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

[Ophiolite]

 

I am being calm and I have clearly given Bering Strait the chance to defend his arguments. Now he is blatantly misrepresenting my comments. Bering Strait, why don't you address my arguments instead of trying to dissect and distort what I am saying in my posts? Anyone who can read knows that what you are saying isn't true. If you are going to compare your intelligence to Graves I recommend that you identify yourself and share your academic achievements instead of making outrageous boasts. I am not trying to deify Graves. You seem to be becoming unhinged with every post. I recommend that you settle down and use some common sense in your future posts.

You assert you are being calm and yet you choose emotive words and phrases such as "blatantly" and "outrageous boasts", exactly the kinds of words I had cautioned you not to use.

 

Motive for the caution: I applaud your opposition to racism and do not wish to see you shut down. It is your methodolgy/tone that I object to.

 

I return to my original point, which is now being echoed more powerfully by Zapatos: it is possible to consider that there may be "racial" differences in intelligence and still not be a racist. It would be helpful if you focused on the evidence for or against this possibility, rather than questioning the motives of someone who so asserts. Your suspicions may (or may not) be well grounded, but discussion of them is incidental to the focus of this thread.

Where is this imaginary army of posters coming after me? If you look at the poll the posters here overwhelmingly rejected the idea that there are racial differences in intelligence and only a few people are posting. You and Over 9000 have tried to revive this thread for what purpose I do not know but considering your history as a racist poster on this board and elsewhere I find it hilarious that you would suggest that you yourself are not a racist.

I just want to go on record for noting that I am not overwhelmingly, or even provisionally rejecting the idea that there are racial differences in intelligence. Nor am I asserting that there are. I think our definition of intelligence and the impact of cultural and educational differences makes this currently impractical to discern. Based on this lukewarm position do you wish to suggest that I am a racist? In order not to further disrupt this thread feel free to pm me with your opinion on the matter.

[Memammal]

You assert you are being calm and yet you choose emotive words and phrases such as "blatantly" and "outrageous boasts", exactly the kinds of words I had cautioned you not to use.

 

Motive for the caution: I applaud your opposition to racism and do not wish to see you shut down. It is your methodolgy/tone that I object to.

I think Bering Strait has been bearing further off course though. I don't think we are here to slug it out in/with upper case, bold insults.

 

I think our definition of intelligence and the impact of cultural and educational differences makes this currently impractical to discern.

Yes, I last got the feeling that this was more or less the conclusion that we ended up with. All other discussions re athleticism etc. further served to prove that environmental factors are far more influential. And in saying that, I do not want to even entertain another debate on exactly how to define so-called races (not that I am the OP, only speaking for myself). The entire topic serves little to no purpose for reasons already divulged.

[Raider5678]

Hahahahaha, your grasp of scientific concepts is incredibly outdated. so it's quite amusing you think you have any authority seeing as how your arguments have been shallow. C'mon humor me, at least try and explain how my arguments are unscientific? What propaganda?

"What propaganda?"

Gee, let me think. Using "data" collected by Nazis, the KKK, and other known racist groups, yet claiming them as valid. Whether they are valid or not is a simple argument. Racial Bias interferes with the true collection of data. I would also like to point out in the majority of your data that you point out there is experimental bias because the whites are taken from a first world country sample population, while the blacks are taken from a third world country sample. You can't honestly say there is no difference between those. There is. Environment effects how you develop.

[koti]

 

 

Well whites on average score 100 while American blacks tend to score about 85, which is 1 SD. African blacks score in 60's and 70's but this is possibly due to malnutrition, high mutation, and parasitic load so researchers speculate their genetic IQ is 80. The extra 5 or 6 american blacks get is speculated to being caused by 19% white admixture, but that's simplistic and assumes IQ is completely additive. Some studies suggest sub saharan genetic IQ's are 90 which is incredibly higher than expected

 

This goes to you meLothedestroyerofworlds, bering strait and others in this thread who are arguing within the same line:

 

So it's safe to say, that you conclude that the differences are between roughly 5%-20%. I have little background to determine if this is true or not - it seems plausible and very well might be true. It is also undoubtedly true that a lot higher spreads of IQ than the ones you stated can be observed within the same race. Or even within the same tribe or family line. You say you are not a racist...the question is, why would you want to engage in research which has absolutely zero relevance apart from the fact that it's putting you in an incredibly difficult situation of being accused of being a full on racist? How strong your will of defending your agenda (which has exactly zero relevance) has to be to engage in this filth? It is scientifically proven that once in a while, everyone takes a shit. Most of us don't run around internet forums trying to determine whos is bigger. Why are you ?

Edited November 7, 2016 by koti

[Delta1212]

 

This goes to you meLothedestroyerofworlds, bering strait and others in this thread who are arguing within the same line:

 

So it's safe to say, that you conclude that the differences are between roughly 5%-20%. I have little background to determine if this is true or not - it seems plausible and very well might be true. It is also undoubtedly true that a lot higher spreads of IQ than the ones you stated can be observed within the same race. Or even within the same tribe or family line. You say you are not a racist...the question is, why would you want to engage in research which has absolutely zero relevance apart from the fact that it's putting you in an incredibly difficult situation of being accused of being a full on racist? How strong your will of defending your agenda (which has exactly zero relevance) has to be to engage in this filth? It is scientifically proven that once in a while, everyone takes a shit. Most of us don't run around internet forums trying to determine whos is bigger. Why are you ?

Actually, that is a good point. Why is this combination of traits so important to some people? Why not intelligence by eye color? Or foot size by race?

 

Why, practically, would it make a difference even if you could group broad human populations by differential average intelligence?

 

I don't advocate having to have a strictly practical application for scientific investigation, but for the amount of effort that gets poured into this subject, I'm not seeing either the potential application or even the explanatory power that is derived from it that wouldn't be much better covered by something more nuanced.

[sethoflagos]

Oh so your issue was with how Some users chose to word their answers. I completely agree with you. Race is only a correlation and there is in fact considerable overlap, I was simply answering the Main post with a factual statement. I may have generalized at least one point in this conversation, but i am well aware that we are simply talking about averages. I think you're the fellow who said he had the african wife, maybe this will shed light on her exceptional deviation from the mean intelligence in your country. This is a good example of an HBDer who is not racist: http://www.unz.com/article/scrabble-spells-doom-for-the-racial-hypothesis-of-intelligence/

 

 

Thank you for that link. It's one that everyone following this thread should read very carefully.

 

One small factette that isn't mentioned is that practically every kid in Africa grows up learning some local version of mancala (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mancala).

 

Superficially very simple but the strategic complexity is very deep, extremely so in songo, which is the version I tried to master when I was based in Gabon. I was a fairly serious chess player back in the UK and assumed that with a bit of practice I'd soon be able to take on anybody. Not so. We still play a Nigerian version (ncho in my wife's language) now and then. She lets me win occasionally.

Edited November 7, 2016 by sethoflagos

[EgalitarianJay]

You assert you are being calm and yet you choose emotive words and phrases such as "blatantly" and "outrageous boasts", exactly the kinds of words I had cautioned you not to use.

 

 

Motive for the caution: I applaud your opposition to racism and do not wish to see you shut down. It is your methodolgy/tone that I object to.

 

I return to my original point, which is now being echoed more powerfully by Zapatos: it is possible to consider that there may be "racial" differences in intelligence and still not be a racist. It would be helpful if you focused on the evidence for or against this possibility, rather than questioning the motives of someone who so asserts. Your suspicions may (or may not) be well grounded, but discussion of them is incidental to the focus of this thread.

I just want to go on record for noting that I am not overwhelmingly, or even provisionally rejecting the idea that there are racial differences in intelligence. Nor am I asserting that there are. I think our definition of intelligence and the impact of cultural and educational differences makes this currently impractical to discern. Based on this lukewarm position do you wish to suggest that I am a racist? In order not to further disrupt this thread feel free to pm me with your opinion on the matter.

 

I don't see a problem with the words that I used. They do not reflect negatively on my temperament and in context clearly show the absurdity and dishonesty of my opponent. I think the discussion would certainly be productive if we focused on the evidence for or against racial differences in intelligence and that was the purpose of me creating this thread. However the subject of certain posters' motives and the objectivity of their sources was already being questioned by others before I gave my opinion. I don't believe racists should be let off the hook when it comes to misusing science to suit their ideological agenda. Do you have any idea how common it is for these people to claim that they are not racist only to make blatantly racist comments?

 

I do not believe that stating there is bias in scholarship and people with ulterior motives for supporting this idea should be off limits in this discussion. Exposing the ideological bias of your opponent is relevant when you recognize that they are not having a legitimate scientific discussion nor an honest conversation. If you agree with Zapatos then I think both of your are terribly misguided. Zapatos wants to treat this discussion like a criminal court case where supporters of racial differences in intelligence are like a defendant and should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. That is illogical. If you are going to claim you are not racist and do not have an agenda we should be able to discuss that and I have given posters every opportunity to defend that position some people are suggesting that this should not be done. How else are you going to test the validity of the claim?

 

As for whether or not you specifically are a racist I am not familiar with you as a poster and have not witnessed you making any obviously racist comments. If you are taking a neutral position in whether or not there are racial differences in intelligence until you have seen the evidence then I have no reason to accuse you of being racist though I can easily test your motivations by asking simple questions. I know certain posters in this thread from other message boards. Their writing style gives them away and they are clearly racist.

[zapatos]

I accept that there may be exceptions...

Well, we had to take the scenic route, but we finally got there.

 

...but if there are they need to prove that.

No. They don't. Their motives are irrelevant to the OP. You are trying to discredit the argument by discrediting the man.

Being a racist or having racist motivations does not change the validity of the argument. The argument stands or falls on its own merit.

[EgalitarianJay]

Well, we had to take the scenic route, but we finally got there.

 

 

No. They don't. Their motives are irrelevant to the OP. You are trying to discredit the argument by discrediting the man.

Being a racist or having racist motivations does not change the validity of the argument. The argument stands or falls on its own merit.

 

No, I am not because I have never argued that because you are racist you are automatically wrong. I have simply said that in most cases people who argue that there are racial differences in intelligence are biased and so are their sources.

 

They do not have to prove that they are not racist but I don't have to accept their claim either and can give them an opportunity to prove their claim if they press the issue.

[zapatos]

They do not have to prove that they are not racist...

Thank you.

[EgalitarianJay]

Thank you.

 

No one has to prove anything. We are not on trial here. We are having a discussion. But like I said if they are going to press the issue and insist that they are not racist I will call them out on it and test them. There is nothing wrong with that.

[Ophiolite]

 

I don't see a problem with the words that I used.

 

I do understand that is what you believe. Unfortunately I believe that compounds the problem.

 

Note: While my statement above may not be welcome I hope it does not come across as belligerent or disrespectful. What if I had instead posted this.

 

Well of course that nonsense is what you believe! I am not at all surprised. Unfortunately such a ridiculous attitude just exacerbates a problem that you have created.

 

Which of these two options is more likely to encourage open dialogue and the possibility of moving towards a mutual understanding? Which of these is closest to the style you are using? The first question is rhetorical. I shall answer the latter: the first style is more reasonable, calmer and non-judgmental, but your style, in the posts I have commented on, is closer to the second.

 

 

They do not reflect negatively on my temperament and in context clearly show the absurdity and dishonesty of my opponent.

Calling your opponent (a telling word in itself) absurd and dishonest is likely very satisfying, but it does nothing to promote productive debate. Might your time not be better spent demonstrating their absurdity and dishonesty rather than simply alleging it?

 

I don't believe racists should be let off the hook when it comes to misusing science to suit their ideological agenda. Do you have any idea how common it is for these people to claim that they are not racist only to make blatantly racist comments?

Well, It is your thread, but I thought the objective of the thread was to discuss the relationship between race and intelligence. From your words here it would be logical and on-topic to demonstrate the falsity of any questionable data they produced, or to challenge misinterpretations of data. That in itself would be the best way of undermining their arguments, whether they are inherently racist or not.

 

As to how common such behaviour is, I have no idea. I doubt you do either. You may have many personal examples to recount, but I don't place much credence on anecdote other than to provide suggestions of possible interesting issues to investigate.

 

I do not believe that stating there is bias in scholarship and people with ulterior motives for supporting this idea should be off limits in this discussion. Exposing the ideological bias of your opponent is relevant when you recognize that they are not having a legitimate scientific discussion nor an honest conversation.

Fair enough, but you will get a better hearing from those sitting in a neutral position, or even opposed position if you challenge the arguments and not the individual.

 

If you are going to claim you are not racist and do not have an agenda we should be able to discuss that and I have given posters every opportunity to defend that position some people are suggesting that this should not be done. How else are you going to test the validity of the claim?

Why should I wish to test the validity of the claim? I really don't care if some entity on an internet forum is, or is not a racist. I do care that attacking a possible racist rather than their arguments will be a poor way of combating racism.

 

 

Finally, I think your thread title contains a possible fallacy. "Did humans evolve into separate races that differ in mental traits?" I am not convinced that we evolved into separate races.

[EgalitarianJay]

Finally, I think your thread title contains a possible fallacy. "Did humans evolve into separate races that differ in mental traits?" I am not convinced that we evolved into separate races.

 

There's no fallacy on my end. If you don't believe that we evolved in to separate races then that is your position. As for the rest I really don't have time to argue over whether it makes sense to question people who claim they are not racist and I have addressed the arguments used to support the idea that there are racial differences in intelligence. So I simply disagree with you. My thread has been productive. I got the type of discussion I wanted and I have no problem without questioning whether some posters are racist when they claim they are not. In fact I think it is very important to identify racism and ideological bias when you see it because some people can be easily persuaded in to thinking that these people are not racist and are just promoting objective reasoned science when the truth is that most of them are racist.

[Ophiolite]

In fact I think it is very important to identify racism and ideological bias when you see it because some people can be easily persuaded in to thinking that these people are not racist and are just promoting objective reasoned science when the truth is that most of them are racist.

I'll try one last time:

1. You are working from a game plan that says anyone who argues, more than in passing, for differences in intelligence related to race is almost certainly a racist.

2. This is precipitate and unscientific.

3. More to the point, it is less effective at combating racism than attacking their data and their arguments.

 

May I ask, and I understand if you wish not to answer, have you been a victim of racism, or are you following the traditional enraged white middle class posturing¹, or......?

 

 

 

1. You see how inflammatory language can discourage open discussion.

[CharonY]

 

In fact I think it is very important to identify racism and ideological bias when you see it because some people can be easily persuaded in to thinking that these people are not racist and are just promoting objective reasoned science when the truth is that most of them are racist.

 

However, if they are racist they usually rely on either wrong, or heavily extrapolated data as current research is riddled with uncertainties, whereas those heavily invested in an ideology usually are not. I understand that it is significant work to digest literature and figuring out the issues, but in the end I find it far more rewarding. Discussion of ideological bias may be interesting in itself, but all to often they are best treated as a separate issue as the really important issue is what the data can or cannot tell us.

[bering strait]

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....

 

As I said: Now Graves

Bering Strait: That's Obtuse and completely FALSE.

Just because we can't always explain Mechanism does NOT invalidate statistical truths.

We don't have Mechanism on how Cigarettes Cause Lung cancer, but we accept it as a Truth because of app 30-50 years of statistical confirmation.

(even though not all smokers get Lung cancer and not all Lung Cancer is caused by cigarettes).

Similarly, and even more thoroughly, we have 100 Years of IQ tests all telling us the Same thing.

We never get upside down results.

We also don't have 'mechanism' on much of the rest of the Same Topic, Evolution/Speciation, but it's a Fact!

....

GRAVESThe 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.

/END Graves

Bering strait: 1. There are many studies showing even Much higher income Blacks Underperform Middle class and Poor Whites.

Stunning Results from:

Journal for Blacks in Higher Education

http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html

ie

• Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 993. This is 129 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.

• Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 61 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of between $80,000 and $100,000.

 

• Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was 85 points below the mean score for whites from all income levels, 139 points below the mean score of whites from families at the same income level, and 10 points below the average score of white students from families whose income was less than $10,000.

 

 

Bering Strait: Also more convincing/thorough, we have IQ differential remaining even after (the Great Equalizer Trans-racial adoption studies) adoption by White Middle Class Parents..

Twins reared apart, in different circumstances, come out remarkably the same.

And that Racial admixtures, such as 'coloreds' in South Africa, and 'Blacks' in the USA both score app 85 on IQ tests, midway between the 'Euro' 100 and sub-Saharan 70.

Just what one would expect if IQ is Genetic.

Great Summary here:

Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/Race-differences-in-average-IQ-are-largely-genetic.aspx

and of course, also "merely" Statistically, we know IQ is 75% Heritable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Estimates

NOT environmental

Amazingly Consistent with the Latest study I've seen:

Maths and reading skills found to be 75 per cent genetic | SBS News

New research shows Genes are more Important in explaining differences in academic performance than teachers and schools.

By Madeleine King - 15 March 2016

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/insight/article/2016/03/14/maths-and-reading-skills-found-be-75-cent-genetic?cid=trending

(SBS is Australian Public TV)

 

Australian research into the academic performance of twins in NAPLAN tests has revealed that skills in maths, reading and spelling are up to 75% genetic. Genetics also had a 50% impact on writing skills.

 

In stark contrast, the influence of teachers and schools on students was only found to be around 5%, when looking at why children performed better or worse than their peers.

So really ALL evidence points to Genetic, as at least part/MAJORITY of IQ, not environment.

Also see opinions of 'expert opinion' I posted in post #104, that 100% Silenced Ejay.

Because according to him/HIS definition, about 80% of Experts would be at least part 'Racists.'

Not all the "mechanism"/physical differences/Genes for the Races have been found yet, but there are many likely candidates, including Groups of Genes in the Latest Research.

Only the oldest being, Brain size differential, which still has some value.

 

Graves: 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[/End Graves]

 

"Bering strait: There are many studies showing Race difference in Brain size (that correlates with Race/IQ)

see, ie

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Brain_size

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028960200137X

This is the refutation of 'agendized' Bigoted Leftists and Afro-Centric Liars.

Who demand Evolution stopped 200,000 years ago, but only in Mental/Cognitive areas, despite vastly different demands of their environment.

Most recently/more recently than "R/K" is 'Citification,' which put much greater need on the Transactional rather than simple hunter-gatherer skills.

The Brilliant Book by Harpending/Cochran explaining how and WHY the IQ differences developed.. and in just the last 10,000 years!

The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution

https://www.google.com/search?q=10%2C000+year+explosion&oq=10%2C000+yea&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j69i59j0l4.4793j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

More simple common sense, rather than we-the-same Graves et al.

And if you wish to Ignore Any small Rushton portion (especially if entails replying with 3 foot Long sections of Graves-as-God), please do.

The Balance/Majority remains strong and consistent evidence.

IOW: Please note How I use Links/citations, instead of the Giant Board-Burying Eclipses my opponent uses/obfuscates debate with.

Edited November 7, 2016 by bering strait

[sethoflagos]

 

Australian research into the academic performance of twins in NAPLAN tests has revealed that skills in maths, reading and spelling are up to 75% genetic. Genetics also had a 50% impact on writing skills.

 

In stark contrast, the influence of teachers and schools on students was only found to be around 5%, when looking at why children performed better or worse than their peers.

So really ALL evidence points to Genetic, as at least part/MAJORITY of IQ, not environment.

 

 

Except recent studies of the performance of African immigrants to both the US and UK when analysed by nationality or tribal affiliation.

 

http://www.unz.com/article/the-iq-gap-is-no-longer-a-black-and-white-issue/

 

This is consistent with my own experience of mentoring Nigerian graduates in chemical engineering over the last 17 years. Even with the many shortcomings of the Nigerian education system, it is supplying a steady stream of young people suitable for one of the most intellectually demanding of professions. This group should not exist if the data, assumptions and interpretations of Lynn et al were correct.

[bering strait]

How did I get interested in this?

The Klan? My Militia neighbors?

Right Wing politics?

NO

I grew up in a well-to-do Liberal household in the burbs, and still hold mostly Progressive views.

Always a bit of a Science buff (and Sciam reader), I found myself Debating Evangelical Creationists on Political message boards.

Really just a small sideline to my Economic, World Politics, and Science interests/posts.

I still do straighten out the Creationists (mostly, but not solely Christian) some of my posting time.

But more amazing/challenging to me (who resents mindless PC) is the 'Liberal Creationists', who say they believe in evolution, but demand but demand it stopped 200K years ago, and stopped only in humans.

 

Ironically (or not?), in my reply just above refuting Graves, we See the SAME argument we see from Creationists!

"It's not true because you can't show "mechanism." (!)

I'm having the same debate with the seemingly opposite, but same, deniers.

Graves is a Stupid Partisan with a few letters after his name. What an idiotic claim.

Perhaps his bias blinds him.

he could NOT debate me.

 

'Liberal Creationism', a Term from an article of that Title in Liberal Slate Magazine.

An article acknowledging there IS race difference in IQ.

If you google that term you will see the article, first up.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=liberal%20creationism

 

Of course, (when you click on it) you'll see the Censorial, Spineless, Leftist, Brownshirts, changed the title to "Created equal" due to reader outrage, even tho it elaborated the opposite.

That is what we are up against.

 

But the handwriting is On the wall.

Genes WILL tell us why there are differences, and have already hinted such.

Economist mag.

The looming crisis in human genetics
Nov 13th 2009
Premium content | Economist.com
RichardDawkins.net Forum • View topic - The looming crisis in human genetics

"...Human geneticists have reached a private Crisis of Conscience, and it will become public knowledge in 2010. The crisis has depressing health implications and alarming political ones. In a nutshell: the new genetics will reveal much less than hoped about how to cure disease, and much more than feared about human evolution and Inequality, including genetic differences between classes, ethnicities and Races....
[..........]
The trouble is, the resequencing data will reveal much more about human evolutionary history and ethnic differences than they will about disease genes. Once enough DNA is analysed around the world, science will have a panoramic view of human genetic variation across races, ethnicities and regions. We will start reconstructing a detailed family tree that links all living humans, discovering many surprises about mis-attributed paternity and covert mating between classes, castes, regions and ethnicities.

We will also identify the many genes that create physical and Mental differences across populations, and we will be able to estimate when those genes arose. Some of those differences probably occurred very recently, within recorded history. Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending argued in “The 10,000 Year Explosion” that some human groups experienced a vastly accelerated rate of evolutionary change within the past few thousand years, benefiting from the new genetic diversity created within far larger populations, and in response to the new survival, social and reproductive challenges of agriculture, cities, divisions of labour and social classes. Others did Not experience these changes until the past few hundred years when they were subject to contact, colonisation and, all too often, extermination.

If the shift from GWAS to sequencing studies finds evidence of such politically awkward and morally perplexing facts, we can expect the usual range of ideological reactions, including nationalistic retro-racism from conservatives and outraged denial from blank-slate liberals.
The few who really understand the genetics will gain a more enlightened, live-and-let-live recognition of the biodiversity within our extraordinary species—including a clearer view of likely comparative advantages between the world’s different economies....

So get on the right side of History.

Harvard does see the writing/GENES on the Wall.

As Charles Murray (Bell Curve) told a Harvard audience at an Invited appearance (2014) on the 20th anniversary of that savaged book...

"we are entering an era.. It's analogous the Copernican Revolution, where everyone is a Ptolemyist, and there there comes a point in which it's scientifically unacceptable to be a Ptolemyist any more..."

-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_bFpmNSBiY- (unopened youtube I hope)

 

So you know its coming.

Stop trying to prove you're a good post-colonial/white-guilt good guy.

Learn the truth, and tell it.

 

 

EDIT" Can't respond to sethoflagos (pathetic/fallacious mini zit) as it becomes part of this post even though I quoted him

This board is HORRENDOUS GARBAGE

will do so again when time allows it to become separate.

this forum is mechanically Garbage. "sci" my a$$.

15 years of posting: probably 100 mbs. Some of them rinky dinks.

Never had a problem elsewhere

Never seen such a POS.

Edited November 7, 2016 by bering strait

[meLothedestroyerofworlds]

 

 

How did you come to develop an interest in this subject? Share your story. When did you develop the interest? What information on the internet did you read? What books if any did you read? What are your overall opinions on race-relations?These are the types of questions you should answer if you want any one to accept the idea that you are not racist and have a genuine interest in human differences without an ideological bias. I have told my story many times and can tell it again if requested to do so.

 

@EgalitarianJay

 

Yay, story time! Well,I'd always had an interest in where our species had originated. When I was really young, god was obviously my first explanation, and I would argue with athiests on the internet. I wasn't against evolution, but I did think there was an infinitely maximal being that existed somewhere...or everywhere. Then aliens was the next decided causation, but not like ancient aliens or anything. It was more like I was too ignorant of anthropology and thought there was some "mystery" behind it So I used the idea that aliens experimented on early human ancestors to produce us today. That's where my current interest in HBD began. I Would argue with creationists, I was still into aliens but I still had to be able to prove to them evolution was not bullshit, so that's when I started researching anthropology quite frequently. I picked up knowledge of philosophy on the way and the two helped me understand where my opponent's logical fallacies resonated. Anthropology quickly became an obsession/passion that to this day I still indulge. Now I had always been very liberal and I still am, but that's when I started noticing right wing dickweeds trolling the internet, there was a plethora of varieties, but one archetype irritated me beyond belief. It was the racialists/HBDers/"Nazis" In fact egalitarianjay I have argued ON YOUR SIDE, on your youtube page me and you had engaged race realists in a debate on the same comment thread, at the same time . Now it's a year later, and I have seen the mistakes I made with my reasoning. I realized that a lot of my arguments were always "buts" and they just seemed like excuses neruoplasticity/environment/clinal variation none of it actually contradicted HBD data, my logic had become tainted with emotional bias. Could you blame me though? I am half white and filipino, according to their data my IQ should be like 96, so it was insulting to my intelligence. But then I got over myself. It came to me that this was simply averages that this data was just that: data. That's why i simply accepted the main premises and decided to actually delve not the data myself. I soon discovered that while HBDers are good at math, they are almost always completely incompetent at anthropology/linguistic thought. I mean you should see some of these stupid evolutionary explanations they come up with like: "cold winters= higher IQ" or "r/k selection theory" It is such oversimplified/inaccurate garbage. Now that I actually grew some balls and went to the "dark side" I have seen the error in both side's logical processes. Most HBDer are racist. But I am not.

 

 

"What propaganda?"

Gee, let me think. Using "data" collected by Nazis, the KKK, and other known racist groups, yet claiming them as valid. Whether they are valid or not is a simple argument. Racial Bias interferes with the true collection of data. I would also like to point out in the majority of your data that you point out there is experimental bias because the whites are taken from a first world country sample population, while the blacks are taken from a third world country sample. You can't honestly say there is no difference between those. There is. Environment effects how you develop.

 

@Raider5678

 

The data is empirically valid I'm sorry you're stuck in denial. Stop dodging the question: if hitler said 2+2=4 is he wrong?

 

This goes to you meLothedestroyerofworlds, bering strait and others in this thread who are arguing within the same line:

So it's safe to say, that you conclude that the differences are between roughly 5%-20%. I have little background to determine if this is true or not - it seems plausible and very well might be true. It is also undoubtedly true that a lot higher spreads of IQ than the ones you stated can be observed within the same race. Or even within the same tribe or family line. You say you are not a racist...the question is, why would you want to engage in research which has absolutely zero relevance apart from the fact that it's putting you in an incredibly difficult situation of being accused of being a full on racist? How strong your will of defending your agenda (which has exactly zero relevance) has to be to engage in this filth? It is scientifically proven that once in a while, everyone takes a shit. Most of us don't run around internet forums trying to determine whos is bigger. Why are you ?

 

 

Well a fault of mine is that I always assume people will be able to completely understand the message that I am conveying, it's probably my fault I didn't make my points more coherent. It just feels like you guys are ignoring my pleas and sort of just repeating the same thing, or at least shit I've heard too many times before to the point of ad nauseam: "race doesn't exist" "but environment matters too". Again I think you have misunderstood HBD's argument. Race or populations whatever the hell you want to call it is the only way we can really categorize humans, so all that does is allow us to simplify and generalize, this doesn't mean the responsive reaction to the data itself should be generalized(that's where racism comes in), but it does make our lives easier. I am not simply telling you I "took a big shit" I am telling you how and why i 'took a big shit' which is much more valuable data. Therefore others can learn to "bigger shits" too. Fortunately for us g is not subjugated to the same logical dilemma as morality.

 

Thank you for that link. It's one that everyone following this thread should read very carefully.

 

One small factette that isn't mentioned is that practically every kid in Africa grows up learning some local version of mancala (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mancala).

 

Superficially very simple but the strategic complexity is very deep, extremely so in songo, which is the version I tried to master when I was based in Gabon. I was a fairly serious chess player back in the UK and assumed that with a bit of practice I'd soon be able to take on anybody. Not so. We still play a Nigerian version (ncho in my wife's language) now and then. She lets me win occasionally.

 

I don't necessarily think this disproves the genetic hypothesis. Blacks could simply have a non-normalized distribution. But i have always had thoughts that native Africans are far more intelligent then they are giving credit for. They are over represented in many areas, here is another link you will like it goes more into detail: http://www.africaresource.com/sci-tech-a-business/genetics/528-race-intelligence-and-iq-are-blacks-smarter-than-whites It goes into detail about so called highly selected immigrants.

I completely believe your anecdote about the chemical engineer students, Africans don't have an apathy for education like american blacks do. I think they are a genetic goldmine and show a lot of potential in fixing the issues that plague their respective countries.

 

This board is HORRENDOUS GARBAGE

will do so again when time allows it to become separate.

this forum is mechanically Garbage. "sci" my a$$.

15 years of posting: probably 100 mbs. Some of them rinky dinks.

Never had a problem elsewhere

Never seen such a POS.

 

15 years posting on here?

Edited November 8, 2016 by meLothedestroyerofworlds

[bering strait]

sethofLAGOS: Except recent studies of the performance of African immigrants to both the US and UK when analysed by nationality or tribal affiliation.

http://www.unz.com/article/the-iq-gap-is-no-longer-a-black-and-white-issue/

This is consistent with my own experience of mentoring Nigerian graduates in chemical engineering over the last 17 years. Even with the many shortcomings of the Nigerian education system, it is supplying a steady stream of young people suitable for one of the most intellectually demanding of professions. This group should not exist if the data, assumptions and interpretations of Lynn et al were correct.

[/End sethofLAGOS

 

Bering strait: [Really] Bad sampling. (confirmed by your own cherry-picked anecdotal 'graduates')

In the USA, Nigerian Immigrants have higher rates of college graduation than whites.

Of course, that's Because many come here TO go to college and, are/were the IQ ELITE of their native countries.

see

https://pumpkinperson.com/2014/12/31/the-impressive-intelligence-of-african-immigrants/

'Extreme selection for education', and

https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/01/05/more-thoughts-on-the-high-iqs-of-african-immigrants-in-britain-2/

perhaps 1-2 SD above their former countrymen.

So this really is Classic fudgery.

NOT representative of their country overall, much less all of sub-Saharan Afrique.

Rushton on this precise issue: "In search of high African IQ"

(12 mins)

Full length

-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1mgrTGeDPM-

Where he found that in South Africa (as well as everywhere in general) University students were app 1 SD above the native population.

Those good enough to go overseas, perhaps higher yet.

But this is highly selective/inaccurate/bogus sampling for a Race in General.

Edited November 8, 2016 by bering strait

[sethoflagos]

 

 

 

I don't necessarily think this disproves the genetic hypothesis. Blacks could simply have a non-normalized distribution. But i have always had thoughts that native Africans are far more intelligent then they are giving credit for. They are over represented in many areas, here is another link you will like it goes more into detail: http://www.africaresource.com/sci-tech-a-business/genetics/528-race-intelligence-and-iq-are-blacks-smarter-than-whites

 

I completely believe your anecdote about the chemical engineer students, Africans don't have an apathy for education like american blacks do. I think they are a genetic goldmine and show a lot of potential in fixing the issues that plague their respective countries.

 

 

 

I'd appreciate your opinion on this line of thought.....

 

The Nigerians I work with need to have IQs that are pretty high by global population standards, of the order of mean + 4sd of their population IQ distribution in the terms of the Lynn camp.

 

Let us assume that their high IQ is significantly under genetic control (not a concept I reject btw).

 

Simple genetic inheritance is an either/or thing, so in order to get any distribution at the 4sd level (~1 in 30,000 of the population) many loci must be involved (otherwise you just get a simple binary distribution like gender). 1:30,000 is equivalent to flipping a coin and getting heads 15 times in a row.

 

So the order of magnitude estimate for my 'clever African' is he/she was fortunate to get the 'clever' allele at 15 loci. (The actual numbers are irrelevant, it's the principle that counts).

 

But here's the crux.

 

For this to happen, those 15 'clever' alleles need to be circulating in the genome of the parent population. Which means that they haven't mutated through some adaptive mechanism into 'dumb' alleles, or gone extinct through genetic drift. The 'white admixture' theory doesn't really work, since the high number of loci involved would imply that the highly achieving individual was of the order 99.97+% white in total genetic content.

 

The more loci involved, the more the 'clever' alleles must be inherent in the local population genome.

 

The fewer loci (necessary to give any credence at all to the admixture argument) the more obviously bimodal the distribution must become, the more difficult it becomes to explain exceptionally high performance, and the more urgent the requirement to identify the key loci in order to establish any credibility.

 

To me, a far more parsimonious explanation is that under many typically African conditions phenotypic expression of intelligence is largely suppressed by the many plagues of this continent.

 

There's currently a great flowering of cultural advancement in a number of west African states and if that correlates with anything, it's the emergence of a sizeable middle class over the last 30 years or so (post colonial independence).

 

 

 

 

 

sethofLAGOS: Except recent studies of the performance of African immigrants to both the US and UK when analysed by nationality or tribal affiliation.

http://www.unz.com/article/the-iq-gap-is-no-longer-a-black-and-white-issue/

This is consistent with my own experience of mentoring Nigerian graduates in chemical engineering over the last 17 years. Even with the many shortcomings of the Nigerian education system, it is supplying a steady stream of young people suitable for one of the most intellectually demanding of professions. This group should not exist if the data, assumptions and interpretations of Lynn et al were correct.

[/End sethofLAGOS

 

Bering strait: [Really] Bad sampling. (confirmed by your own cherry-picked anecdotal 'graduates')

In the USA, Nigerian Immigrants have higher rates of college graduation than whites.

Of course, that's Because many come here TO go to college and, are/were the IQ ELITE of their native countries.

 

 

They are too good and there are too many of them to be consistent with your statistical analysis.

 

For the reasons outlined above, the fact that there is an 'IQ elite' in Nigeria (and it only has to produce one highly exceptional individual) demonstrates that the genetic material necessary to achieve that excellence is inherent in the parent population.

 

So my statistical evidence is Wole Soyinka - our Nobel laureate. I could have chosen from many others.

Edited November 8, 2016 by sethoflagos

[meLothedestroyerofworlds]

 

I'd appreciate your opinion on this line of thought.....

 

The Nigerians I work with need to have IQs that are pretty high by global population standards, of the order of mean + 4sd of their population IQ distribution in the terms of the Lynn camp.

 

Let us assume that their high IQ is significantly under genetic control (not a concept I reject btw).

 

Simple genetic inheritance is an either/or thing, so in order to get any distribution at the 4sd level (~1 in 30,000 of the population) many loci must be involved (otherwise you just get a simple binary distribution like gender). 1:30,000 is equivalent to flipping a coin and getting heads 15 times in a row.

 

So the order of magnitude estimate for my 'clever African' is he/she was fortunate to get the 'clever' allele at 15 loci. (The actual numbers are irrelevant, it's the principle that counts).

 

But here's the crux.

 

For this to happen, those 15 'clever' alleles need to be circulating in the genome of the parent population. Which means that they haven't mutated through some adaptive mechanism into 'dumb' alleles, or gone extinct through genetic drift. The 'white admixture' theory doesn't really work, since the high number of loci involved would imply that the highly achieving individual was of the order 99.97+% white in total genetic content.

 

The more loci involved, the more the 'clever' alleles must be inherent in the local population genome.

 

The fewer loci (necessary to give any credence at all to the admixture argument) the more obviously bimodal the distribution must become, the more difficult it becomes to explain exceptionally high performance, and the more urgent the requirement to identify the key loci in order to establish any credibility.

 

To me, a far more parsimonious explanation is that under many typically African conditions phenotypic expression of intelligence is largely suppressed by the many plagues of this continent.

 

There's currently a great flowering of cultural advancement in a number of west African states and if that correlates with anything, it's the emergence of a sizeable middle class over the last 30 years or so (post colonial independence).

 

 

 

They are too good and there are too many of them to be consistent with your statistical analysis.

 

For the reasons outlined above, the fact that there is an 'IQ elite' in Nigeria (and it only has to produce one highly exceptional individual) demonstrates that the genetic material necessary to achieve that excellence is inherent in the parent population.

 

So my statistical evidence is Wole Soyinka - our Nobel laureate. I could have chosen from many others.

 

Wait hold on a second where are your numbers coming from? Do you have a source for the +4 SD? I'm not the best at math but ill try to give a somewhat intelligent response. Since the two best sources I have say the genetic IQ is inbetween 80 and 90 Lets assume that the genetic IQ of africans is 85 and their SD is 15. Let's also assume you're correct that the Africans you deal with are 4+ SD above the mean. according to this chart: http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx That would be equivalent to an IQ of 145 which is 1/741 people (if I'm doing this correctly) that is equal to getting heads 9 times in a row.

 

I do not know whether 9 loci is considerably smaller than 15 at least in relative importance. But I haven't really looked into the admixture hypothesis much. There was a diaspora back to africa a few thousand years ago so maybe. It doesn't disprove HBD's central premises though and I think the pockets of above average intellect in africa is due to higher genetic diversity, but that's another story.

Edited November 8, 2016 by meLothedestroyerofworlds

[bering strait]

sethofLAGOS: They are too good and there are too many of them to be consistent with your statistical analysis.b]/endsthgofLAGOS[/b]

 

 

Bering strait: How many is "Too many" to be consistent with my analysis?

This is NONSENSE speak. Pure Anecdote.

Every Bell Curve has a Right hand side You obviously know NOTHING about statistics, nor simple logic.

 

sethofLAGOS: For the reasons outlined above, the fact that there is an 'IQ elite' in Nigeria (and it only has to produce ONE highly exceptional individual) demonstrates that the genetic material necessary to achieve that excellence is inherent in the parent population.

So my statistical evidence is Wole Soyinka - our Nobel laureate. I could have chosen from many others/ End sethLAgos

Bering strait:

Every Bell Curve has a Right hand side. ONE Outstanding individual does NOT refute an overall lower average IQ.

WTH!

Your Home-boy debate is so Bad, it strongly tends to prove MY point about .. um.. a Race.

And he's a Poet/Playwright., NOT a Nuclear Physicist! Big Deal!

That kinda SUCKS for a population of Nigeria: 173 Million.

2/3 the size of the USA and you've got ONE "Soft" Nobel Prize! ! ! (as opposed to the 'hard' sciences)

LOFL. It proves MY point.. spectacularly.

 

14 Million Ashkenazi Jews (the highest IQ group) and app 1/12th the size of the Nigerian population, have won HUNDREDS Of Nobel Prizes. Real Ones, in Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, Economics, etc. More than 20% of them.

What a Horrendously ILLOGICAL/LAUGHABLE Post. OFF the charts BACKFIRING Bad!

Speechless, Numbing, Undebatable!

EDIT to below: the undebatable sethofLagos
After making THEE MOST OBTUSE/BACKFIRING POST I HAVE EVER SEEN, EVER...

sethofLagos Reprehensibly 'short-quoted' me and did NOT address ANY of my Points.

Then Reprehensibly, said I need to "work on my debate".. that he didn't fully quote!

173 Million Nigerians - 2/3 the USA size - and only ONE Stinking Nobel Prize: an honorary 'literature' one.

That was his "proof" they are not lower IQ!

Of course, if anything, it's Pathetic, and proof sub-Saharans have gone Nowhere..

Edited November 8, 2016 by bering strait

[sethoflagos]

Wait hold on a second where are your numbers coming from? I'm not the best at math but ill try to give a somewhat intelligent response. Since the two best sources I have say the genetic IQ is inbetween 80 and 90 Lets assume that the genetic IQ of africans is 85 and their SD is 15. Let's also assume you're correct that the Africans you deal with are 4+ SD above the mean. according to this chart: http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx That would be equivalent to an IQ of 145 which is 1/741 people (if I'm doing this correctly) that is equal to getting heads 9 times in a row.

 

No. IQ 145 would be 3 sd above a norm of 100.

 

My numbers come from IQ 130 above a norm of 70 (Lynn estimates many African nations as being lower than this). A distance of 4 sd (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68%E2%80%9395%E2%80%9399.7_rule)is roughly exceeded by 1 in 30,000. Which would be roughly 100 individuals a year in Nigeria, only 3% of whom would elect for engineering, of which most would select for a discipline other than chemical engineering, and the 1 per year I'm left with is Bering Strait's IQ elite who has emigrated to the US or UK to explain the statistical dilemma he faces in those communities.

 

The numbers just don't add up. Too many good students for such a low estimate of population mean.

 

 

14 Million Ashkenazi Jews (the highest IQ group) and app 1/12th the size of the Nigerian population, have won HUNDREDS Of Nobel Prizes. Real Ones, in Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, Economics, etc. More than 20% of them.

What a Horrendously ILLOGICAL/LAUGHABLE Post. OFF the charts BACKFIRING Bad!

Speechless, Numbing, Undebatable!

 

You really need to work on presenting arguments that are both concise and coherent.

 

That's one outward sign of intelligence I try and instill amongst the people I'm privileged to mentor.

 

The argument is only undebatable because you lack the capacity to debate it. I do not believe that you understand the word 'logic'. Whatever font you present it in.

EDIT to below: the undebatable sethofLagos

After making THEE MOST OBTUSE/BACKFIRING POST I HAVE EVER SEEN, EVER...

sethofLagos Reprehensibly 'short-quoted' me and did NOT address ANY of my Points.

Then Reprehensibly, said I need to "work on my debate".. that he didn't fully quote!

173 Million Nigerians - 2/3 the USA size - and only ONE Stinking Nobel Prize: an honorary 'literature' one.

That was his "proof" they are not lower IQ!

Of course, if anything, it's Pathetic, and proof sub-Saharans have gone Nowhere..

 

Just as a matter of interest, how old are you?

 

My kids grew out of this level of debate when they were about 12.

 

As far as I'm concerned, you have made no points worth addressing. However, feel free to come to Lagos and present them (since so few of your heroes have bothered to actually come here and do the fieldwork). I'm sure that your points would be addressed in the manner they merited.

[meLothedestroyerofworlds]

 

No. IQ 145 would be 3 sd above a norm of 100.

 

My numbers come from IQ 130 above a norm of 70 (Lynn estimates many African nations as being lower than this). A distance of 4 sd (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68%E2%80%9395%E2%80%9399.7_rule)is roughly exceeded by 1 in 30,000. Which would be roughly 100 individuals a year in Nigeria, only 3% of whom would elect for engineering, of which most would select for a discipline other than chemical engineering, and the 1 per year I'm left with is Bering Strait's IQ elite who has emigrated to the US or UK to explain the statistical dilemma he faces in those communities.

 

The numbers just don't add up. Too many good students for such a low estimate of population mean.

 

145 is 4 SDs from a mean of 85 which is a number i got from averaging two different sources for genetic african IQ. I thought that is what you wanted to measure? But doesn't an IQ of 130 have a rarity of 1/44? Where are you getting the 30,000 from? 160 is 4 sd from a mean of 100 which is 1/30,000, is the rarity the same in it's percentile no matter what the mean is?

Edited November 8, 2016 by meLothedestroyerofworlds