is simply a small difference in genes? Like pure breeds or something like that? As in black people tend to hook up with black people, and whites with whites, etc. While there are outliers, would this create your supposed "races"?

Edited November 4, 2016 by Raider5678

[Ophiolite]

 

You are right that the line is a fine one but when I see some of the comments made by some of the users in this thread, I have absoulutely no doubt that it has been crossed.

I agree, but I feel it is important always to recognise the line is there, else we are guilty of the dogma, prejudice and kneejerk reactions of those who may rightly be condemned.

Jamaican sprinters of recent times are a prime example of this phenomena, ditto for long distance runners from [edit] northern Africa (Ethopia). That being said, one must be careful to conclude that it is purely as a result of genes. Winners not only "breed" winners, but they also harness a winning culture. Nature and nurture. What about the origin of historical winners of such events, or what about future winners? We cannot generalize and say OK, we now assume that the Jamaicans will continue to dominate sprint events and Ethopians will continue to dominate long distances.

I quite agree. In the case of the East Africans, a lifetime spent at altitude has to be a benefit for long distance runners. And a childhood spent walking and running long distances as part of life have to have an effect. Similar arguments are less easy to make for West African sprinters. Nevertheless my underlying point is that to note the success of these runners as potentially related to genetics is not racist. And if that is not racist, then observing that there may be a correlation between race and intelligence should not automatically be assumed to be racist.

 

Your other points in your post seem to be an expansion of my underlying thrust, so I naturally agree with those too, especially the blurriness of just is IQ, or intelligence for that matter.

Making the observation is just that, and that's fine - making assumptions about causation with incomplete data is premature and potentially indicative of an underlying prejudice.

And so we should not make assumptions about motivation for making the observation and pointing out a possible cause without more data. Would you agree?

[EgalitarianJay]

As far as I am able to tell I am not racist. I do have definite cultural prejudices, but when examined closely these seem to be uncorrelated with race.

 

We know that individuals differ in intelligence and we know that a portion of this difference can properly be attributed to genetics. There is no specific reason that the genes responsible for intelligence should be associated with those responsible for what are deemed racial characteristics. However, there is no reason that such an association should not exist. It is therefore plausible that there might be a relationship.

 

The apparent correlation of IQ with racial groupings is superficially suggestive. However, when we consider the cultural biases of IQ tests and the impact of education (or lack of it) the relationship seems much less convincing. As a natural skeptic they do not convince me at all, but that same skepticism prevents me from completely rejecting the possibility.

 

I find it quite plausible that an individual, less skeptical than myself, might genuinely believe the data point towards a strong correlation. If they believe this to be true then stating that belief cannot be, in my view, considered as racist. It may be an incorrect view, or at least a precipitate one, but it is not automatically racist.

 

To illustrate the point: is it racist of me to point out that less than a handful of male sprinters who have run less than 10.0 seconds for the 100m are of African origin and all but one of those are from West Africa.

 

I suppose it is possible to believe in racial differences in intelligence and not be racist however I am suspicious of anyone who presses the issue and then claims they are not racist. Most of these people are motivated by racist ideology. That is why they spend so much time on the subject. They want to believe that these differences exist.

[Ophiolite]

 

I suppose it is possible to believe in racial differences in intelligence and not be racist however I am suspicious of anyone who presses the issue and then claims they are not racist. Most of these people are motivated by racist ideology. That is why they spend so much time on the subject. They want to believe that these differences exist.

I completely agree with you. I would not want to put numbers on it, but many of the people who make this point are doubtless racist. My thesis is that if we assume all people who make the point are racist we are guilty of the same unthinking prejudices we suspect them of. If we set aside race, but speak rather in terms of populations then I should be surprised if there were not meaningful differences in intelligence and height and fast/slow muscle fibre ratios and susceptibility to liver cancer and....... But so what?

[Memammal]

Is it possible Race is simply a small difference in genes? Like pure breeds or something like that? As in black people tend to hook up with black people, and whites with whites, etc. While there are outliers, would this create your supposed "races"?

It begs the question as to whether pure bred races (like the utopian Germanic Aryans) would really be better off than "conventional" or mixed races. Think about pure bred dogs vs cross-bred/mongrels. Again this is not necessarily clear-cut and generally applicable across the board, but there is a well substantiated school of thought that cross-bred or even mongrels are far better equipped to survive in comparison with their pure bred counterparts.

 

And if that is not racist, then observing that there may be a correlation between race and intelligence should not automatically be assumed to be racist.

 

Your other points in your post seem to be an expansion of my underlying thrust, so I naturally agree with those too, especially the blurriness of just is IQ, or intelligence for that matter.

And so we should not make assumptions about motivation for making the observation and pointing out a possible cause without more data. Would you agree?

These three lines go well together and address the same underlying matter. Yes, I agree that until there is absolute clarity and accurate data it is not worth speculating about. In my personal opinion, however, there is little merit in discussing a race/intelligence correlation at all as I would still question the aim or purpose of such a discussion. Do we still have unique, homogenous or pure bred "races"? Yes, there undoubtedly are still isolated regions where reasonably isolated gene pools may exist, but due to ever-expanding natural migration patterns (likely to increase further with global warming) and the inter-"racial" mixing, is it not something that would become entirely irrelevant in the near future? And if so, would that not be good riddance and a step in the right direction for the survival, or at least improvement of our species?

[Raider5678]

It begs the question as to whether pure bred races (like the utopian Germanic Aryans) would really be better off than "conventional" or mixed races. Think about pure bred dogs vs cross-bred/mongrels. Again this is not necessarily clear-cut and generally applicable across the board, but there is a well substantiated school of thought that cross-bred or even mongrels are far better equipped to survive in comparison with their pure bred counterparts.

 

Agreed.

[sethoflagos]

In my personal opinion, however, there is little merit in discussing a race/intelligence correlation at all as I would still question the aim or purpose of such a discussion.

 

Given the history of this line of research, it is very tempting to dismiss the entire corpus as 'Ex taupi causa' (aka 'Fruit of the Poisonous Tree').

 

The archaeological record demonstrates quite clearly that the major technological advances of the prehistoric and early historical times (copper age. bronze age etc) occurred independently and roughly (give or take the odd millenium) contemporaneously around the globe. It is really hard to explain this if a priori assumptions are made of immutable differences in the basic intelligence of different global populations.

 

Perhaps someone could identify some defective European marker that explained why iron smelting came so much later to Europe than say Sumer, the Ganges valley and a number of sub-saharan cultures (Nok, some Tanzanian sites)? Sounds ridiculous? Compare and contrast the agendas,

 

Worth reading is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology_of_Igbo-Ukwu

 

For two reasons. One to wonder at the beauty and technical sophistication, and two to note the automatic switch to denial mode of the academic community.

 

Science has shown itself incapable of policing itself effectively on this topic to date. I wonder if there is any cause for hope.

[CharonY]

There is no denying that for the longest time euro-centric views have heavily influenced academia and quite a few historians/anthropologists/archaeologists etc. that are specialized in the non-mainstream groups (for lack of a better work) often face an upstream battle against misconceptions. That being said, I feel that partially do the increasing internationalization of science people on average tend to stick closer to data and are slightly more careful in extrapolations. For example, in the cited multi-marker study the authors were careful to point out that they could use a clustering algorithm to separate groups, but also mentioned areas with low resolution and the fact that they could have chosen any other number of clusters (depending on sample size and, potentially, need for additional markers).

 

It is more that the internet crowd and media extrapolate wildly on the findings. I also think that policing is the wrong word as all we should have are scientific discussions in form of publications, which is precisely why Rushton, Lynn et al. are heavily criticized for how the interpret some of their data, but not necessarily summarily dismiss the data itself (at least in cases where the study was well-executed). What we in science is not policing, but data-driven self-correction. And if you want hope, you should compare the discussion (or papers) from the 80s, 60s and 30s with today. Pay especially attention how strongly few data points are extrapolated to full-blown theories.

Obviously, scientists are also children of their respective generation. And many come into academia with a set of values and world views. What differentiates a good scientist is how effective they can change when confronted with more info. Or, in other words, how fast they learn new things. Especially for younger scientists one driving factor is the fear of being wrong, and they tend to be more careful in extrapolating data. This is not necessarily true for those closer to the end of their careers or coming from a different field.

[sethoflagos]

And if you want hope, you should compare the discussion (or papers) from the 80s, 60s and 30s with today. Pay especially attention how strongly few data points are extrapolated to full-blown theories.

Obviously, scientists are also children of their respective generation. And many come into academia with a set of values and world views. What differentiates a good scientist is how effective they can change when confronted with more info. Or, in other words, how fast they learn new things. Especially for younger scientists one driving factor is the fear of being wrong, and they tend to be more careful in extrapolating data. This is not necessarily true for those closer to the end of their careers or coming from a different field.

 

Persuasive.

 

I did find the more recent

 

Fractionating Human Intelligence

Hampshire, Adam et al.

Neuron , Volume 76 , Issue 6 , 1225 - 1237

 

(http://www.cell.com/neuron/pdf/S0896-6273(12)00584-3.pdf)

 

a far more comfortable read than a number of others that have been mentioned.

[bering strait]

 

I suppose it is possible to believe in racial differences in intelligence and not be racist however I am suspicious of anyone who presses the issue and then claims they are not racist. Most of these people are motivated by racist ideology. That is why they spend so much time on the subject. They want to believe that these differences exist.

Finally a partial admission/concession to the obvious

What's so Troubling, and Inconsistent about your posts is you always specify [just] IQ differences as "Racist", but for Physical differences/ability 'Black' superiority' is given tacit approval/a pass.

Of course, the Skull and Brain ARE Physically different among races, and there is No reason to assume there aren't mental (Intelligence/behavioral) adaptations among them. It would only be logical.

 

 

".. there is No firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."

- James Watson, co-Nobel Winner for Discovering DNA

 

 

As far as "spending so much time on the subject", a simple google search will show WHO is the all time Race-Posting champ. And Race Denial is tantamount to Evolution denial: claiming it stopped 200,000 years ago, and only cognitively/behaviorally, no less.

Topical obsession is NOT limited to one side and one motivation.

`

 

 

EDIT to below: OH NO!

More Joseph Graves/Race-denial SPAMMING! (as in your attempted agree-with-me correspondence posting earlier)

Replete with the SAME Youtube You've used HUNDREDS of Times (#136 here) and probably the SAME citation I've seen 100 times.

You cannot/Have Not/Never debated Race without Graves. Period. While I can use logic and 100 varying sources.

Indeed, the various Race Realist posters have used too many sources/graphs/charts in this string alone to count.

In fact, virtually All the quantification/numbers/Charts on IQ, measures of genetic distance, etc have been on the Race Realism side.. with basically just apologetics on the other.

These Obsessive and Pavlovian Link Dumps/Fall-Backs/Answers-to-anything/Scriptural-like citations by some self-interested professor at a Black College (NC-A&T), are NONRESPONSIVE to my simple points of Logic in your posts/posting. (And hardly James Watson either!)

Just the usual Bury-em with text/Graves nonsense.

You did NOT answer my pointing out that your definition of 'Racism' is only mental/cognitive difference, and that Obsessive focus on the topic is NOT only from One side or Motivation. On the contrary, one sides Motivation may be personal defense/Self-Bias/'My-Race' support, rather than intellectual, or 'other-tribe racism.'

+

Edited November 6, 2016 by bering strait

[EgalitarianJay]

Finally a partial admission/concession to the obvious

What's so Troubling, and Inconsistent about your posts is you always specify [just] IQ differences as "Racist", but for Physical differences/ability 'Black' superiority' is given tacit approval/a pass.

Of course, the Skull and Brain ARE Physically different among races, and there is No reason to assume there aren't mental (Intelligence/behavioral) adaptations among them. It would only be logical.

 

 

".. there is No firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."

- James Watson, co-Nobel Winner for Discovering DNA

 

 

As far as "spending so much time on the subject", a simple google search will show WHO is the all time Race-Posting champ. And Race Denial is tantamount to Evolution denial: claiming it stopped 200,000 years ago, and only cognitively/behaviorally, no less.

Topical obsession is NOT limited to one side and one motivation.

`

 

The brain is not different between human populations and the skull differences have nothing to do with intelligence or behavior. Racists are always quoting Watson as if he were a credible source on the matter when he has done no original research on the subject and declined interviews to defend his position. Instead why not listen to an evolutionary biologist who has studied the subject in depth and explained why there are no racial differences in intelligence?

 

 

THE EFFECT OF ENVIRONMENT ON COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT

 

Psychometricians admit that intelligence is clearly a polygenic trait (e.g., Jensen, 1973). The existence of a continuous distribution of intelligence, although not necessarily a bell-shaped one, is itself an indication of a polygenic trait. Jensen advanced the argument that there must exist differences at literally thousands of loci that account for the African deficit in intelligence. Despite this assertion, he was never able to demonstrate mechanistically why or how the existence of genetic variation necessarily meant the deficiency of one population in a particular trait. Thus, his scenario was, in the final analysis, ridiculous. It is true that at the time he put forth his argument, data were just emerging on the measurement of genetic variation (polymorphism) in humans of various races (Nei & Livshits, 1989; Nei & Roychoudhury, 1982).

 

However, anthropological data demonstrating that even morphological traits are not consistently differentiated between races had existed for centuries (J. Diamond, 1994, Brace, 1995). Take the example of skin color, which varies on a cline from tropical to arctic. Several "racial" groups have dark skin, including non-European Caucasians and Australoids. A tree of human "racial" groups would have both of these populations on the branches farthest away from Africans (Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, & Piazza, 1994). Thus, clearly dark skin does not vary consistently with "racial" category.

 

To modern population geneticists the idea that races differ consistently for any trait is nonsense. For example, there is more genetic variation among the people of the African continent than there is among all the rest of the human species combined (J. Diamond, 1994), and there is absolutely no reason to suppose that this variation excludes alleles that impact intelligence. Moreover, as Dobzhansky and Montagu (1975) so eloquently point out, natural selection for mental ability is overwhelmingly uniform throughout the world.

 

SOURCE: The Pseudoscience of Psychometry and The Bell Curve The Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 64, No. 3, Myths and Realities: African Americans and the Measurement of Human Abilities (Summer, 1995), pp. 277-294

 

 

EgalitarianJay: Do you have any studies that directly address Rushton's claims of brain size differences between races?

 

 

Joseph Graves: The evolutionary arguments are more important than any physical measurements because they address why and how any physical difference could exist. If Rushton cannot explain the mechanism that is responsible for any reputed difference, then his argument collapses like a house of cards. This is why his 1994 book was entitled Race, Evolution and Behavior: A Life History Perspective. Its goal was to explain using evolutionary theory (the only scientific means to explain human variation) why racial differences in intelligence exist. As I point out in my work, evolutionary science does not support this conclusion.

 

As for supposed physical differences in head (or brain size). First, there has been no systematic measurement of cranial sizes for sufficient numbers of populations in humans. This is important because Africa and Asia are huge continents with many populations/ethnic groups. No physical measurement taken from 1 or a few populations could be expected to represent all Africans or Asians.

 

Second, the relationship between "intelligence" and brain size/body ratio holds broadly over species level, but not within a species. So we can infer that Velicoraptor was more intelligent than T. Rex, but we cannot infer that any specific raptor was more intelligent than another due to differences in that ratio. In the same way we cannot infer that a larger brain gives more cognitive power in humans. Frederich Gauss, one of the greatest mathematicians of all time, had an incredibly small head and brain. Autopsy of his brain did reveal that his cerebral cortex had an incredibly high number of folds. But even if we could determine that there was a difference in cerebral cortex folding between Africans and Asians, we could not determine that that difference was due to genetic differences.

 

The brain's development (and hence that of the intellect) is profoundly influenced by environmental and developmental factors. Genetically identical groups of rats deprived of environmental stimuli were measured as less intelligent and had less cerebral folding than rats given environmental stimuli. In the modern world, there is no equivalence of social and physical environments between Africans/African Americans and Europeans/Euro- and Asian Americans. Therefore any intelligence difference one might measure (say in mean SAT scores, AFQT Tests etc.) cannot be shown to have anything to do with genetic differences between groups. There are far easier explanations for these differences, including social discrimination (stereotype threat), toxic environment, and malnutrition (which are all differentially visited upon African Americans). The heritability of intelligence (how much the trait is determined by genes or environment) has been estimated at around 0.50. This means that intelligence is about 50% genes and 50% environment. With this much environmental contribution, only experimental or observational designs that can equalize environment can give you any reasonable explanations. For the most part, this is impossible in racially stratified societies.

 

I made all these points to Rushton directly in our 1997 debate at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. To say the least he really had no cogent response.

 

Dr. Joseph L. Graves, Jr.

Associate Dean for Research

Professor of Biological Sciences

Joint School of Nanosciences & Nanoengineering

Suite 2200, Rm 104

North Carolina A&T State University

UNC Greensboro

2901 E. Lee St.

Greensboro, NC 27401

 

Saying that there are no races or no mental differences between human populations is not a denial of evolution. Within a species you should expect there to be more commonalities than differences and only major differences between biological systems that determine traits like intelligence when the populations within a species have become significantly genetically divergent. In humans this is not the case and our evolutionary history indicates that we became anatomically and behaviorally modern before geographic separation which only resulted in a few differences that were of adaptive significance.

 

As far as obsession goes well my username is of course easier to search through google than yours but I'd wager that you spend more time on this subject than I do as do racists in general. Most of them are advancing an ideological agenda in which the belief in innate mental differences between races is extremely important.

Edited November 6, 2016 by EgalitarianJay

[zapatos]

Anyone who tells you that they are not racist when they try to claim that there are genetically determined racial differences in intelligence is just being dishonest. Of course they are racist. Why would you want to believe such a thing unless you had a racist agenda?

 

 

Instead why not listen to an evolutionary biologist who has studied the subject in depth and explained why there are no racial differences in intelligence?

 

 

Seems rather self-serving to suggest someone who agrees with your position is honest, and that anyone who disagrees with your position is automatically a racist with ulterior motives.