Biology of Race

If Africa were left untouched would the Bantus of Africa eventually discovered calculus?

I mean it’s awfully strange to think intelligence doesn’t vary by race when you step back and look how different groups operate

Speaking of, you’ve repetitively made extremely poor ones and been told why they’re poor.

No, it’s not. Population density is a huge factor in these things along with a million others.

Who is smarter- the one who discovers something or the one who has no need for it?

2 Likes

Yeah, did you ever look at the actual study text? Or the things the authors themselves said at the time and subsequently, and the subsequent interpretive differences?

No, of course not, because doing so doesn’t support your preconceived and simplistic idea of race determinism.

And you still need to read that Nature Genetics study. It doesn’t support you either.

Fun stolen quote;

I didn’t invent toilet paper, I was just smart enough to use it.

1 Like
  1. You haven’t defined race.
  2. You haven’t defined intelligence.

How on earth can you conclude that two undefined variables have a causal relationship?

2 Likes

No, I read people’s takes on these studies who actually study this sort of stuff. This is how the real world works. Do you think heads of state who make decisions on a whole assortment of issues are experts in economics, trade, constitutional law, etc? No they rely on people to summarize information for them so they can accurately make a decision.

At any rate this study confirms black IQ is genetic, you can read the summary I came to the conclusion I did here

Edit

[Quote]

The results showed that adoption had no beneficial effect whatever on the IQs of the black, inter-racial, or white children. Their average IQs at age 17 were 89 (black), 98 (inter-racial), and 106 (white). Different IQ tests were used from those in the earlier 1976 report, but they were still approximately 10 years out of date. Three points must therefore be added to the average IQ of the group to which the black children are compared — blacks in the northern states.

The IQ of northern blacks (adjusted up by three points) was 91 in 1986, so the black adopted children actually had lower IQs (89 vs 91) than northern blacks brought up in their own communities. The same absence of any effect is found for the inter-racial and white children after adjustments are made for the fact that the children were from northern states and that the test norms were obsolete.

Note also that the difference between the reported (unadjusted) IQs of black and white children reared in identical environments is 18 points (88 vs 106), slightly greater than the average difference between blacks and whites that has consistently been found since the First World War. Even if adjustments for obsolete test norms and northern origin of the children were not necessary or appropriate, this 18-point difference is very difficult for environmentalists to explain. If rearing environment rather than race accounts for racial differences in IQ, why do these differences remain even when the rearing environment is the same?

There is only one conclusion to be drawn from these results: being adopted by white college graduates has no beneficial effect whatever on the intelligence of black, white or inter-racial children at the age of 17. Since the results show that the rearing environment has no effect on the IQs of adopted children, the only conclusion to be drawn is that the factors responsible for these different levels of IQ are genetic. Not only do they vindicate the conclusion put forward by Dr. Jensen in 1969. They show that Dr. Jensen underestimated the genetic contribution to the low black IQ. The study by Dr. Scarr and Dr. Weinberg indicates that genetic factors are responsible for the entire black IQ deficit, not for between two-thirds and three-quarters of it as Dr. Jensen had suggested.

Curiously, in their paper Dr. Scarr and Dr. Weinberg state that their results “demonstrate the strong effects of the rearing environment on IQ.” Their results provide no evidence whatsoever for this statement. Apparently, the wish was father to the thought. [/quote]

  1. I have when I likened it to breeds of dogs

  2. I did when I talked about g as horse power behind major mental domains

You can happily continue to ignore what I wrote but don’t bother repeating these same points, i will not respond again.

An analogy (race:humans::breed:dogs) is not a definition.

A simile (intelligence is like horsepower) is not a definition.

As you have no substantive, defensible responses, I don’t blame you.

And American Renaissance is an openly racist website.

6 Likes

“In a society in which racism and sexism were absent, the questions of whether whites or men are more or less intelligent than blacks or women would not merely be meaningless — they would not even be asked. The problem is not that knowledge of such group intelligence differences is too dangerous, but rather that there is no valid knowledge to be found in this area at all. It’s just ideology masquerading as science.” -Neuroscientist Steven Rose (in the journal Nature).

That’s the problem. We have someone trying to apply science (who himself is not a scientist, and, no offense, but has a low scientific aptitude) to non-scientific questions.

7 Likes

a) No, it doesn’t confirm anything of the sort.
b) You should be very careful to avoid cherry picking data, or studies.
c) You just posted a link to a study in Nature Genetics that refutes what you claim this study shows and cited it as evidence of support for your position (unbelievably funny btw).
d) The authors of the interracial twins adoption study don’t agree with you or AmRen that it “confirms” that black IQ is genetic. They didn’t when they started it, when they finished it, or a decade after it was done and they have written about it.
e) Richard Lynn is not someone I would consider reliable OR rigorous on the subject of genetics, but that aside both his article on AmRen and his 90s papers were roundly criticized by the very authors of the study in question.

5 Likes

How in the world is comparing humans to dogs the same thing as defining race? If you have it clearly defined in your head, this next part should be cake.

Person A is 99% white, .5% hispanic, .5% asian
Person B is 40% white, 30% black, 30% asian
Person C is 30% indian, 50% white, 20% asian

What’re the races.

This is not a study, but an editorial by Richard Lynn, a white nationalist. He is not an evolutionary scientist, a geneticist, or a molecular biologist. He is a psychologist that is in no way qualified to use scientific tools and training to come to the conclusion you have from this essay. That’s like using a Bill O’Reilly column as proof that Trump is a great president.

9 Likes

This is complete hogwash. There are plenty of studies that show intelligence (IQ) varies by race.

[quote=“Aragorn, post:1140, topic:228119, full:true”]

You mean like biochemists and staticians and MD/PhDs? Oh, no… you don’t. You mean people who have decades of experience performing experiments and writing research as well as analyzing research? Oh no…not really. You mean whatever confirms your preexisting prejudices.[/quote]

YOU ARE A FACELESS PERSON ON THE INTERNET.

[quote=“Aragorn, post:1140, topic:228119, full:true”]

In some cases, yes they are. Nobody has a monopoly on all subjects but most of them have extensive training in at least one area that requires evaluation of evidence and logic (i.e. law). They wpuld also be wise to LISTEN to the experts that have summarized information and evaluate claims. [/quote]

You make comments on things that you have no training on - economics, geopolitical politics, military strategy. Do you have training on these things? Give me a break.

That’s the nature of the game in a world where academia is wholly controlled by the Left.

Look how every person who makes a connection to race and IQ is treated.

[quote=“antiquity, post:1142, topic:228119, full:true”]

This is not a study, but an editorial by Richard Lynn, a white nationalist. [/quote]

You clearly dropped white nationalist as a subtle attempt to discredit him.

You know it’s funny how people go to great lengths to downplay the importance of IQ while concurrently stating only people with these specific fancy pieces of paper (which require a high IQ to obtain) have the authority to speak on the subject.

Secondly, a psychologist named James Flynn discovered the Flynn effect which is not disputed. Let me guess it doesn’t count because he doesn’t have the fancy piece of paper required to study the topic?

The real problem is many scientists simply stay away from these subjects because of the blowback connected with examining and researching such topics.

Edit : see what James Watson has to say below

1 Like

Fury at DNA pioneer’s theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners

One of the world’s most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that “equal powers of reason” were shared across racial groups was a delusion.

James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America’s leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London.

The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when “testing” suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.

The newly formed Equality and Human Rights Commission, successor to the Commission for Racial Equality, said it was studying Dr Watson’s remarks “in full”. Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”. He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”.

His views are also reflected in a book published next week, in which he writes: “There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.”

The furore echoes the controversy created in the 1990s by The Bell Curve, a book co-authored by the American political scientist Charles Murray, which suggested differences in IQ were genetic and discussed the implications of a racial divide in intelligence. The work was heavily criticised across the world, in particular by leading scientists who described it as a work of “scientific racism”.

Dr Watson arrives in Britain today for a speaking tour to publicise his latest book, Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science. Among his first engagements is a speech to an audience at the Science Museum organised by the Dana Centre, which held a discussion last night on the history of scientific racism.

Critics of Dr Watson said there should be a robust response to his views across the spheres of politics and science. Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: "It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments. I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson’s personal prejudices.

I have to disagree. I think white nationalist was dropped in an obvious and overt attempt to discredit him. A successful attempt, I would add.

2 Likes

Ethics shmethics…To quote Thomas Dolby:

3 Likes

This would be all well and good, except that you’re not actually doing this.

Earlier in this thread, you posted an example of a “great book” which, upon further examination, was roundly criticized by the entire field of “people who actually study this sort of stuff.” Where was your relying on “people who actually study this sort of stuff” to summarize information for you back then?

3 Likes