Race differences in intelligence: how research changed my mind to overcome the “all races are equal” dogma.

384 thoughts on “Race differences in intelligence: how research changed my mind to overcome the “all races are equal” dogma.”

1. @Open to Experience:

   Black Americans do not exhibit higher IQ’s than Africans and their offspring residing in the West. In fact the most successful blacks in the United States, Canada and Europe are 100% black Africans. Furthermore, as a group 100% black Africans are vastly more successful than whites in terms of academic and occupational attainment. So not only has European admixture not had the salutary impact on IQ scores which you attribute to it, even 100% European genetics does not confer higher intelligence vis-a-vis 100% black Africans like me.

   You see, the argument that Europeans are somehow genetically superior is so easily debunked that I don’t know how an intelligent and rational person would propose it and subject himself to ridicule. For example, can you isolate the particular genes that make Europeans more intelligent? No, you can’t. Moreover, there’s no function that a European can perform that a black person, for example, cannot adapt and also perform. So what are you left with? How do you prove European superiority in real, tangible and empirical terms? I personally have known innumerable people of European descent who weren’t up to my intellectual or cognitive level. So how do you think the notion that I am inferior to these people resonates with me? It’s laughable, that’s what it is. Your trick only works on people who are unexposed.

   Speaking of IQ statistics, how do you explain the fact that ethnically homogeneous Catholics and Protestants in Ireland are 15 points apart in terms of their IQ scores (with the latter scoring higher)? How do you explain the fact that there was a time in the U.S. when black Northerners scored higher than white Southerners? Why did Russians, Poles, Irish and Jews score so low on IQ tests that that provided impetus for the restrictive Immigration Act of 1924?

   You see, statistics of the sort racialists like you rely on are also easily debunked without even much effort. Maybe you just don’t have a plausible argument. Have you considered that?

   Reply

   1. Its easy to see the difference in intelligence between Africans and other races.
      Just come live hear in South Africa a few months and experience it. You dont need a science degree. Even the African hear prefer European-African settler professionals than African ones.
      that is one of the reasons that South Africa was able to become a ‘Democracy’ and have the strongest economy in Africa. We also pulled-off two Rugby World Cup events and one of the most successful Soccer World Cup events. All because the whites are still in control of the economy.

      Reply

      1. So why have certain white nations been failures historically and even in the present day? You can’t attribute decent governance and the success of nations to intelligence and then gloss over examples where white-run nations have not been well-governed or successful.

         Speaking of Africa, several black Africans countries rank ahead of several Eastern European countries by whatever metric you opt to use to measure quality of life. Black Caribbean countries rank ahead of even some Western European countries.

         I would have no problem accepting racial differences in intelligence were it to be empirically certain and true. But the arguments people like you make in support of that thesis are much too easy to shoot down. In fact I’d say that the preponderance of evidence weighs heavily against European intellectual or cognitive superiority.

         Just because there are blacks living in shantytowns in South Africa doesn’t preclude the presence of geniuses there. And the white man sitting in some high rise office in Johannesburg could be an imbecile relative to many of the blacks in that shantytown. Human intelligence simply doesn’t work the way you racialists think it does. If intelligence was the key controlling factor empires wouldn’t rise and fall. How do Britons go from living in mud huts and being colonized by Rome to eventually becoming a world power with a far-flung empire? Did they somehow become more intelligent? Of course not. It was done through acculturation, assimilation and adaptation, which every single human being is capable of, regardless of race or color.

         Reply

2. EgalitarianJay,

   “He then attempts to claim this is not true given that several non-African people do not have genes for “black” skin (providing no source)”

   This is called selection pressure. Read chapter 16 and 17. And you should also read Chapter 14, Section 5, Genetic Determinants of Race Differences in Intelligence. The IQ of mixed-race is always intermediate between the two races. Coïncidence ? Maybe…

   See also, chapter 7, Out of Africa :
   http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf

   — Africa is warmer than the northern continents, but it is a less stable habitat. Droughts, storms, and diseases from viruses, bacteria, and parasites cause high death rates, even today. Without modern medical care, insuring survival in Africa means having many young (r-strategy). In the more stable environments of Europe and Asia, survival is insured from having fewer young, but caring for them very well (K-strategy).
   The environment of Eurasia produced physical differences between the races. Northern Europe’s cloudiness meant less sunshine. This decreased the intake of vitamin D, so lighter skin and hair were needed to let more sunlight get in. As a result, Europeans born with lighter skin and hair were healthier. They had more chance of having children who would survive and reproduce.
   East Asia was even colder than North Europe, but with less cloud cover and more sunlight. There a thicker layer of fat helped to insulate against the cold. This gives many Orientals a so-called “yellow” complexion because it reduces the visibility of red blood vessels close to the skin. Meanwhile in Africa melanin gives the skin a black color to protect it from the scorching rays of the sun.

   — Fossil records, archaeology, and genetic DNA studies of the living races support Charles Darwin’s insight that we evolved in Africa. Humans then spread to the Middle East, Europe, Asia, Australia, and then to the Americas. As humans left Africa, their bodies, brains and behavior changed. To deal with the colder winters and scarcer food supply of Europe and Northeast Asia, the Oriental and White races moved away from an r-strategy toward the K-strategy. This meant more parenting and social organization, which required a larger brain size and a higher IQ.

   “(not true Khoisan have epicanthic folds)”

   True. Khoisan people look curiously asian. I cannot provide you an explanation here, but this does not dismiss his argument : east-asian eyelid is due to Siberian conditions, and nothing more. And Khoisans are africans. Asians have short legs and flattened nose.

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

   — They have moderately long legs and longer abdominal muscles, traits that sharply distinguish them from surrounding Pygmy and Bantu populations having muscles with short bellies and long tendons (Coon 1965). In past ethnography, the Khoisan have been referred to as the Capoid race because they can be visually distinguished from the Congoid Africans of Bantu origin.[3]

   http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=2300

   — The point is that the Khoi-San (formerly known as Bushmen) are a different race than the Bantues (Niger-Congo ethnic group), as different from them as Bantues are from Ethiopians and other groups.

   The Khoi-San were the original group of most of the Southern part of Africa, before they were invaded by the Bantues in the famous Bantu expansion. Jared Diamond explain it quite well in his book “Gun, Germs and Steel”, in the chapter “How Africa become Black”. Because before being Black, Africa was Bushman and Pigmy.

   Even more, by the time the Boers colonized South Africa, the Bantues still hadn’t reached the Southern part of the continent, which was Bushmen territory.

   “I found it interesting that Lynn studied Native American IQs and concludes that genetics plays a role in their lower average IQs but at the same time claims that they evolved bigger brains when their ancestors lived in East Asia. He doesn’t explain why they don’t have comparable IQs to East Asians if that is the case.”

   Have you really read the book ?

   Chapter 12. Native Americans
   9. Genotypic Intelligence of Native Americans

   — First, only between 20 and 30 percent of Native Americans in South and Central America have nutritional deficiencies that could explain their low IQs. Second, the intelligence of Native Americans in the United States and Canada has shown no improvement relative to that of Europeans since the 1920s, despite great improvements in their living standards and environments. Third, the intelligence of Native American-European hybrids is related to the amount of European ancestry, shown in Section 5. Fourth, Hispanics are largely Native American-European hybrids, and their intelligence is intermediate between the two parent races. Fifth, a study by Cundick, Gottfredson, and Willson (1974) showed that 84 Native American children placed in white middle-class foster homes for a period of six years made no gains in intelligence. This shows that the various environmental advantages associated with being reared in a white middle class family have no beneficial effect on the intelligence of Native Americans and suggests that their IQ is to some degree genetically determined.

   Sometimes, brain size (in terms of ability) is not entirely reflected in IQ tests, because of evolutionary pressure :

   Chapter 17. The Evolution of Race Differences in Intelligence
   9. Arctic Peoples

   — The Arctic Peoples did, however, evolve a larger brain size, approximately the same as that of the East Asians, so it is curious that they do not have the same intelligence. A possible explanation for this is that the Arctic Peoples have evolved strong visual memory that would have been needed when they went out on long hunting expeditions and needed to remember landmarks in order to get home in largely featureless environments of snow and ice. An increase of this ability would have required an increase in brain size but is not measured in intelligence tests.

   P.S. I download it. I will read the document later.

   Reply

   1. As far as Rushton’s evolutionary theory is concerned I recommend reading this article:

      http://mathsci.free.fr/graves.pdf

      J.P. Rushton’s view of human evolution suffers from the use of antiquated and simplistic
      theoretical models concerning life history evolution. In addition, his methods of data
      analysis, results, and data sources call into question the legitimacy of his research. In the
      unabridged version of his book, he claims ‘to have reviewed the international literature
      on race differences, gathered novel data and found a distinct pattern’ (Rushton, 1995:
      xiii). This is fallacious on many accounts. Although the scope of the literature is
      international, to an extent, the data are not novel and the pattern he ‘found’ is hardly
      distinct from common racist stereotypes. He has only spun a tangled web of disingenuous
      construction speculations, in which:

      1 He failed to grasp the history and formulation of density dependent selection theory.
      2 He failed to review the critical experiments that falsified the central predictions of
      r- and K-selection theory.
      3 He incorrectly applied r- and K-theory to explain human life history evolution.
      4 He has presented data that are woefully inadequate to test any specific hypothesis
      concerning the evolution of human life histories.

      Reply

3. I just finished reading “Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis”, Richard Lynn. I highly recommend it. If you’re interested in this book, may I also suggest you this article :
   http://analyseeconomique.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/race-differences-in-intelligence-an-evolutionary-analysis-richard-lynn/
   I particularly appreciated chapter 16 and 17. Don’t forget to check the link “velesova-sloboda”.

   Reply

   1. I just read the PDF file containing Lynn’s summary of the work in his book. His research is heavily dependent on the same discredited evolutionary theory of Rushton which is that non-African races evolved bigger brains in colder climates to deal with the challenges of survival during winters.

      It’s interesting to note that Lynn actually addresses Graves within the article. His arguments are very poor. He first takes a quote from Graves stating that race implies the existence of nontrivial underlying hereditary features shared by a group of people and not present in other groups. He then attempts to claim this is not true given that several non-African people do not have genes for “black” skin (providing no source) and that only East Asians, Arctic and some Native American people have epicanthic folds (not true Khoisan have epicanthic folds).

      He dismisses the argument by claiming that races don’t need to have unique traits. Variation in allele frequency according to Lynn is sufficient for identifying races. He points to the greater prevalence of sickle cell anemia in African populations than in European populations or the greater prevalence of cystic fibrosis in European populations as evidence of racial differences.

      As many Biological Anthropologists and Geneticists have noted though, differences in allele frequency between geographic populations does not make those populations races. Evolutionarily distinct breeding populations with unique, distinct, heritable traits are what constitutes a race. Graves addresses all of this in one of his articles:

      http://www.megaupload.com/?d=A0T0KL8O

      I found it interesting that Lynn studied Native American IQs and concludes that genetics plays a role in their lower average IQs but at the same time claims that they evolved bigger brains when their ancestors lived in East Asia. He doesn’t explain why they don’t have comparable IQs to East Asians if that is the case.

      Lynn displays some dishonesty in the article when talking about American Physical Anthropologists having a majority view that there are Biological races citing research from Lieberman and Reynolds based on a survey in 1985. Those same authors noted that as late as 1999 most Biological Anthropologists rejected the existence of biological races.

      Lynn concludes that scientists who deny race do not understand basic principles within evolutionary biology or are being dishonest to adhere to political correctness. Possibly both.

      It appears to me that Lynn is the one who does not understand evolutionary biology and has an ideological agenda for advancing racialist theories.

      Reply
4. Pingback: Hatred III: The Hispanic panic « Unamusement Park

5. @admin:

   These are the lists pertaining to GDP per capita compiled by the World Bank, IMF and CIA.

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita.

   I unintentionally omitted it above.

   Reply

6. @admin:

   “Would love to see mainstream press reports and respectable academic research reports confirming that pure bred blacks are overrepresented at American Elite Universities.”

   http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F03E6DD1E39F937A15755C0A9629C8B63&pagewanted=all

   http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10080304

   http://gazette.jhu.edu/2009/08/17/immigrant-blacks-more-likely-to-attend-elite-colleges/

   http://www.ivyhorsemen.com/2009/08/immigrant-blacks-outperform-native-born.html

   “Also where do you have confirmation that there are lots of blacks in Africa with IQ over 115.”

   I am not a proponent of the efficacy of IQ testing. As I mentioned up thread, in the last century Russians, Jews, the Irish, Poles and other so-called ethnic whites routinely flunked IQ tests.

   The poster I responded to claimed that relatively few South African blacks scored over 115. I asked him to provide proof. You may provide such proof if you’d like. Although, there would be no tangible or quantifiable proof that someone who scores over 115 is more intelligent than someone who scores below that figure. Moreover, if members of a racial or ethnic group score over 115 it goes to demonstrate that many more are clearly capable of scoring 115 or higher given the right training, education or acculturation.

   “Or about the host of African countries faring better then Eastern Europe? But, again, we are talking about statistical differences, so exceptions are quite possible.”

   These are lists compiled by the World Bank, IMF and CIA. You’ll find that on each list several Eastern European and other countries do fall below black African countries. Equatorial Guinea ranks higher than many Western European countries.

   Here is further reading:

   http://www.newsweek.com/2010/02/18/how-africa-is-becoming-the-new-asia.html

   “Also you fail to explain how a Black American gets burdened by slavery of his grand grand grand father 150 years ago, while Chinese, Vietnamese and Cambodians, Japanese are not burdened by having fled wars, being interned in WWII, having worked as railroad workers in near slavery conditions, etc.”

   That you think 150 years is a long time is irrelevant. In fact it isn’t and as time passes future generations won’t even distinguish between our present day time and 150 years ago. It’ll all blend in and seem like the same period to them. When we look back two or three thousand years, we don’t nitpick about 200 years here or there.

   The fact the Africans and their American-born children are performing so well pretty much confirms and validates my thesis. That is, to the extent that traditional black Americans have under-achieved, sociological factors rather than inadequate intelligence have been determinative.

   Your hero Rushton has been called to task by geneticist Steve Jones and others as to why, if his white supremacist theories are correct, black Americans who sometimes have very significant European DNA contributions do not out-perform blacks who have no European admixture whatsoever. In fact in the United States the pure blacks are out-performing both traditional black Americans and white Americans. This is DIRECT EVIDENCE, not indirect evidence or fantasies, speculation, wishful thinking or racial animus driven conclusions.

   Watch and get educated:

   http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xb9iip_race-and-intelligence-5-7_school

   Reply

   1. The one counter argument to the Black African Immigrant performance point that I’ve seen is the claim that mostly the brightest among Black African immigrants are traveling to America and other Western countries. They come here seeking better opportunities and are typically smarter than the average citizen within their home countries.

      This argument has also been used to explain why there are so many successful Indians in the West when India is a 3rd World Country.

      The video that you linked to which I also have on my Youtube channel featuring Richard Nisbett arguing that IQ studies find no correlation between high Black IQ and degree of European ancestry is a claim I find most intriguing. This is indeed direct evidence and the most damning evidence you could have for Rushton’s genetic hypothesis.

      If the Admin wants to have that debate I recommend he make a new post to discuss that particular argument with a link to the video.

      Here is my link with the same content:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM6Ekv4L6h4

      Admin,

      You can find details about Nisbett’s research on this matter in this article:

      http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/sloth/nisbett-on-rushton-and-jensen.pdf

      Reply

      1. Yes, I’ve come across this “best and brightest” argument as well. First of all, it’s not necessarily true. My heritage is Nigerian, and I can assure you that the smartest Nigerians don’t necessarily immigrate.

         A high level of intelligence isn’t necessarily the attribute the immigration process selects for. Persistence, determination, social contacts, helpful family members in the target country and even luck may be far more important.

         Another thing to keep in mind is that the upper classes often times resist immigrating because they can live better, less stressful lives in their home countries. They can have big homes, household staff, chauffeurs, and all the other accouterments of wealth. Whereas in the U.S., for example, they’d just be ordinary middle class people, with all the worries and stresses that entails.

         So it could be that the best and brightest don’t immigrate if they’re able to make their way in their native country. Similarly, it was the European “rabble” that tended to immigrate to the new world, while the best and brightest and well to do stayed put.

         Moreover, white supremacist ideology makes absolutely no allowance, for the presence anywhere, of an elite class of blacks capable of out-doing whites in any intellectual or scholastic field of endeavor. So they really can’t use that argument and remain faithful to the the core tenets of white supremacy — even if the assumption were true, which it isn’t, in my opinion.

         Lastly, the American-born children of African immigrants as a group perform even better than their parents. This pretty much debunks the notion that the performance of African immigrants is owed to an immigration system that selects for the smartest people. Obviously, American born people aren’t immigrants.

         This article talks about how the American-born kids of Nigerian immigrants are pushed to perform even better than their parents.

         http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5791096.html

         Again, in light of my Nigerian background I can tell you that this is absolutely correct. In fact this article understates the fanaticism with which Nigerians regard education and achievement.

         Reply

         1. Those are very well-reasoned arguments. I’m interested in seeing how racialists would respond to that.

            Two things though:

            1. We’re discussing Rushton’s research not White Supremacist ideology. Rushton’s research while very attractive to White racists does allow for individual Blacks to be more intelligent than individual Whites. It even acknowledges average Asian superiority in intelligence so if an ethnic group like Nigerian immigrants outperformed Whites in their own country Rushton and his supporters would not have a problem with the idea that there could be a concentration of high IQ Blacks so long as they don’t represent the average Black. They are fixated on mean differences between races.

            2. American born descendants of African immigrants being as intelligent as their parents doesn’t refute the intelligent immigrant theory because they are descendants. Heritability is the degree to which a trait is inherited by your parents. So it can be argued that children of African immigrants inherited genes for high IQ from their parents who represented the brightest among their native people.

            I’m interested in sources for African immigrants outperforming their parents academically. That would strongly imply a cultural component to their success.

7. @ Lailoken

   “For example, since there are relatively so few South African Blacks with IQs over about 115”

   According to whom? Where’s the data? Who conducted this study? Provide a link.

   “or about one SD over the White norm,”

   The white norm was failure a few generations ago when Irish, Polish, Russians and even Jews routinely scored very low on standardized IQ tests. In fact these low IQ scores were used to keep away immigrants from those countries and even to deport those that were already in the U.S. How do you think we got Polish jokes? Because Poles were perceived to be imbeciles in light of their very low IQ scores.

   “modern industrial society largely cannot be maintained under the ANC.”

   Ridiculous gibberish. I’ve flown planes driven by black pilots, taking off and landing at airports with air traffic control staffed and maintained by black people. Throughout Africa blacks maintain what you describe as modern industrial societies.

   South Africa is doing better than a host of Eastern European countries in terms of GDP per capita and other quality of life indices. And they are improving daily. So you thought it was going to be a shangrila overnight, huh? Yet no white country undergoing similar titanic changes or revolution ever became functional overnight, but you racists expect blacks to snap their fingers and magically and immediately transform when whites in similar circumstances took decades to get their shit together.

   “On the other hand, in Cote d’Ivoire the infrastructure has been much better maintained or the most part due to the heavy presence of French advisers.”

   More nonsense. You have no proof that those French advisers are more intelligent than the Africans they’re advising. The correlations you’re trying to make are unfounded. The advisers could be complete nincompoops in comparison to some of the people they’re advising. And, no, don’t trot out your IQ scores either, which I’ve already delegitimized above. Do you know how many well-educated, supposedly high IQ whites get out-smarted and get their clocks cleaned in various business ventures with Africans?

   How do you want to measure intelligence? You want to favor someone who answers culturally biased questions correctly or one who demonstrates smarts on the street and in the real world? I’ll take native intelligence over scoring high on acculturation tests.

   “Compared to Whites or Orientals, very few Black Africans are cognitively capable of doing advanced statistics. Consider yourself blessed.”

   It’s all about acculturation, you imbecile. An African could identify a whole host of things that whites and orientals would be incapable of doing. But immerse those whites and Asians in the African culture and they would excel. Similarly, Africans and their children in the West excel at advanced statistics and every other academic discipline. In fact African immigrants and their American-born children GROSSLY out-perform whites scholastically.

   “This is irrelevant. Een if it were true that on the average, men are better at most sports than women, does this hold true in every case? No, but men still tend to be better at most sports than women.”

   Well, big strong men are better at certain sports than short small men. That doesn’t make them more intelligent. Terrible analogy. We’re talking about the human brain.

   “No. It’s this kind of sloppy thinking which helped turn South Africa into a nightmarish place where most high schoolers can’t read but most women do get raped (real rape, none of this getting breathed on too hard like in Sweden) by the time they are 18. That includes the Black women.”

   You mean the same South Africa where they recently held the World Cup? The eyes of the world was on it and the Armageddon you racists keep talking about certainly was nowhere to be seen. On the contrary, South Africa is remarkable for its progress since the fall of Apartheid. It is a model to be emulated by future generations of humans.

   Your laughable exaggerations about South Africa notwithstanding, last I checked crime and mafiasm are running rampant in Russia and Eastern Europe. But of course, you racists will make all kinds of excuses for white countries, you’ll say they’re coming off the heals of repressive communism and such dislocation and fragmentation are to be expected. But you won’t make the same allowances for black countries. You’re a pitiful joke.

   And look here, white Eastern European criminals are taking their show on the road. In Britain alone Eastern Europeans immigrants account for 1/10 of the crime:

   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-413985/Eastern-European-immigrants-carry-tenth-crime.html

   Is crime something peculiar to the European genome?

   Eastern Europeans definitely do not constitute 10% of British society, not even 1/10 of 1%. So you see, the numbers are stunning, and Britain is just one small example outside of crime-infested and dysfunctional Russia and Eastern Europe. It’s sort of like in this country with its white street criminals and gangsters terrorizing the population a few generations ago. I wonder if it’s something in the genes.

   Reply

8. Merlin

   “What of him being a layman? Scientific reasoning isn’t created by diplomas, although sometimes they confirm it.”

   There’s nothing reasonable about the admin’s uninformed gibberish.

   “Linda Gottfredson. Plus, pretty much all other honest scientists in the relevant fields.”

   Where’s the proof? Provide persuasive evidence. Give me links. You’re a delusional racist liar. You think I’m going to take your word? Name one credible scientist that says that while blacks can be geniuses, they are less prone to genius level intelligence than other races. Name just one and provide proof.

   “Actually, assuming you’re not just a troll, and not a very bright one at that, you’re a complete idiot. If there were just as many smart blacks, black-run countries wouldn’t so consistently be shitholes.”

   A better question would be how do you explain the presence of shithole white countries historically and in the present day? If all it takes to have a successful country is white skin why are there dozens of black African and black Caribbean countries that are out-performing Eastern Europe (the whitest region on earth)? Mind you, I am adopting your definition of shithole vs. success.

   Going by the western standard of success…

   Black Africans as a whole are wealthier and live better than Indians as a whole.

   At least one dozen black African countries are doing better in terms of living standards and GDP per capita than all-white Eastern Europe. Black Caribbean nations are vastly out-performing Eastern Europe.

   Hundreds of millions of black Africans live better and have a higher standard of living than hundreds of millions of Chinese.

   Furthermore, why was all-white Ireland such a failed basketcase that nearly its entire population fled for the U.S. and elsewhere? By your idiotic reasoning, the Irish must’ve been imbeciles. But surely their white skin and “superior intellect” should’ve pulled them through.

   Ireland is just one example, there are dozens of examples of failed European states throughout history. How do you know where Africa will be 100 years from now? The Romans found your ancestors in rat-infested caves where they slept, defecated and butchered their animals. I guess your ancestors were just of low intelligence.

   “For another thing, women are rapidly closing gaps even in ultra-elite universities such as CalTech, even with real sexist stereotyping being far more PC than even alleged “racism,” to the tune of 38% of CalTech now being women, as opposed to less than 2% being Black. There is not a single elite university in which Blacks are not vastly underrepresented, unless standards are ridiculously lowered.”

   And yet 100% pure black Africans, their children and grandchildren are OVERREPRESENTED at elite American universities. In fact as a group African immigrants and their American born offspring are vastly more successful than whites in terms of educational and occupational achievement. I wonder why? Well, you’re dumb so let me break it down for you. While still subject to racism, Africans aren’t burdened by the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow and multi-generational oppression. These are devastating impediments to success for traditional black Americans. Some overcome it, some do not.

   “What stupid and lazy fallacy. NOBODY said that there are no black geniuses, only that there are far fewer. As it happens, that is just as the HH – actually, evolution, period – would predict, and it is empirically true.”

   That’s not possibly, dummy. Provide evidence or STFU. I think you’re just trolling.

   “Arab explorers back in the 700s already noticed that Blacks had never invented the wheel. I guess at some point the KLAN CONSPIRACY will get a hold of a time machine. You silly retard. Oh, btw, more Blacks get dismissed from Death Row in the IQ because Blacks are more likely to be mentally retarded, as determined by IQ tests. In attempting to discredit IQ and race, you’re doing your part in making it more likely that someday, more Blacks will fry. That’s so very “liberal minded” of you, self-righteous Pharisee. Congratulations.”

   Yep, you’re a troll. A trolling keyboard nazi.

   I’ve pretty much demolished what little argument you had. I’ve never known a keyboard race warrior arguing on behalf of white supremacy who wasn’t himself, ironically, a retarded imbecile. It’s hilarious.

   Reply

   1. Would love to see mainstream press reports and respectable academic research reports confirming that pure bred blacks are overrepresented at American Elite Universities.

      And yet 100% pure black Africans, their children and grandchildren are OVERREPRESENTED at elite American universities. In fact as a group African immigrants and their American born offspring are vastly more successful than whites in terms of educational and occupational achievement. I wonder why? Well, you’re dumb so let me break it down for you. While still subject to racism, Africans aren’t burdened by the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow and multi-generational oppression. These are devastating impediments to success for traditional black Americans. Some overcome it, some do not.

      Also where do you have confirmation that there are lots of blacks in Africa with IQ over 115. Or about the host of African countries faring better then Eastern Europe? But, again, we are talking about statistical differences, so exceptions are quite possible. Also you fail to explain how a Black American gets burdened by slavery of his grand grand grand father 150 years ago, while Chinese, Vietnamese and Cambodians, Japanese are not burdened by having fled wars, being interned in WWII, having worked as railroad workers in near slavery conditions, etc.

      Reply

      1. Here is a source on Black African Immigrants being overrepresented in Ivy League schools:

         http://newsone.com/nation/news-one-staff/black-immigrants-overrepresented-at-ivy-league-schools/

         I already know the racialist counter to this. They are only the best and brightest Africans coming to Western Countries like the USA for better opportunity. The same could be said about recent East Asian immigrants and folk from India.

         I don’t t know what the other posters evidence is for some African countries being more successful than Eastern European countries. i will let him handle that one. However when it comes to criminality there are Black African countries with lower crime rates and White European countries especially Eastern European with high crime rates (I would include Russia as among the White countries that has a high crime rate).

         Rushton’s proclamations about crime are by no means universal.

         Reply

9. Don’t you think that a REAL skeptic would read as much as he could about this topic before making broad claims about it? The Bell Curve has serious problems and Rushton’s work has enormous methodological issues.

   At the veyr least, if you are a true skeptic, you should read some of Rushton’s main opponents. Read Stephen Gould, just for starters. It’s easy to be convinced when you only look at the scientific evidence for one side of a debate and rely on your media-fed prejudices to supply the other.

   Reply

   1. Rushton himself totally debunked Steven Gould and no evolutionary scientist would take him seriously. Nisbett and Flynn, yes, they at least meet him on scientific grounds. But Rushton debunks Nisbett pretty nicely, and has good answers to Flynn.

      But, even if we disagree a lot, I appreciate your comments that well elaborated and well founded. Keep going.

      Reply

      1. Actually Rushton is the one who generally isn’t taken seriously by Evolutionary Scientists. Gould’s book The Mismeasure of Man actually received many positive reviews from other experts on evolutionary biology as well as Psychologists. Rushton’s book Race, Evolution and Behavior in comparison received very little positive feedback from experts on evolution. In fact it received a lot of criticism. C. Loring Brace, a Biological Anthropologist at the University of Michigan, describes Rushton’s book as “Bad Biology” and “Inexcusable Anthropology.”

         In reading Rushton’s review of Gould’s book I notice a lot of ad hominem attacks and rather vicious language. His review is dissected into paragraphs that promote his own research as a rebuttal to Gould. Most of his work particularly on brain size and evolutionary selection has of course been debunked by other scholars.

         I think Nisbett and Flynn made very solid arguments in favor of their positions on Race and IQ. Rushton and Jensen pretty much reiterated alot of old claims in their point by point attempt at a rebuttal to Nisbett none of which is a compelling argument against the many points Nisbett made in his critique of them. They tried very hard to discredit Flynn and Dickens contention that the Black-White IQ gap has decreased over the years but the evidence for this is overwhelming. When you control for family and neighborhood quality along with standard Socio-Economic variables the Black-White IQ is virtually eliminated.

         As the educational environment for Blacks improves academic performance improves including on ability tests which show a correlation if .90 with IQ tests. Estimates show the Black-White IQ gap in the past 30 years has decreased from 15 points to about 7-10. That would indicate that environment has a profound effect and that the gap is not immutable as a genetic hypothesis would predict. We’ll find out in the next few decades how much the IQ gap can be reduced but as it stands the evidence against the theories of Rushton et al. is crushing.

         Reply

10. Ockechukwu:
    “You’re a layman, and not a very bright one either.”

    What of him being a layman? Scientific reasoning isn’t created by diplomas, although sometimes they confirm it.

    “Name one credible scientist who would concur with you that while there are intelligent blacks, there are less of them. Name just one.”

    Linda Gottfredson. Plus, pretty much all other honest scientists in the relevant fields. Actually, assuming you’re not just a troll, and not a very bright one at that, you’re a complete idiot. If there were just as many smart blacks, black-run countries wouldn’t so consistently be shitholes. For another thing, women are rapidly closing gaps even in ultra-elite universities such as CalTech, even with real sexist stereotyping being far more PC than even alleged “racism,” to the tune of 38% of CalTech now being women, as opposed to less than 2% being Black. There is not a single elite university in which Blacks are not vastly underrepresented, unless standards are ridiculously lowered.

    “That is possibly the dumbest thing any poster has said on this board.”

    What’s dumb about stating a fact without apology? Funny how those of you who are so skeptical about race and intelligence tend to be so quick to judge others as unintelligent. Except you don’t use an honest, fair, and scientific standard. Instead, we’re supposed to just take you at your word that everyone else is intellectually inferior to you, even though you repeatedly show that your word is worthless. Got it!

    “If blacks were not capable of so-called extremely high genius level, there wouldn’t be a single black person in those ranks, period.”

    What stupid and lazy fallacy. NOBODY said that there are no black geniuses, only that there are far fewer. As it happens, that is just as the HH – actually, evolution, period – would predict, and it is empirically true.

    Arab explorers back in the 700s already noticed that Blacks had never invented the wheel. I guess at some point the KLAN CONSPIRACY will get a hold of a time machine. You silly retard. Oh, btw, more Blacks get dismissed from Death Row in the IQ because Blacks are more likely to be mentally retarded, as determined by IQ tests. In attempting to discredit IQ and race, you’re doing your part in making it more likely that someday, more Blacks will fry. That’s so very “liberal minded” of you, self-righteous Pharisee. Congratulations.

    Plus, fools like you played a role in bringing about the South Africa of today, where a woman is more likely to be raped than ever learn to read. Preventing millions of rapes would have been “racist,” though.

    P.S. Your ridiculously irrational dogmatism isn’t science. Even if Rushton were way less than 1% as qualified as he is now, he’s more than six million times the scientist you are.

    Reply

11. @Admin:

    The scholar who gave the presentation on race and human evolution is Todd Disotell a professor of Anthropology from New York University. I am interested in feedback on this video. It is interesting to hear the different perspectives on this issue.

    Now about your impressions of the discussion….

    First of all I got the impression that the audience was giggling at the visual imagery of the question (100s of men together in a shower). Disotell acknowledges phenotype and that obviously we can distinguish between people with different external anatomical characteristics. However he argues that these traits themselves do not belie distinct evolutionary lineages.
    Genetic variation between geographic populations does not reach a threshold that would warrant taxonomic classification as a sub-species. There is human biological variation it simply isn’t structured into phylogenetically distinct breeding populations but rather discordant clines across diverse populations.

    Now as far as Graves response to Rushton about the Transracial adoption study he did cite research which indicates that stereotype threat is a relevant factor so that sort of study does not meet his criteria for controlling for an environment where the cultural setting is equal.

    In video 9 I have to say that Graves arguments were far more compelling to me. He makes notable points about gene x environment interaction which Rushton doesn’t consider. His retort about different views on racial temperament was easy to understand and his slide about intrinsic rate of increase and IQ contradicts Rushton’s argument about intelligence and reproductive strategy being correlated.

    Graves goes on to refute the idea that there is evidence that European genes make Blacks smarter. Meanwhile Rushton can’t decide whether Native Americans belong to the Mongoloid race or a 4th race and can’t explain why Native Americans if they experienced the same selection pressures for higher intelligence in harsh winters as their Northeast Asian cousins have lower IQs than Whites (Lynn estimates Native American IQ average at 87). The Native American issue is clearly a conundrum for Rushton who admittedly omits them from study in his race research. Graves has the clear advantage on the subject as the IQ scores support his view that environment has profound effects on ethnic IQ disparities to the extent that genetic causation looks like an unlikely factor.

    Finally at the very end of the video in Part 11 Rushton appears to self-destruct when answering the last question which dealt with European barbarism and historical atrocities. According to Rushton the brutality of Whites towards their fellow man is simply an example of human nature and no race is more savage than another. No race is more savage yet races differ in temperament which leads to disparities in crime rates.

    So let me get this straight Dr. Rushton…when Whites produce a culture that tolerates horrific crimes against humanity it is simply human nature. But when individual Blacks commit violent crimes, though they make up a minority of the Black population it’s because they are Black.

    Is it any wonder that the crowd laughed at him for that blatant contradiction?

    I would have loved to hear Dr. Graves reply to that which he unfortunately wasn’t able to make. I think I will email him about that and post his reply here.

    Reply

    1. ‘The scholar who gave the presentation on race and human evolution is Todd Disotell a professor of Anthropology from New York University.’

       He’s good at bs’ing. Notice how Rushton is much more plain-spoken and to-the-point. That’s because he’s got the truth on his side. No matter how many formal qualifications the Boasian Disotell enjoys, there remains the problematic fact that he’s wrong.

       ‘Genetic variation between geographic populations does not reach a threshold that would warrant taxonomic classification as a sub-species. ‘

       Uh, since the genetic distance is often as great as and greater than that found between many species as currently (and historically) classified, arguably it reaches a threshold that could credibly warrant taxonomic classification as separate *species*. For example, the genetic distance between the common chimpanzee and the bonobo is less than half the genetic distance between English and Bantu.

       [See Curnoe, D. & Tobias, P.V. (2006). Description, new reconstruction, comparative anatomy, and classification of the Sterkfontein Stw 53 cranium, with discussions about the taxonomy of other southern African early Homo remains. Journal of Human Evolution, 50:36-77.]

       Likewise, “[there] is less mtDNA difference between dogs, wolves, and coyotes than there is between the various ethnic groups of human beings…”

       [Coppinger, R. & Schneider, R. (1995). Evolution of working dogs. In J. Serpell (ed.), The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour and Interactions with People. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 21-47.]

       On a genetic level, the evidence is utterly against the ‘egalitarian’-extremist stance. This is also true on a morphological level, e.g.:

       “The differences in morphology (cranial and facial features) between human races are typically around ten times the corresponding differences between the sexes within a given race, larger even than the comparable differences taxonomists use to distinguish the two chimpanzee species from each other. To the best of our knowledge, human racial differences exceed those for any other non-domesticated species. One must look to the breeds of dogs to find a comparable degree of within-species differences in morphology.” (Sarich & Miele, 2004. Race: The Reality of Human Differences)

       Any honest dog lover and/or breeder can tell you that dog breeds vary enormously in their attributes, from intelligence to temperament. And this is with dog breeds being far more genetically similar than are races of people. Somehow, academics are not insisting that these differences are due to ‘stereotype threat’ or other such nonsense. Go figure.

       By the way, the notion that different species must be unable to interbreed and produce fertile offspring is a myth. E.g., jackal, coyote, wolf, and dog can all interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Among birds, so can the pintail and mallard. So can the two species of bonobo. So, too, can the two species of orangutan even though they have different numbers of chromosomes!

       You better find something beyond mere genetics to define and unify Mankind because otherwise, you’re in trouble.

       Reply

       1. “He’s good at bs’ing. Notice how Rushton is much more plain-spoken and to-the-point. That’s because he’s got the truth on his side. No matter how many formal qualifications the Boasian Disotell enjoys, there remains the problematic fact that he’s wrong.”

          This statement here is a logical fallacy known as style over substance. How the participants in the discussion present their arguments have no bearing on the validity of the claim. As it is I disagree with you. Disotell was articulate and straightforward with his presentation. He outlined the problems with racially classifying humans from an evolutionary perspective. Rushton on the other hand did not challenge any of Disotell’s assertions but rather conceded to the idea that there was variation within continental populations and made the argument that races could be identified by average differences that distinguish them (basically claiming races exist within a continuum). He then presented his theory on human evolution which synthesized the Out of Africa model of human migration and r/K selection. Ofcourse in Graves presentation he refuted Rushton’s application of r/K selection to human races by showing that r/K selection had been falsified by multiple experiments and that Rushton misapplied r/K selection altogether. Rushton did not provide a challenge to Graves arguments in the video presentation or in print when Graves published articles outlining in detail the same points he made in the video. I would argue that Rushton is wrong because his theory was discredited empirically.

          “Uh, since the genetic distance is often as great as and greater than that found between many species as currently (and historically) classified, arguably it reaches a threshold that could credibly warrant taxonomic classification as separate *species*. For example, the genetic distance between the common chimpanzee and the bonobo is less than half the genetic distance between English and Bantu.”

          Curiously your source for this claim doesn’t say anything about genetic distances between modern human populations. Where is your source for the genetic distance of Chimps and Bonobos vs. English and Bantu? As it stands one must question your criteria for racial classification. The argument of scholars such as Graves and Disotell is that human biological variation does not partition into races. The genetic diversity of human populations according to many biologists is said to not structure into subspecies because it is monotypic.

          “Most other large-bodied hominoids are unlike humans in that they have recognizable
          subspecies. Subspecies are defined as groups of phenotypically similar populations living in distinct geographic parts of the species range that differ in diagnostic morphological traits (Mayr 1970). In Africa, there are three
          subspecies of common chimpanzees: Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii (the eastern
          long-haired variety), P. troglodytes verus (western masked or pale-faced),
          and P. troglodytes troglodytes (central black-faced); and three commonly recognized
          gorilla subspecies: Gorilla gorilla gorilla (western lowland), G. gorilla
          beringei (mountain), and G. gorilla graueri (eastern lowland). Two
          orangutan subspecies inhabit Asia: Pongo pygmaeus pygmaeus (Bornean),
          and P. pygmaeus abelii (Sumatran). Only the bonobo Pan paniscus and Homo
          sapiens are monotypic.

          […]

          Human genetic diversity is apportioned in a different manner to that observed
          in the other hominoid species (Figure 1). Given that humans do not
          have a subspecies structure, this is not unexpected. The human species pattern
          most resembles that in subspecies of other hominoids (Figure 1), and it is particularly
          like that of eastern common chimpanzees (Goldberg 1996, Goldberg
          & Ruvolo 1997b).

          [M. RuvoloGenetic (1997) Diversity in hominoid primates. Annual Review of Anthropology Vol. 26: 515-540]

          “On a genetic level, the evidence is utterly against the ‘egalitarian’-extremist stance. This is also true on a morphological level”

          What exactly is the Egalitarian extremist stance? The mainstream consensus of modern Biological Anthropologists and Geneticists is that human biological variation does not structure into races. Sarich’s argument is flawed because his claim is that morphological variation in humans is distinguishable enough to classify humans into races based on them when the argument of mainstream experts on human biology who reject biological race categories argue that the observable morphological variation that does exist doesn’t partition into phylogenetically distinct breeding populations. There is notable variation however human phenotypes do not denote evolutionary lineages.

          “Templeton (2002) defined biological races as either a distinct evolutionary lineage
          within a species (Shaffer and McKnight 1996) or as geographically circumscribed,
          genetically differentiated populations, coupled with a minimum threshold of genetic
          differentiation that be quantified with modern genetic techniques. The article then
          demonstrated that neither of these definitions hold within anatomically modern
          humans (Fst analysis violated the geographically circumscribed and genetically
          differentiated criterion and the unique evolutionary lineage claim is violated by the
          history of continuous gene flow between human populations). This picture of human
          evolution has been consistently supported over the last 10 years or so (Akey and
          others 2002; Tishkoff and Kidd 2004; Hinds and others 2005; Templeton 2007).
          Thus evolutionary biologists recognize that human genetic variation exists, that this
          variation is continuous along geographic distance, but that attempting to classify
          humans into biological races simply doesn’t follow (Graves 2005).”

          [Graves (2009) Biological V. Social Definitions of Race: Implications for Modern Biomedical Research The Review of Black Political Economy Volume 37, Number 1, 43-60]

          “Any honest dog lover and/or breeder can tell you that dog breeds vary enormously in their attributes, from intelligence to temperament. And this is with dog breeds being far more genetically similar than are races of people. Somehow, academics are not insisting that these differences are due to ‘stereotype threat’ or other such nonsense. Go figure.”

          Can you provide me a Top 10 list of the smartest dog breeds? I would like this list to be supported by an authoritative source which outlines their criteria for measuring dog intelligence and justification for this hierarchy. Humans were not selectively bred like dogs for traits such as size, obedience, problem solving and temperament. I have no doubt that under a strict eugenics program you could create a breeding population in which certain traits including behavioral traits are expressed at a high percentage. This could probably be done in humans. As it stands the observations of mainstream evolutionary anthropologists hold that there is no evidence of a selective pressure that would make some geographically distinct human populations on average more intelligent or behave differently than any other and that indeed all of the credible scientific evidence indicates a commonality in general mental traits that was established long ago in our evolutionary history before humans migrated to different continents.

          [C. Loring Brace. 1999. An anthropological perspective on “race” and intelligence: The non-clinal nature of human cognitive capabilities. Journal of Anthropological Research 55(2):245-264. Page 259]

          “You better find something beyond mere genetics to define and unify Mankind because otherwise, you’re in trouble.”

          The argument isn’t that we are all the same but that we are not so different that we can be ranked in innate ability based on superficial physical characteristics. The argument is that there is no correlation between external phenotype and the properties of the brain that control mental ability and personality. Environment has a profound effect on culture. Indeed humans themselves due to our ability to think creatively have tremendous power to control not only our surrounding habit but also the societies that we live in. The reality is that racial discrimination has had detrimental effects on communities which were the victims of intolerance and oppression. Rushton and like-minded scholars want to argue partial genetic causality for cultural trends between human populations in order to influence modern social policies at a time when modern governments are trying hard to repair the damage done by racial stratification. They are abusing science to support ideological agendas.

          Reply

12. I have successfully uploaded the first parts of the Graves-Rushton debate. The video is 11 parts in total. You can watch it on my Youtube channel by clinking my name.

    Reply

    1. In video 9, Rushton is extremely convincing and, sorry, Graves and others sound embarrassingly like fools. You could hear the spectators giggling about some of the contorted evasive answers.

       Race does not exist. Asked if they had 100 Chinese in a shower, 100 Kenyans in a shower, 100 Englishmen. Can they identify which is which? They still could somehow argue how they could not sort this out.

       EgalitarianJay, thank you very much for these videos. They are very informative. I will watch them all. From what I have seen so far, they make me much more certain in my conviction. If these arguments is all they can come up with, then there is no way to refute Rushton. I have a hard time how serious scientist can fudge and fumble like Rushton’s opponents and still be taken seriously.

       Asked about exactly our example Koreans or Africans adopted by white middle class parents, Graves had the balls to argue that they live in a different environment, because there is a societal expectation for blacks to underachieve.

       a) For someone who says “race does not exist” this is quite amazing. If they can not discern the different races, how can they discriminate?

       b) all these claims without scientific proof. Test your hypotheses scientifically, Dr. Graves.

       Is this just me who sees a University professor Rushton present clear research against a bunch of embarrassingly unscientific guys defending indefensible hypotheses?

       Reply

       1. ‘Is this just me who sees a University professor Rushton present clear research against a bunch of embarrassingly unscientific guys defending indefensible hypotheses?’

          You’re correct. Indeed, even a ‘simple’ small farmer can figure out that race exists. Race denial is kept going largely by taboos, shaming tactics, and fear.

          Reply

    2. Here is a playlist of the entire Rushton-Graves discussion about Race and IQ. Interesting summary of facing off the ideological opponents to Rushton’s theory. See all the videos in one piece here.

       http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=DC0F78B62A560851

       Accidentally, one video got in there from another discussion. I left it in, because it actually contributes to the discussion and is a refreshing variation.

       Rushton mentioned the temperament differences that make racial peace and acceptance difficult. I focussed too much on IQ.

       He explained that demands of cold winter required special planning, a new strategy that was not required before leaving Africa. The worst winters were in Africa

       @EgalitarianJay, do you have the complete name and affiliation of the other participants? The Microbiologist contributed some interesting facts, though he fudged to interpret these facts to be contradicting J Philippe Rushton.

       Reply

13. I would like to inform everyone involved in this discussion that I am about to receive a video of a debate between Rushton and Joseph L Graves along with two other scholars that occurred several years ago. I will upload it to Youtube the day that I obtain it. I’ve been informed that my DVD copy of this video has already been shipped to me so I should have it very soon.

    Reply

14. First, I am a black african living and studying in the US and trust me I have seen my share of dull people independent of race. Looking at the data objectively, it is a statisticians dream data to tear apart. The argument against discrimination isin’t the average. It is the generalization. Even if it were true that on the average, blacks were duller. Does this hold true in every case? No. Why should any one consider me dull just becase he has met dull black people or why should I consider you smart just because I have met smart pple. Let go of the average. If it is not true in every case then its of no use to anyone.

    Reply

    1. I think the data is very clear. People just argue about why these differences exist. Decades of head-start, affirmative action have not managed to close the gap. And Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese war fugitives, Koreans, all these don’t need any affirmative action to flourish and become privileged classes in the second and third generation.

       Sure, all is averages. But these averages are important when politicians claim discrimination when blacks are under-represented in elite colleges, and over-represented in jail. There are intelligent individuals in the black race, but less of them, and much less have extremely high genius level intelligence, needed to win science Nobel prizes.

       Reply

       1. @admin:

          “And Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese war fugitives, Koreans, all these don’t need any affirmative action to flourish and become privileged classes in the second and third generation.”

          This statement clearly proves that you are utterly clueless and possibly unfit to participate in this discussion. Every Asian group you identified has taken advantage of Affirmative Action, more so than African Americans who fought for it. But no single group has benefited from Affirmative Action more than white women, and you as a white man are an indirect beneficiary, more so than blacks.

          “But these averages are important when politicians claim discrimination when blacks are under-represented in elite colleges, and over-represented in jail.”

          Blacks from Africa and their American born children are OVERREPRESENTED in elite colleges and UNDERREPRESENTED in jail. These are pure blacks without a hint of white DNA. That alone deconstructs your ridiculous assumptions about intelligence.

          Reply

          1. ‘Every Asian group you identified has taken advantage of Affirmative Action, more so than African Americans who fought for it. ‘

             This is false. Far more often, Asian Americans face de facto discrimination in these regards.

             http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/asian_americans_and_affirmativ.html

             African Americans who fought for it? The high-level fighting has largely been by Jews, and it’s unlikely that they’ve had the best interests of African-Americans at heart.

             ‘But no single group has benefited from Affirmative Action more than white women, and you as a white man are an indirect beneficiary, more so than blacks.’

             Really? Funny you mention that – reminds me of how crude sex stereotyping with regard to intelligence is more politically correct than even the most rigorous scientific studies with regard to race and intelligence. You can turn on the TV and see someone like Bill Maher saying that women can’t do math. Far more qualified statements regarding race differences in intelligence can easily lead to a firestorm and a firing.

       2. @admin:

          “There are intelligent individuals in the black race, but less of them”

          Preposterous. I am increasingly of the opinion that you are simply too stupid to participate in this discussion. Ironic, isn’t it?

          “There are intelligent individuals in the black race, but less of them”

          You’re a layman, and not a very bright one either. Name one credible scientist who would concur with you that while there are intelligent blacks, there are less of them. Name just one. That is possibly the dumbest thing any poster has said on this board.

          Since you are questioning the intelligence of black people, I would expect you to be sharp and intelligent yourself. But you are not. You are possibly the dumbest individual posting on this thread — black, white or other wise.

          “and much less have extremely high genius level intelligence, needed to win science Nobel prizes.”

          Complete and utter nonsense. If blacks were not capable of so-called extremely high genius level, there wouldn’t be a single black person in those ranks, period. Nature cannot magically ordain that blacks will have less members of extremely high intellect. Just like whites or Asians, either an ethnic group is capable of extremely high genius level (according to the European standard) or they’re not. And all ethnic groups are capable of extremely high genius level, measured according to the European standard. The percentages of a given ethnic group at those high genius levels CANNOT be genetics based. That would be completely impossible. Again, nature cannot ordain that there are more geniuses among whites than among blacks. Blacks and whites are either capable of genius level intelligence or they’re not. Period.

          As to your reference once again of the Nobel Prize for science, you were asked up thread how many of your own Northern European ancestors would have won the Nobel Prize at the time of Ancient Egypt or even at the time of the great Chinese civilizations. You have studiously avoided that question along with many others. So let me answer for you: the answer is that none of your ancestors would’ve won a Nobel Prize during the time of Ancient Egypt or Ancient China or even Ancient Rome.

          Reply

          1. Ockechukwu :
             >The percentages of a given ethnic group at those high genius levels CANNOT be genetics based.

             The percentage of lactose intolerant people in one ethnic group cannot be genetically based.

             The percentage of sickle cell anemia sufferers in one race cannot be genetically based.

             The percentage of Olympic 100 m finalists and marathon run winners in one race cannot be genetically based

             The aggressiveness of attack dogs cannot be genetically based.

             The learning capacity and intelligence of German Shepard Dogs cannot be genetically determined.

             Ockechukwu :
             Nature cannot magically ordain that blacks will have less members of extremely high intellect.

             Nature cannot ordain that blacks will have darker skin.

             Nature cannot ordain that blacks have higher testosterone levels.

             Nature cannot ordain that blacks have earlier menarche.

             Ockechukwu :
             Name one credible scientist who would concur with you that while there are intelligent blacks, there are less of them.

             This is what this entire article is about. Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn and hundreds that are cited in their works. It is totally uncontested that blacks everywhere score lower on IQ tests.

             Just that many politically correct scientists still try to defend the hypothesis that this is NOT genetically based.

             Read all my articles on race and iq:

             http://human-stupidity.com/irrationality/stupid-dogma/racial-differences-intelligence

          2. ‘So let me answer for you: the answer is that none of your ancestors would’ve won a Nobel Prize during the time of Ancient Egypt or Ancient China or even Ancient Rome.’

             Maybe or maybe not, but an examination of the historical, anthropological, and statistical records quickly shows that ancient Egyptians, ancient Chinese, and ancient Romans tended to be more innovative, inventive, and productive than are modern Black Africans. (Yes, statistical – even, say, ancient and medieval Europeans kept more reliable statistical records than do modern Blacks.)

             This also reminds me of how medieval England had a higher standard of living than do most modern Black African countries.

             http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/medieval_england_twice

             Granting a time machine, would medieval peasants probably tend to score considerably higher on culture-fair IQ tests than do most modern Black Africans? Probably so.

    2. ‘First, I am a black african living and studying in the US and trust me I have seen my share of dull people independent of race.’

       Of that I have no doubt, but this does not negate important facts with regard to averages. For example, since there are relatively so few South African Blacks with IQs over about 115, or about one SD over the White norm, modern industrial society largely cannot be maintained under the ANC. On the other hand, in Cote d’Ivoire the infrastructure has been much better maintained or the most part due to the heavy presence of French advisers.

       ‘Looking at the data objectively, it is a statisticians dream data to tear apart.’

       Compared to Whites or Orientals, very few Black Africans are cognitively capable of doing advanced statistics. Consider yourself blessed.

       The average IQ of black Africans is about 70. The average IQ of an occupational mathematician is about 140, or twice as high. Even on the low end mathematicians tend to be at least around 115-120.

       ‘Even if it were true that on the average, blacks were duller. Does this hold true in every case? No.’

       This is irrelevant. Een if it were true that on the average, men are better at most sports than women, does this hold true in every case? No, but men still tend to be better at most sports than women.

       ‘Why should any one consider me dull just becase he has met dull black people or why should I consider you smart just because I have met smart pple.’

       Did anyone actually say they consider you dull for these reasons?

       ‘Let go of the average. If it is not true in every case then its of no use to anyone.’

       No. It’s this kind of sloppy thinking which helped turn South Africa into a nightmarish place where most high schoolers can’t read but most women do get raped (real rape, none of this getting breathed on too hard like in Sweden) by the time they are 18. That includes the Black women.

       Reply

15. Whites have always been considered generally more intelligent than all other races on earth as evidenced by their high achievement that span centuries. On the other hand, according to four recent independent university studies performed in different countries, it was scientifically and statistically proven that South Koreans had the highest average IQ of 106-107 (ranked 1st worldwide), while Jews had average IQ scores of 91 (ranked 33rd worldwide). What was interesting was that gentile Whites from Europe and America had average IQ’s that were slightly lower than that of South Korea’s people, but had significantly higher intelligence quotient scores than the Jews. What does this all mean? Who knows? But if South Korea’s rapid economic growth and technological advancement within only a few decades after the Korean War is any indication of it’s peoples intelligence, then one can say that research supports the contention that the smarter the race the more technologically advanced and economically prosperous the country will be even within a short span of time.

    Reply

16. It sounds like you are producing troubles your self by trying to clear up this issue as opposed to looking at why
    their is a issue in the 1st location
    wegebere.de

    Reply

17. Although I like your website,I think this is a rather useless topic.Lynn has a Chinese wife and Rushton is funded by an organization that supports eugenics.So there could be a political bias in their results.Moreover,even if their results were true,they do nothing more than propagate a stereotype.Ultimately it’s the merit of the individual that counts.
    Moreover,there is no solid proof that IQ cannot be increased.Indeed some people significantly increase their IQs over time,even though most do not.

    And finally,geniuses have very little to do high IQ.Read the book “Genius Explained” by Michael J.A. Howe

    Reply

    1. ‘Although I like your website,I think this is a rather useless topic.Lynn has a Chinese wife and Rushton is funded by an organization that supports eugenics.’

       Is the second sentence supposed to somehow support the initial premise? It doesn’t. Lynn and Rushton could be Chinese Nazis – and gay Jews all at the same time! – but that would have no necessary bearing on whether or not their findings, theories, etc., are true.

       Similarly, if a mathematician says that 2 and 2 make 4 but turns out to be a Nazi, in no way does this invalidate the sum.

       ‘I am not a scientist myself however I do believe my reading level is high enough and my grasp of the Scientific method good enough to understand the research that has been put fourth by these scientists (I did get A’s in Biology, Psychology and Medical Science in college).’

       Have you considered a career in comedy? Talk of gay Jews aside, let me get this straight — Rushton — a John Simon Guggenheim Fellow and a professor of psychology at with holds two doctorates from the University of London (PhD and DSc) and a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and of the American, British, and Canadian Psychological Associations — should, you say, not be taken seriously. On the other hand, you got A’s in Biology, Psychology and Medical Science in college so we should take your assessment of the professor very seriously!

       As if that is not silly enough, you repeatedly claim that evolutionary biologists do not take Rushton seriously, especially when it comes to his application of r/K selection theory to the human races. Yet E.O. Wilson, one of the co-founders of r/K selection theory, had this to say about Rushton:

       “I think Phil is an honest and capable researcher. The basic reasoning by Rushton is solid evolutionary reasoning; that is, it is logically sound. If he had seen some apparent geographic variation for a non-human species-a species of sparrow or sparrow hawk, for example-no one would have batted an eye.”

       The problem with most “critics” of hereditarians is that even before reviewing new data, findings, or theories, they were already 100% set on insisting that there are no significant race differences in intelligence, temperament, etc. Essentially, they had (at least outwardly) adopted a dogma that Slate writer William Saletan once referred to as “liberal creationism.”

       One problem with environmental explanations of race differences in intelligence, personality, achievement, etc., is that they are woefully inconsistent with most every line of evidence from most every disclipline, not to mention stereotypes which are remarkably — even if not absolutely — consistent across temporal, social, and cultural lines. As far back as the 8th century and before, Arab explorers and slave-owners found that Blacks tend to be not only less intelligent, but also more sexual, more rhythmic, poorer long-term planners, etc., etc. Some variation of “that’s just a stereotype!” is often used by race-deniers as if it is a refutation, yet as Satoshi Kanazawa, evolutionary psychologist at LSE, has pointed out, most stereotypes turn out to be empirically true.

       Another problem for your stance is that although people who defend it are often intelligent, they tend to resort to a few extremely stupid and usually fallacious arguments – when they even pretend to use arguments at all. If we are to believe Ocheck, he seriously rejects out of hand that there are proportionately more Black Africans than their White counterparts with IQs of 115 and over. Yet this is a plainly true empirical fact which is confirmed by ALL IQ tests in ANY predominantly Black African country. Even in Black populations in Western countries, where factors (likely including better nutrition and admixture with Whites) result in a higher average IQ for the Blacks relative to their counterparts in s-S Africa, rates of mental retardation are much higher among Blacks than Whites. The corrolary is that rates of relatively high IQ are much lower. This reality is even more true in s-S Africa.

       If Ock or anyone else here really cannot understand this basic fact of statistics, he should go learn basic statistics and, if successful, give debating these matters another shot. I find it difficult to believe that any of you could be anywhere near as stupid as so many of your “arguments,” though. Ockech can figure out how to use computers, use the Internet, comment on these blogs, form complete sentences, etc., yet probabilistic vs. absolute differences are utterly beyond his grasp? That is not plausible! What we likely have here is a matter of disingenuity (at least to himself, if not deliberately to others as well) — a matter of being mendacious rather than moronic.

       Amusingly, nearly no college-educated English speakers so unable to grasp probabilistic group differences would be able to comprehend many of the comments here, let alone the article. Even words such as “disingenuity” and “mendacity” would typically be able the normal reading level of someone dull enough to be inherently unable to grasp the basic statistical principle that a probabilistic differences need not imply any absolute differences at all.

       So just in case, Ockech: you ain’t stupid; you lyin’. >:)

       Reply

       1. Note: I accidentally posted two replies (actually probably should have been three, considering my tangents about Ockech) in one comment. In my above comment, the first quote is from AB, whereas the second (“I am not a scientist myself…”) is from EgalitarianJay. My apologies! I did not have access to an edit function or I would have used it.

          Reply

          1. Another correction. Here I meant to type “proportionately FEWER” rather than “proportionately MORE”:
             ‘If we are to believe Ocheck, he seriously rejects out of hand that there are proportionately more Black Africans than their White counterparts with IQs of 115 and over.’

             Back to AB —

             AB:
             “Ultimately it’s the merit of the individual that counts.”

             Consideration of individual merit and consideration of group differences are not mutually exclusive. Group differences are often very relevant to public policy with regard to large-scale populations. For example, South African Blacks, relative to Whites, have much lower average IQs, tend to be much more impulsive and less inhibited, and, to simplify, are much more likely to score high in psychopathy on personality tests. This has to do with real implications which are relevant to public policy, e.g., whereas forcible rape in apartheid South Africa was rare, South Africa is now the rape capital of the world. The rates of murder, aggravated assault, HIV/AIDS, illegitimacy, burglary, etc., etc., have also shot up drastically. The attitude of many so-called liberals is that mentioning this grim reality ‘out loud’ can easily be far worse than the grim reality itself. Yet if we do not 1) acknowledge that these problems exist and 2) scientifically and empirically investigate the possible causes of these problems, this actually makes the problems much more difficult to solve. So even if we ignore that science should be about seeking the truth, the case has hardly been made that repressing politically incorrect race research is likely to reduce levels of inequality. To the contrary, just the opposite is likely to be true. Every hereditarian scientist of whom I am aware acknowledges that IQ can be increased (good luck finding a hereditarian who rejects ANY role for environmental factors!), often by adjusting environmental variables such as nutrition. Yet often, even acknowledging race differences in IQ at all is highly taboo, which is an obstacle to devising and implementing practical solutions such as encouraging breastfeeding over bottlefeeding among mothers (IIRC, this can accrue a benefit of up to +10 IQ points for breastfed over bottlefed child – yet to acknowledge that Black children would especially benefit requires accepting empirical facts which are dogmatically dismissed as “racist” by all too many so-called egalitarians).

18. Anyone who thought about self-fulfilling prophecy????

    Just by the way… I mean, watch Youtube, most “black” topics –> problems (neutral videos only a few views), most “Asian” topics –> pride (neutral videos extreme many views) and everywhere you just hear stereotype-contents.
    Even if a black child is adopted by white parents who love it, there is still the neighbourhood and media. Not to mention the history class…

    Reply

19. @ EgalitarianJay

    I agree with you that morphology may play a role in sporting performance. But as you’ve pointed out, the characteristics that would enable West Africans or their descendants to excel in certain sports are not unique to West Africans. Socio-economic factors and tendencies are much more determinative.

    The fact that there aren’t any black hockey players doesn’t mean that blacks don’t know how to skate. Similarly, how many whites seriously apply themselves from youth to the idea of being a world class sprinter? In the West, not many. But white sprinters from Eastern Europe do beat their black counterparts all the time. In fact in the 4×4 relay in the last Olympics, the all-white Russian women took the silver medal, beating several all-black teams. The only all-black team the Russians didn’t defeat was the United States, which took the gold.

    Some of the best basketball and some of the best basketball athletes come out of Eastern Europe. Same with boxing. In recent years Eastern Europeans have dominated the heavyweight boxing ranks.

    So we can prove conclusively, looking at an abundance of evidence, that the alleged differences in physical racial traits have a great deal less to do with athletic performance than will, dedication, training and practice — which in turn are typically determined by socio-economic circumstances.

    The white American guy knows he has a nice and safe route to a high paying career that doesn’t involve being pummeled physically or suffering concussive brain injuries. Potential Jack Dempseys and Rocky Marcianos are born every day, but they don’t go into boxing. The average lawyer or doctor or investment banker will earn vastly more over the course of his career than the average boxer. In fact studies have been done that demonstrate that that an MBA degree is more valuable than a career in professional sports, which is typically short lived.

    Reply

20. @ Admin

    If they were handing out awards for math and science akin to the modern day Nobel Prize during the time of Ancient Egypt or Ancient Rome, how many Northern European so-called barbarians would have received the award?

    If you answered “none” you would be correct. So none of your own ancestors and none of the ancestors of the overwhelming majority of Nobel winners would have been considered. Indeed the ancestors of the creators of the Nobel Prize wouldn’t have been considered. Were they stupid or intellectually and cognitively inferior?

    Intelligent and thoughtful people understand that human intelligence doesn’t work that way. Just because the Romans found the Britons and Germans in mud huts and, by our present Western standards, utterly and completely backwards and undeveloped, it doesn’t follow that those Romans were somehow genetically superior or that the Britons and Germans were genetically inferior.

    When blacks and whites compete on a level playing field where the cultural, historical and institutional advantages usually enjoyed by whites are not eliminated but somehow mitigated, it has been demonstrated over and over again that, indeed, blacks can out-perform whites. Even when white advantages have not been mitigated at all, some blacks have still out-performed whites.

    Reply

    1. Get a proper education. The ancient Britons didn’t live in mud huts. Archaeological finds have proven for at least seven thousand years before the Romans came to Britain, my ancestors lived in a society totally isolated from Europe. They were advanced both in agriculture and industry.They lived in sophisticated wood structures with megalithic stone floors. They also built complicated stone circle structures like Stonehenge. For some reason the liberals who control our children’s education, start our history from the Roman invasion.

       Reply

21. I recommend watching a documentary titled Race and Intelligence: Science’s Last Taboo. It features a journalist investigating theories about the cause of the Black-White IQ gap by interviewing several scholars. Among the interviewees are Richard Lynn, J Philippe Rushton, Richard Nisbett and James Flynn. I’ve uploaded it to Youtube under the name EgalitarianJay. Someone else has it uploaded on Dailymotion.

    The main point I want to make here is that there is such a thing as bias in scientific research. It’s been demonstrated by several scholars that much of the theories on racial differences in intelligence throughout history were pseudoscientific and conducted during eras where the objective of proving such a theory was to justify racist social policies.

    I do not believe that research like Rushton’s should be censored. It should be subjected to rigorous scientific critique which has been done. I am not a scientist myself however I do believe my reading level is high enough and my grasp of the Scientific method good enough to understand the research that has been put fourth by these scientists (I did get A’s in Biology, Psychology and Medical Science in college).

    The reason I am so skeptical of Rushton’s research is because he ignores evidence that undermines his position. His bias in favor of genetic determinism is obvious. The basic premise of his research is to find scientific justifications for racial stereotypes such as Black people being stupid and over-sexed.

    If you read the beginning of his book Race, Evolution and Behavior he provides a considerably biased interpretation of African history and his sources have been revealed as racist. When you hear him argue about the existence of different races he does not discuss social and biological definitions nor any sort of objective criteria but rather tries to prove empirically that there are biological differences between humans (something no reputable scientist challenges) then uses that evidence as proof that there are human races while choosing only to study the classical 3 race model (Caucasoids, Negroids, Mongoloids) excluding several human populations in the process. In reality he is studying demographic groups and nations (not distinct biological entities) and calling them races.

    C Loring Brace describes the research in Rushton’s book as “Bad Biology and Inexcusable Anthropology”.

    I agree with that assessment. I’m not here to convince anyone of my position only to discuss the claims put forward.

    Reply

22. Why are my posts on moderation all of a sudden?

    By the way I believe I did mention that Rushton and Graves have had a debate already. I contacted Graves who offered to send the video but he says he can’t find it.
    I’m trying to see if I can find another way to acquire it.

    I don’t think you’re going to be able to get either to debate on this forum itself. They are busy scientists but it would be good if we could get some of these video debates uploaded for the public. Graves responded to Rushton’s criticisms of Gould in his book The Emperor’s New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the Millennium which I am currently reading.

    Reply

23. There are alot of problems with your argument. First of all you are being dismissive of Graves authority as an evolutionary biologist (not an anthropologist). This is illogical. Graves is an expert on evolutionary theory and biology so he is more qualified to speak on this subject than Rushton. The article is very long but if you take the time to read you should realize that Graves does not go off on tangents he goes into detail on why r/K selection theory is inapplicable to humans (a consensus among evolutionary biologists), how Rushton got the theory backwards and why it appears that Rushton does not even understand life history theory in general. I’m not saying that Graves is right and Rushton is wrong because Graves is an expert and Rushton is not, I did give you a summary of the arguments Graves makes.

    The logic of Rushton’s theory of racial hierarchies is not consistent. I gave you a simply example with Native Americans and East Asians of how the theory of race determining IQ doesn’t work. IQ score averages don’t even remain consistent among the traditional race models that Rushton uses. It only appears to work if you select certain groups that fit the pattern and leave out others. Also if we’re are talking about the anthropometric data as I said, both Lieberman and Graves debunked it.

    You shouldn’t judge a book entirely by its title (and by your logic I should dismiss Rushton’s research as nothing more than the work of an agenda driven ideologue because he made a book titled Race, Evolution and Behavior). I don’t think you’ve taken the time to actually understand the arguments against biological races. I have provided a summary in an earlier post but I’ll repeat the general argument again. It isn’t that there is no genetic variation between human populations it’s the fact that human populations themselves do not meet the taxonomic criteria for classification as subspecies. That’s the basis for saying there are no races. Of course there are phenotypes which we can distinguish with are own eyes as well as with forensic analysis but those phenotypes do not reflect a distinct evolutionary lineage.

    Kittles and Long (2003) provide a summary of the reasons why racial classifications do not fit human genetic variation: (1) There are no agreed upon criteria for when to assign formal names to groups that might more appropriately be considered aggregates of local populations. (2) Race classifications fail for phenotypically intermediate populations. (3) They fail for individuals who trace their ancestry to two or more named races. (4) They are defied by sets of characters that show independent geographic trends. (5) It has been difficult to relate many human populations as distinct evolutionary lineages.

    As far as race and medicine is concerned Graves also wrote articles on race and its relevance to biomedical research. Because there is genetic variation between human populations and because there are heritable diseases and genetic predispositions to certain health risks there is need to study genetic variation and ascertain whether or not medication needs to be assigned to specific people based on ancestry. However this principle can be better described as gene-based medicine not race-based medicine because biological categories based on phenotype are invalid for humans.

    You can have a medication that works for some people but doesn’t work for other people who have a similar phenotype given the tremendous genetic variability within continental populations. So there may be a medication that percentage wise is more helpful to people of Irish descent than Germans even though according to traditional racial classifications those people are the same race. There may be medications that are more effective for Africans on average than for Europeans but that doesn’t validate racial categories. Genetic variation should be considered by medical professionals but there are cases where assigning medicine by race can be detrimental for patients. You also have to consider environmental factors that may be relevant to the health of demographic groups and geographic populations that don’t have a genetic basis. I’ll provide Graves articles on this subject for the benefit of you and other readers:

    http://www.megaupload.com/?d=1X1KEXO5

    http://www.megaupload.com/?d=TCKGFSUR

    As for your last sentence I repeat again that controversy surrounding Rushton’s research doesn’t make it any more credible. I can argue just as easily that Rushton’s research is biased because it supports racists as you can that Graves is biased because his research favors the views of Egalitarians. We should look at the arguments and evidence of both.

    Reply

24. I downloaded, and partially read your recommended literature.

    You doubted Rushtons qualifications. From my experience, anthropologists (like Graves) are not very highly qualified in exact sciences and better in ideology and story telling.

    In the article you cite, Joseph Graves goes off on all kinds of tangents. Maybe he is right that certain aspects in R-k selection theory in animals are divergent from Rushton’s racial analogies. That still does not invalidate the huge mass of research shown by Rushton, nor the quite consistent logic.

    The Race Myth: Why We Pretend Race Exists in America by Joseph L. Graves

    An author that writes a book with such a title already makes me doubt about his scientific qualification and about him having an agenda:

    Rushton has a free downloadable article debunking these myths. Any forensic specialist can tell you the race of a person from a single bone (that is far below the skin), and many blacks have suffered because they took wrong medication dosages, because the pharmaceutic industry did not dare to be offensive by differentiating medicine by race.

    Is Race A Valid Taxonomic Construct?

    Also, always keep in mind that it is very risky to support Rushton’s positions. So research will tend to be biased.

    But scientific debate is good, and I wish I could invite Graves and Rushton to argue things out. Stephen Gould was debunked by Rushton.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V9F-3SWXY6J-1J&_user=10&_coverDate=07%2F31%2F1997&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1543290086&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=114d3c5a27c23989c599f1b99303fc70&searchtype=a

    It seems that these people are not so much scientific, but biased by anthropological dogma.

    Here is an example of Rushton talking about scientific persecution.

    http://www.pioneerfund.org/ALR_pdf.pdf

    Reply

25. About East Asians. Even in the case of the ones who came from working class and poor families that went on to excel and crowd Universities you have to consider culture. Northeast Asian cultures were inspired by the philosophies of Confucius to study hard in order to succeed in life and this is reflected in the study habits of Asian-American students as well as the high education standards of countries like China, Korea and Japan.

    African-American communities do not have that cultural legacy of valuing education as a foundation. In fact in many urban areas Black students who focus on their education and practice good study habits are seeing as “acting White” by some of their peers as Whiteness is associated with a strong educational value. Tremendous psychological damage has been done to Black Americans by institutional racism that has damaged Black self-esteem and created negative social attitudes as a reaction to racist stereotypes. Although Asian-Americans has experienced racism it wasn’t at the same level as anti-Black racism and they have that cultural foundation which by the way isn’t unique. It can be seen in Ashkenazi Jews and African immigrants.

    Now here is something no racialist has been able to explain to me. If there is a racial basis to intelligence and a racial hierarchical order that sees East Asians at the top why are so many Southeast Asian countries poor? Why do Native American and Hispanic communities suffer from social pathologies and have lower average IQ than Whites if they are from the same Mongoloid racial stock as Northeast Asians? Noone has EVER given me a sensible answer and I have come to the conclusion that this is one of the most notable contradictions in the current racialist theory about the cause of IQ variation in continental populations. Rushton as far as I know provides no explanation in fact his research is focused on a 3 race model that does not include every human population out there and his placing of Orientals at the top of the hierarchy is only in reference to Northeast Asians.

    With his evolutionary model based on a discredited theory and his Life History variables based on misinterpretations of anthropometric data as well as dubious social science research Rushton’s racial theory fails when you further take into account this glaring contradiction in his own racial model.

    Reply

26. @Admin:

    Let me be a bit more specific about the refutations to Rushton’s evolutionary arguments and claims of racial hierarchies in brain size/cranial capacity. Now you mentioned Rushton’s application of r/K selection theory to the life histories of human populations. This is the most comprehensive attempt in modern history by the race-realist crowd to find a scientific explanation for racial differences in mental traits. Rushton’s theory is that races are adapted to different climates and as a consequence evolved different reproductive strategies to deal with the trials of life in their respective climates.

    According to Rushton, humans evolved from a common ancestor with the Great Apes in Africa (adhering to the Out of Africa model of human migration). Sub-Saharan African populations (“Negroids”) are said by Rushton to have adopted an r-strategy to deal with tropical climates. According to Rushton r-strategists like Africans have faster rates of maturation, higher rates of fertility and a greater prevalence of sex hormones leading to differences in birth rates, sexual behavior, social organization and altruism. K-Strategists are believed by Rushton to have evolved larger brains to deal with the complexities of surviving harsh winters in Northern climates leading to slower rates of maturation, lower fertility rates, lower prevalence of sex hormones a greater tendency towards caring for young and planning ahead by building shelter and storing food. Adopting this K-strategy lead Europeans and Asians to select for higher average intelligence.

    Here’s the problem. While C Loring Brace notes the absurdity of the proposition by pointing out that none of Rushton’s claims are based on realized reproduction figures (in fact there are 3 times as many Chinese in the world as Sub-Saharan Africans) Joseph L Graves points out the fallacy of Rushton’s whole theory by pointing out that he got the whole thing backwards. According to r/K selection theory organisms in tropical climates, which make for a more predictable environment, would be the K-strategists meaning we should expect all of these attributes attributed to Europeans and Asians to be present in Africans.

    As it is r/K selection theory isn’t considered by most modern evolutionary biologists to be applicable to mammals because they cannot predict which life history trade offs are favored by selection. Rushton’s theory of evolutionary racial differences relies on the r- and k- continuum even though according to modern biologists such as Alan Templeton it cannot be thought of as a continuum since it is impossible to specify a single phenotype that is optimal under one or the other. Therefore Graves concludes that Rushton relies on a theory that is invalid and is incorrectly applied by him in the first place. He also states that Rushton’s data sources used to support his theory are biased but I don’t have time to go into that.

    What matters is that Rushton’s application of r/k selection theory is invalid and not applicable to humans at all. His saving grace would appear to be claims of racial hierarchies in brain size/cranial capacity because after all if he can prove such racial differences exist he really doesn’t need a fancy evolutionary theory to explain how these differences came about right? Well here too he runs into problems which have been outlined in Leonard Lieberman’s article, “How Caucasoids got such big crania and why they shrank: From Morton to Rushton.”

    Lieberman starts off by deconstructing the race concept that Rushton adheres to posing the same arguments I’ve made in a previous post to make it clear that human biological variation is not structured in the way that Rushton believes it to be (basically an amalgamation of heritable traits that are consistently correlated and reflect a distinct evolutionary lineage). As there are no phylogenetic sub-species (“races”) to speak of Rushton’s data is not based on biological categories but rather folk taxonomies constructed from traditional racial concepts.

    Lieberman notes that there are no acceptable measures of the head size of all the diverse human populations to begin with and takes issue with Rushton’s use of aggregation which he claims to be invalid. According to Lieberman Rushton’s research lacks content validity. He claims correlations of brain size with intelligence to be as high as .50 to .60 when in reality applying his principle of aggregation to the 47 studies listed you would reach a correlation of about .24 which is statistically weak. He also does not acknowledge that empirical similarity has been established for the populations Rushton aggregates.

    Lieberman goes on to note that Rushton’s model of cranioracial variation contradicts evolutionary anthropology citing Beals, Smith, and
    Dodd (1984) who conclude that human crania vary by latitude and that a case for racial hierarchy cannot be made. Finally he notes that Rushton’s brain measurements do not utilize control variables utilized by Tobias. In 1970 Tobias conducted a study on the brain sizes of different racial groups listing a set of control variables that became acceptable for measuring brain weight at autopsy which included: sex, body size, age at death, early-life nutrition, early-life environment, source of sample, occupational group, cause of death, lapse of time after death, temperature after death, anatomical level of severance, presence or absence of cerebral spinal fluid, presence or absence of meninges, and presence or absence of blood vessels (Tobias’s conclusion was that there was no structural difference between the brains of Blacks and Whites that could be used to establish a racial distinction between them).

    In the same article Rushton did counter that he cited a study by Ho et al. (1980) which concluded that there were racial differences in brain size with an Asian>White>Black hierarchy established and that the study used all of the control variables mentioned by Tobias. Rushton left out the researchers statements in a future study that because there was no discernible racial difference in brain size between infants the differences they did discover in adults were likely caused by environment.

    I asked Graves about this myself and he noted that variations in cranial size/body ratio while they can determine differences in intelligence between species are not sufficient for determining which animals are more intelligent within a species. He went on to note that some of the greatest scientific minds in the world, people who donated their brains to science were discovered to have smaller than average brains while exhibiting complex neural structures which Graves notes in tests of rats can change dramatically by subjecting one group to environmental stimuli. It simply cannot be determined from the study of brains that one group of people is more intelligent than another whether you look at cranial measurements or MRI scans.

    The notion that bigger brains = more intelligent minds has not been established when you account for the fact that there are significant brain size differences between genders which can be attributed to the shorter stature of women as there are no major differences in average IQ score between genders. According to Schoenemann et al. 2000 brain size does not predict cognitive ability within families as nongenetic events play a significant role in brain volume and cognitive ability associations.

    So basically Rushton does not have a solid argument from an evolutionary perspective nor one based on anthropometric data for racial hierarchies in intelligence. What we are left with are IQ studies that test a genetic hypothesis which as I mentioned was addressed by psychologists such as Richard Nisbett and James Flynn who have provided substantial IQ research supporting the claim that Black American IQ is converging on White American IQ as their Socioeconomic status and educational standards improve, intervention programs such as Head Start can boost Black IQ and the most relevant studies that test for a genetic component to the Black-White IQ gap support the Nil Hypothesis.

    I suppose this debate is never going to end until the Black-White IQ gap in America disappears altogether proving that it was never immutable all along and destroying claims of a difference in intelligence between so-called races. Even then racists will still be racist. But so much for reputable scientific research being PC dogma, eh?

    Reply

    1. “as there are no major differences in average IQ score between genders.”

       Um, you’re wrong… there is few points of IQ difference between the genders.

       Reply

       1. The IQ differences between genders seem fairly small. The largest I heard of is 5 points. Which is not that small.

          But it is so taboo, you hardly hear about it. The tests also might get normalized in ways that the difference disappears.

          You are welcome to post a few links about this.

          Reply

27. * The Negro inferiority comment was made by the founder of the Pioneer Fund.

    Reply

28. I have read the research of Rushton and Lynn. Rushton’s application of r/K selection theory to human populations was refuted by Joseph L Graves one of the world’s leading evolutionary biologists who exposed his lack of understanding the concept itself. I’m in contact with Graves and working on getting getting a debate between himself and Rushton onto Youtube so people can see for themselves how Rushton’s evolutionary theories hold up to an actual expert in the field. In the meantime I recommend reading Graves critique of Rushton’s evolutionary theories. Read “What a tangled web he weaves:
    Race, reproductive strategies and Rushton’s life history theory”. You can download it here:

    http://www.megaupload.com/?d=4IHFPUHM

    Like I said before Leonard Lieberman refuted Rushton’s claims of racial hierarchies in brain size and cranial capacity. Graves has as well. I’m currently reading his book “The Emperor’s New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the Millennium” and all of these claims are addressed and debunked.

    Rushton’s claims of biological correlates with IQ, presuming a causal genetic link are actually some of his weaker arguments. He makes several errors in methodology and his conclusions have been shown to be demonstrably false. As a psychologist evolutionary theory and anthropometric research are outside of his field of expertise so it’s not surprising that he made so many errors but racialists still promote this research uncritically without looking at the science behind the claims.

    I can appreciate that people want to promote fringe theories that they believe are being suppressed by mainstream academia and media but this isn’t science it’s pseudoscience. The fact that scientists can be fired for advancing controversial theories lends no credibility to the theories themselves. Only established facts do. Rushton is the President of an organization (The Pioneer Fund) whose stated purpose with his financing of research (including research used by the Nazis and Segregationists) was to, “prove that Negroes were inferior”.

    These are hardly the objective scientists fighting politically correct dogma that you make them out to be. They are racist ideologues committed to advancing propaganda in order to influence social policy on race.

    Regarding your appeal to the Model Minority Myth of East Asians, most East Asian college graduates are not descended from impoverished Asian communities but rather recent immigrants to America who already had a decent amount of wealth and education upon immigrating to the United States. The same is true for African immigrants to the USA. There are still problems in Asian communities with advancement opportunities in the corporate world as well a unemployment in the current economic downturn so this idea of Asians being immune to the effects of White privilege is not credible.

    I’m all for letting research find the truth so I do hope that comments which challenge these racialist theories are allowed on the site.

    Reply

29. Egalitarian Jay: You are asking the right questions. No the nest step is: read the literature I cite. Rushton, Lynn (see the other articles I wrote on “Race and Intelligence”). And don’t forget, these are taboo topics that get a researcher fired and cause grant denials, so most of the other researchers are heavily biased.

    There are evolutionary ultimate explanations, why you cannot live in a Siberian climate with the same happygo-lucky attitude you can get by with in Africa.

    If you are looking for physiological differences, Rushton has long studies about blacks having relatively smaller cranial capacity. More testosterone (that is enough to explain criminality). More fast twitch muscles and fighting capacity. Earlier menarche, more twin births. All consistent with Rushton’s hypothesis: Blacks have numerically more offspring with less parental care and planning. (see r-K differences in animals)

    I had intelligent black postgraduate professors teaching statistics. But it seems, these already are the extremes. If a white or Asian nobel prize winner is 7 standard deviations more intelligent then average, then this is 8.5 standard deviations above black average intelligence.

    Observe that Vietnamese war orphans and grandchildren of Chinese railroad workers do not require protection by affirmative action. They overcrowd elite Universities by merit. Superior intelligence enhanced by cultural environment created by superior intelligent relatives.

    Once you accept to question the dogma, once you don’t fire researchers for their inconvenient study results but foster true science, you can find true scientific results. This is what this site stands for. Let unimpeded research find the truth.

    Reply

30. @Admin:

    I see racialists use the Black-White disparity in 100 meter dash argument all the time to note the absurdity of claiming that there are no racial differences. First of all fixating on this example displays a lack of understanding the actual scientific arguments against the theory of biological races. No reputable modern scientist that I know of has ever denied genetic variation across continental populations that result in the expression of different heritable traits. This is a fact that is observable.

    The claim that race is only skin deep really isn’t common either. There’s no controversy over whether or not genetic variation between continental groups can determine differences in athletic performance. The controversy is over alleged racial differences in mental ability and no just because one difference is factual it doesn’t mean the other is. The scientists who adhere to the “no biological race” position argue that while some genetic variation between continental populations certainly exists it doesn’t mean that that variation is racial. What they are arguing over is the definition of race and how human biological variation is structured.

    The classic anthropological definition of race is the one equated with zoological taxonomy which is that races are human populations that are composed of anatomically uniform individuals that are differentiated in the expression of heritable traits from other populations and because of common ancestry more biologically similar to one another than to any member of another race. The standard skepticism of this line of thinking is towards the idea that any given heritable trait that defines a race is unique to that race and that these traits are consistently correlated.

    This form of racial thinking is what lead 19th century anthropologists to propose the idea of racial essences believing that because races had a fundamental biological commonality and were physically different from other races they must therefore have several biological differences including in mental ability. Thinking of human variation in this way lead to the obsession with measuring skulls and administering mental tests to prove differences between races.

    The arguments against this definition of race are that for one actual human genetic variation doesn’t reflect the idea that continental populations have enough genetic distinctiveness to be classified as races or sub-species. What as demonstrated by Richard Lewontin and other scholars that >85% of genetic variation lies within continental groups while around 10-15% lie between them. This means that the boundaries between these populations are are fuzzy or do not exist as an individual from one group can be more genetically similar to another. It has also been found by analyzing Y-Chromosome and mtDNA research that genetic lineages are discordant meaning that there is no uniform line of descent for populations with the same anatomical trait complex. Some populations have genetic lineages in common with populations that are not anatomically similar to them and don’t share such lineages with populations that are similar to them.

    Also continental groups do not have the same level of genetic distinctiveness from one another as the genetic diversity of non-African populations are sub-sets of diversity in African populations. I recommend reading Keita et al. 2004, “Conceptualizing Human Variation” for more detail. Also read Graves 2009, ” Biological V. Social Definitions of Race: Implications for Modern Biomedical Research”. If you take the time to read you will have a better understanding of these scientific arguments.

    So my answer to you is that it is most likely that there is anatomical variation between some African populations and other populations that leads people of West African descent to excel at the 100 meter dash disproportionately. That doesn’t mean that fast running ability is consistently correlated with dark skin nor does it lend credibility to the taxonomic definition of race any more than variation in skin color, hair texture or craniofacial morphology does.

    The reason why there are fewer Black Nobel Prize winners in math and science are less obvious. For one thing these examples are hardly equivalent. The fastest sprinters are determined by competition while Nobel prize winners are decided by a committee. The idea that Blacks can’t think at least not on a great enough level to win a Nobel prize is not credible since there are plenty of successful Black mathematicians and scientists. It’s like saying that Blacks can’t act because there haven’t been a lot of Black Oscar winners for best actor/actress. Black people are a minority in 1st world countries where successful scholars usually come from and have historically been disenfranchised in the West so based on these facts we shouldn’t expect there to be many outstanding Black scholars. Blacks simply haven’t been afforded the same opportunities and the effects of Segregation are still felt in Black communities.

    I believe these socio-economic disparities have a cultural cause and can be improved with an improvement in environment.

    For someone like me I need concrete scientific proof that there are racial differences in mental ability. What is physically different about Black people that would lead to them having lower intelligence and a tendency towards criminality? Are their brains too small? Is there testosterone level too high? Did they take a wrong turn in Africa and simply evolve into inferior beings while Whites and Asians as evidence by their pristine heritage and amazing cultural achievement simply evolved into superior beings with higher intelligence and greater self control? I’m well aware that racialist scholars have gone in that direction but I don’t buy their results especially when there are refutations out there which I don’t believe the author of this page has even looked at.

    Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.