• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Yoshi vs JordanN Debate Apocalypse Episode 1: "Stop calling Republicans Racists"

Status
Not open for further replies.

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,822
7,548
775
You don't understand your own studies that you post.

First of all, your study does not say that intelligence is 80% inherited. What it actually says is that heritability of intelligence increases from around 0.2 in early childhood to 0.8 in late adulthood. In essence, intelligence is not a flat 80% genetic heritage. In fact genes play much less of a role when it comes to the most important stage of development, which is early childhood.



This is a commonly known phenomenon called the "Wilson Effect" and has absolutely no bearing on the racial distribution of IQ. Funnily enough, geneticists consider this increase in genetic heritability with age to be influenced by environmental factors and age-related physical changes:

Various studies have found the heritability of IQ to be between 0.7 and 0.8 in adults and 0.45 in childhood in the United States. It may seem reasonable to expect that genetic influences on traits like IQ should become less important as one gains experiences with age. However, that the opposite occurs is well documented. Heritability measures in infancy are as low as 0.2, around 0.4 in middle childhood, and as high as 0.8 in adulthood. One proposed explanation is that people with different genes tend to seek out different environments that reinforce the effects of those genes. The brain undergoes morphological changes in development which suggests that age-related physical changes could also contribute to this effect
Given that children from well-off parents have better means of adapting their environment to their own needs, we can easily deduce that they also have better means to realize their potential in intelligence. Your own study even supports the influence of environmental factors on this increase:

Genotype-environment correlation seems the most likely explanation in which small genetic differences are magnified as children select, modify and create environments correlated with their genetic propensities.
Furthermore, your understanding of heritability is completely wrong:

Heritability measures the proportion of variation in a trait that can be attributed to genes, and not the proportion of a trait caused by genes. Thus, if the environment relevant to a given trait changes in a way that affects all members of the population equally, the mean value of the trait will change without any change in its heritability. Thus, even in developed nations, a high heritability of a trait does not necessarily mean that average group differences are due to genes.
Your study says nothing about the racial distribution of IQ, in fact it outright contradicts your claims:

No traits are 100% heritable
Acceptance of the importance of both genetic and environmental influences leads to interest in the interplay between genes and environment, such as their interaction (moderation) and correlation (mediation) in the development of complex traits.

The heritability of traits is caused by many genes of small effect. [...] For example, we are aware of almost no replicated genetic associations that account for more than 1 per cent of the population variance of quantitative traits such as height and weight. [...] For example, the largest GWA study of intelligence differences, which included nearly 18 000 children, found no genome-wide significant associations. The largest effect sizes accounted for 0.2% of the variance of intelligence scores.
As your study says, this is called the "missing heritability problem" where no single genetic variation can explain the heritability of diseases and behaviors, including intelligence:

This led to a dilemma. Standard genetics methods have long estimated large heritabilities such as 80% for traits such as height or intelligence, yet none of the genes had been found despite sample sizes that, while small, should have been able to detect variants of reasonable effect size such as 1 inch or 5 IQ points. If genes have such strong cumulative effects - where were they?
Lastly, your study suggests that extremely high intelligence is not part of normal distribution, but occur randomly, even among children of parents with lower intelligence:

It is possible that scores more extreme than the top 4% of the intelligence distribution are aetiologically different from the normal distribution, which has been called the Genetic Discontinuity Hypothesis. The most persuasive argument for genetic discontinuity for extremely high intelligence was made by David Lykken who noted that a key problem of genius is ‘its mysterious irrepressibility and its ability to arise from the most unpromising of lineages and to flourish even in the meanest of circumstances'. Lykken proposed that genius emerges from unique combinations of genes...
The study even gives some estimates on how much genetic heritability influences educational success, college degree and social class:

GCTA studies have recently explored the heritability and genetic correlations of intelligence, education and social class. A combined analysis of Swedish and Australian unrelated subjects (N~11 500) used GCTA to provide an estimate of 22% (s.e.=4%) for the heritability of years in education and 25% (8%) for attending college. In the Twins Early Development Study for 3000 unrelated children, GCTA-based estimates of heritability were 21% (12%) for parental social class and 28% (17%) for children's IQ at age 7 and 32% (14%) at age 12.
This is a far cry from your touted 80%, in fact genetic heritability is responsible for at most a third of each of these factors. This is not sufficient to reduce the racial gap in SAT scores and IQ distribution to genetic predisposition alone. What's more striking is that the study makes no mention of racial genetic differences, simply because no single genetic variation is responsible for the heritability of genetic traits.

Again, nobody is defending the claim that genes don't influence intelligence, but gaps in IQ distribution cannot simply be explained away in a reductive manner by racial differences. In fact, the study you linked refutes that claim quite clearly.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
First of all, your study does not say that intelligence is 80% inherited. What it actually says is that heritability of intelligence increases from around 0.2 in early childhood to 0.8 in late adulthood. In essence, intelligence is not a flat 80% genetic heritage. In fact genes play much less of a role when it comes to the most important stage of development, which is early childhood.
And IQ Tests are adjusted by age to reflect we don't stop developing since childhood (or in the cases of Black people, who actually mature faster than others).
By adulthood, that factor is 0.8, or 80%.

I even have other studies that also state that it is still genetics that dictates performance later in life, and not socio-economic factors from earlier on.


Between–within twin-pair analyses were performed on twins reared apart to assess familial confounding. Childhood social class was significantly associated with mean-level cognitive performance at age 65 y, but not with rate of cognitive change. The association decreased in magnitude but remained significant after adjustments for level of education and the degree to which the rearing family was supportive toward education. A between-pair effect of childhood social class was significant in all cognitive domains, whereas within-pair estimates were attenuated, indicating genetic confounding. Thus, childhood social class is important for cognitive performance in adulthood on a population level, but the association is largely attributable to genetic influences.

What's more striking is that the study makes no mention of racial genetic differences, simply because no single genetic variation is responsible for the heritability of genetic traits.
I do not believe in a single gene that causes the gap, but I do believe in the frequency of them found within populations (i.e racial ones).

We can make safe predictions that people like Bajau do have genes that enables them to stay underwater for much longer, or Eskimos possessing certain traits that give them bigger visual memory that no one else in the world has.

The same will happen with intelligence. I'm actually more than happy to start collecting more data of scientists who do find this connection, which I believe will happen within the next 10 years. Some of it may even even exist now.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
Oh right, there's one more thing.
Even if scientists do go through all the hurdles and find genetic connections that confirm intelligence, how the fuck are they going to publish it?

Look last page about California refusing to allow the School science fair project on IQ tests, there's no way a Scientist is going to be treated nicely if he reveals data that intelligence would be confirmed for a fact linked to certain genes and in different populations.

We might have to wait for China to get this research first I assume and then leak it to the rest of world. Anyone who tries to do the same thing in the West is looking to have their career destroyed and publicly blacklisted unfortunately for trying to support evidence of race differences. :messenger_neutral:
 
Last edited:

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,822
7,548
775
And IQ Tests are adjusted by age to reflect we don't stop developing since childhood.
By adulthood, that factor is 0.8, or 80%.
Well duh, IQ tests need to be tailored to their specific target audience. So what?
What does any of this have to do with my previous comment?

Only goes to show that your knowledge is merely skin deep and that you're unable to even understand the stuff that you are linking to.

I even have other studies that also state that it is still genetics that dictates performance later in life, and not socio-economic factors from earlier on.
So are you going to address any of the arguments I've raised concerning your previous study or are you just gonna keep throwing out links to studies you hardly understand yourself?

It is known that children that are adopted into families of higher socio-economical status score better IQ results. In fact, adoption into a better family can lead to an up to 18 points increase in IQ:

This meta-analysis of 62 studies (N 17,767 adopted children) examined whether the cognitive development of adopted children differed from that of (a) children who remained in institutional care or in the birth family and (b) their current (environmental) nonadopted siblings or peers. Adopted children scored higher on IQ tests than their nonadopted siblings or peers who stayed behind, and their school performance was better.
Other studies produce similar results:

In a large population-based sample of separated siblings from Sweden, we demonstrate that adoption into improved socioeconomic circumstances is associated with a significant advantage in IQ at age 18.
 

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
It is known that children that are adopted into families of higher socio-economical status score better IQ results. I
Now show me a study comparing the results of the adopted kids vs other kids of the same socio-economic status.

There are only 443,000 children in foster care in the United States (or 0.59% of the total child population of the U.S). If you're implying most black or even white children are in foster homes, then no, that is not a statistically significant number.

Edit: Also, this entire time, I'm talking about racial gaps. I do not dispute going from one really awful environment (foster home) to a decent one (adopted home) shouldn't yield better results. But when you look at discrepancies in wealth and race, there is still a difference.

Once again, poor white Americans still score on average 98 points. Increasing the wealth gap, does not increase 5x the score. The richest U.S states only have IQs of 104.
 
Last edited:

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
14,109
2,644
1,570
32
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
And remember you even said there isn't any sufficient research to explain anything about IQ gaps, so your debating is really your own personal opinion - which means you are choosing your own personal opinion vs. scientists tabulating scores and doing theories for probably 50+ years.
No, this is not personal opinion, it is my understanding of the current scientific consensus that it is unknown whether there is a genetical differential between black and white in terms of IQ. I have no personal opinion on that matter and if I had, then it would be wholly unqualified, as I am not a biologist, let alone an IQ researcher. We do know that blacks are at a disavantage in most environmental variables, so not all scenarios are possible, but by what we know, it is possible that there is a genetic advantage for whites (increased by environmental factors), that there is no genetic advantage for blacks (cancelled out by environmental factors) or that neither group has a significant genetic advantage over the other.
 

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
Imagine if this discussion was weighted more heavily to include the genetic factors alongside the environment. Would anyone actually believe we would still see the gaps if more care was taken to raise peoples IQ levels from a biological point of view?

What exactly do people fear if something like this where to happen? If we raise the average IQ of all races to 100 and we do see a marked improvement, then wouldn't this prove the genetics argument was right all along?

I do not think anyone who argues the genetic causes seriously denies that environment doesn't have a factor. What annoys me is that when people only suggest throwing money at it is the only way to solve the problem.

I said it before, we do not need IQ Tests to see there is something going on within racial groups that goes beyond environment factors.

Imagine if I brought you to Europe at the end of WW2 and asked you how long would it take to recover? You would have looked at the devastation and probably estimate it would take 1000 years before Europe ever came back. Yet flash forward not even 50 but even 10 years and Europe had already shown dramatic improvement instead of looking like the continent would have been without hope.

Isn't this what we should be studying? How come Europeans were able to recover so fast and why we should be applying this theory to the rest of the world?

Or how about the same thing in Asia? Once again, I made the observation the likes of China or Japan were behind on the industrial revolution. But once they were given the same tools and technology, they not only copied Europeans but now literally challenge them for dominance. Again, this type of observation should tell you it's not just environment at play, but how could a select group of distinct people manage to catch up in record time?

This IQ data doesn't need to represent "racism". You are not thinking this through if you believe anyone is trying to argue the gaps between blacks, whites, asians or even hispanics has to be permanent. I can't imagine why anyone would oppose getting all IQ levels up if it turns out the genetics argument was right. That environment alone wasn't enough to fix it, but we also just needed to select for higher iq populations as well and encourage them to reproduce more.

Otherwise, we are left at a stand still. It would be a shitty status quo where no one wins. Imagine if we keep throwing money at these problems forever and not actually seeing a difference vs actually tackling the problem head on and educating people on why this IQ stuff matters. We could easily create a better world.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
What exactly do you think one could do in that regard?
Give more financial incentives for High IQ people to reproduce. Remove benefits that incentivise low IQ to reproduce.
Repeat this over several generations and average IQ levels should begin to go up.

I would also reform public culture so that it doesn't glorify any drugs, crime, and lack of parental responsibility and instead, replace it with a culture that promotes nuclear families and a focus on the sciences.

This type of policy would only act as a "guiding hand". The government doesn't need to babysit and make sure every citizen actually does the right thing. It should be every citizen slowly coming to their senses and working towards creating a better future that comes naturally to them.

This is how I view Europe was able to do so well for centuries before they decided to set foot from their continent. They created a culture that balanced liberalism/individualism with that of strong family values and a desire to plan for the future. Unfortunately, it might be the liberalism/individualism that comes back to bite them in the end.
 
Last edited:

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,822
7,548
775
Give more financial incentives for High IQ people to reproduce. Remove benefits that incentivise low IQ to reproduce.
Repeat this over several generations and average IQ levels should begin to go up.
So basically you want an authoritarian regime based on eugenics. Not to mention that a genetic mono-culture focused on a single genetic indicator would probably have devastating effects on the population. Genetic diversity is vital for the survival of a species as genes are responsible for most of your immune functions:

Attempts to increase the viability of a species by increasing genetic diversity is called genetic rescue. For example, eight panthers from Texas were introduced to the Florida panther population, which was declining and suffering from inbreeding depression. Genetic variation was thus increased and resulted in a significant increase in population growth of the Florida Panther. Creating or maintaining high genetic diversity is an important consideration in species rescue efforts, in order to ensure the longevity of a population.
The less genetic diversity you have, to more your population becomes susceptible to diseases. You simply have no way of knowing what other important genetic variations "low IQ" people can bring to a given population. You also forget to take into account that high IQ is usually accompanied with a diverse range of mental and physical disorders:

The biggest differences between the Mensa group and the general population were seen for mood disorders and anxiety disorders. More than a quarter (26.7 percent) of the sample reported that they had been formally diagnosed with a mood disorder, while 20 percent reported an anxiety disorder—far higher than the national averages of around 10 percent for each. The differences were smaller, but still statistically significant and practically meaningful, for most of the other disorders. The prevalence of environmental allergies was triple the national average (33 percent vs. 11 percent).

To explain their findings, Karpinski and her colleagues propose the hyper brain/hyper body theory. This theory holds that, for all of its advantages, being highly intelligent is associated with psychological and physiological “overexcitabilities,” or OEs.
Not to mention that procreating is a basic human function, barring a large portion of your population from having kids would violate several human rights and be considered discrimination.

Judging by your comments, you'd probably have never been born according to your own policies.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
So basically you want an authoritarian regime based on eugenics.
So any country/culture that wants to help out High IQ is authoritarian?

So what did that make all those brutal Communist regimes that kept promising equality over and over again? We can now drop social programs because of them?

Not to mention that a genetic mono-culture focused on a single genetic indicator would probably have devastating effects on the population. Genetic diversity is vital for the survival of a species as genes are responsible for most of your immune functions:
There was another user on Neogaf who actually refuted this myth. I definitely remember the thread of where it originated from but no, humans can totally survive even when reduced to small numbers.
It's not ideal, but it's not impossible. Modern Jews actually descended from a small population of 350. Today, their population is in the millions.

In modern context, there is definitely millions of people with average IQs of 100 or more. If they were to have 2 children or more each, then they would become the new majority in a couple of generations.

Not to mention that procreating is a basic human function, barring a large portion of your population from having kids would violate several human rights and be considered discrimination.
After a few generations, the High IQ group would become the new "majority". Not really seeing the issue since I never said people can't reproduce at all, just incentives are handed over to people with High IQ instead.
 
Last edited:

chaos789

Banned
Nov 21, 2012
790
367
505
I mean no I’ll intent, it’s a question relating to current and present society. As far as being thankful for anything is a personal matter and I would never judge.

Sometimes, just sometimes maybe the first world needs a reminder of how fortunate it is to be a part of of.

Many immigrants risk their lives to live in the USA for the opportunities a free and egalitarian society provides yet genuine Americans whinge and whine. Quintessential first world problem.

Fortunately the significant majority take accountability, not playing the victim, not expecting a hand out, irrespective of skintone or background. The rest are leaches, pushing for others to become leaches so they can feel better about their vapid existence.
Immigrants who migrated from here came here to pursue better opportunities for themselves and their families. Africans who were sold into bondage did not come here of their own free will. They were brought here as property and treated as such and suffered inhumane and tortured living conditions all in order to increase the profits of private land holders.

And spare me this crap about handouts. Multi-national corporate entities are the primary recipients of hand outs. They receive billions in subsidized dollars from tax payers which is generally funneled through state or defense coffers. Hell, 60 multi-nationals paid no taxes and received refunds. Something that has doubled since Trump and the GOP passed their corporate tax cut bill.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DeafTourette

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
I saw this video pop up in my in timeline and it's actually a mainstream news outlet (PBS) talking about the biological differences in Human ancestors.

It basically confirms everything I said back in a post on page 14 but what's more surprising is that the video doesn't have any egalitarian BS pushed in.

It even goes as far as to be blunt about where the Neanderthals lived and how Sub-Saharan Africans DID NOT ever come in contact with them or breed with them or that they had much larger brains than modern humans (again, it confirms everything I had already said back on page 14).

There is also talk about Humans inheriting very specific "genes" from another Homo populations, such as a gene for repairing skin from sun damage or a gene that actually results in increased bloodclotting.



Of course, I do not use the Neanderthal argument as the crux of my intelligence differences within Humans, but the video does once again prove that biological differences do arise in different human populations and it's not just social construct crap but evolutionary pressures that lead to selecting specific genetic traits/mutations for the environment.

Also, the video lightly touches on the subject that there are actually still more "unidentified" human ancestors throughout history, and this is 100% true.

Besides the Denisovans, we also know that in the case of Black sub-saharan Africans, they actually possess DNA from an unknown "ghost" ancestor that no one outside of Africa has.


“Our research traced the evolution of an important mucin protein called MUC7 that is found in saliva,” he says. “When we looked at the history of the gene that codes for the protein, we see the signature of archaic admixture in modern day Sub-Saharan African populations.”
We know scientists have broken down our genome and have also been able to trace or compare different genes to that of past ancestors. There is no reason to believe that one day, they cannot find more clues or even directly find genes that have a direct association with how our brain works which includes intelligence.

Although I stated in an above post, that Scientists might have to tread carefully as revealing knowledge that would prove intelligence and genes have a direct relation could get you fired and blacklisted by the mainstream media.
 
Last edited:

Shmunter

Member
Aug 25, 2018
1,234
1,682
460
Immigrants who migrated from here came here to pursue better opportunities for themselves and their families. Africans who were sold into bondage did not come here of their own free will. They were brought here as property and treated as such and suffered inhumane and tortured living conditions all in order to increase the profits of private land holders.

And spare me this crap about handouts. Multi-national corporate entities are the primary recipients of hand outs. They receive billions in subsidized dollars from tax payers which is generally funneled through state or defense coffers. Hell, 60 multi-nationals paid no taxes and received refunds. Something that has doubled since Trump and the GOP passed their corporate tax cut bill.
Sigh, yes African slaves, generations ago, nobody is denying history. In the here and now we have a much different world don’t we? A world of equal opportunity made possible by the first world. That’s the sum and substance of what I said.

Not being able to move on is unhealthy for a human. Acknowledge the past, learn from it and let it guide you forward. I cannot believe people can condone being stuck as some sort of virtue, it’s quite the opposite.

Seems you support handouts for people because corporations get subsidies? Realise that economics is a living organism, subsidise one thing to spur growth on the periphery of many others, create jobs, collect taxes, rinse and repeat.

Handouts to humans devalues them, creates low self esteem and drives them further down the hole. This is not the same as creating opportunities, I.e good school, scholarships, jobs.
 

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
Found more scientific evidence for races.

Several studies confirm Races have different pelvis widths and differences in gestation times.

RESULTS
The pelvic inlet was wider among 178 white women than 56 African-American women (10.7±0.7 cm compared with 10.0.±0.7 cm, P<.001). The outlet was also wider (mean intertuberous diameter 12.3±1.0 cm compared with 11.8±0.9 cm, P<.001). There were no significant differences between racial groups in interspinous diameter, angle of the subpubic arch, anteroposterior conjugate, levator thickness, or levator hiatus. In addition, among women who delivered vaginally without a sphincter tear, African-American women had more pelvic floor mobility than white women. This difference was not observed among women who had sustained an obstetric sphincter tear.
CONCLUSION
White women have a wider pelvic inlet, wider outlet, and shallower anteroposterior outlet than African-American women. In addition, after vaginal delivery, white women demonstrate less pelvic floor mobility. These differences may contribute to observed racial differences in obstetric outcomes and to the development of pelvic floor disorders.

The size and shape of women's birth canals vary depending on what part of the world they live in but most medical textbooks are based on a European body type, scientists said Wednesday, warning of health risks.

Differences in the depth and width of the pelvic canal determine a newborn's route into the world, and forcing births to conform to a single standard can be harmful to mother and child, they reported in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
"An obstetrician's training is based on a model of the pelvis that has been developed from European women," said lead author Lia Betti, a senior lecturer in evolutionary anthropology at the University of Roehampton in London.
"But the typical pelvic shape and typical childbirth pattern can differ among populations," she told AFP. "An update seems necessary, especially in a multi-ethnic society."
Women from sub-Saharan Africa, for example, tend to have a deeper canal, while -- at the other extreme -- native American women generally have a wider one, she explained.
European and Asian women fall somewhere in between.
Conclusions This research suggests that normal gestational length is shorter in Black and Asian women compared with white European women and that fetal maturation may occur earlier.
Abstract
The average length of gestation is about 5 days shorter in black populations than in white populations. Although some of this difference is accounted for by higher preterm delivery rates in blacks, the most common gestational week of delivery at term is the 39th in black populations, the 40th in white. Black gestational age specific neonatal mortality is lower than that of whites until the 37th week of gestation, but higher thereafter. These observations suggest the hypothesis that complications of postmaturity occur sooner in black fetuses. If this hypothesis is confirmed, antepartum surveillance for signs of fetal compromise should be initiated earlier in gestation in black parturients, perhaps by setting the estimated date of confinement at 275 days after the LMP, rather than the conventional 280 days.
CONCLUSIONS:
This research suggests that normal gestational length is shorter in Black and Asian women compared with white European women and that fetal maturation may occur earlier.



But race is just a social construct right?

Once again, Rushton made the same discovery 30 years ago.




I've also posted the study confirming that Black people biologically age faster than other races as well as having shorter lifespans than others.


Blacks experience morbidity and mortality earlier in the life course compared to whites. Such premature declines in health may be indicative of an acceleration of the aging process. The current study uses data on 7644 black and white participants, ages 30 and above, from the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, to compare the biological ages of blacks and whites as indicated from a combination of ten biomarkers and to determine if such differences in biological age relative to chronological age account for racial disparities in mortality. At a specified chronological age, blacks are approximately 3 years older biologically than whites. Differences in biological age between blacks and whites appear to increase up until ages 60–65 and then decline, presumably due to mortality selection. Finally, differences in biological age were found to completely account for higher levels of all-cause, cardiovascular and cancer mortality among blacks. Overall, these results suggest that being black is associated with significantly higher biological age at a given chronological age and that this is a pathway to early death both overall and from the major age-related diseases.

Again, Rushton pointed this out in his research first. Others are now confirming it.


Edit: There has also been attempts at finding biological differences in the brain among races. Unfortunately, the number of participants for this study remains low, but the researchers did still find that blacks and whites do differ in what their brains look like.


This was a case control study in the setting of an academic medical center outpatient service. Participants consisted of 44 Caucasians and 33 ethnic minorities. The following volumetric data were obtained: amygdala, hippocampus, lateral ventricles, caudate nucleus, orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) and total cerebrum. Each participant completed a 1.5 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Our primary finding in analyses of brain subregions was that when compared to Caucasians, African Americans exhibited larger left OFC volumes (F 1,68 = 7.50, p = 0.008).
However, here is a study with a much larger sample size that indeed confirms the brain size differences among black and white races.

The weights of fresh brains obtained at consecutive autopsies over a period of five years were reviewed. Brains with lesions, such as large tumor, hemorrhage, infarct, or edema, were excluded. Analysis of the brain weight of 1,261 subjects, aged 25 to 80 years, show that the mean brain weight decreases in order from white men to black men to white women to black women. These differences are statistically significant and become apparent at age 6 years. The rate of decrease for the brain weight after age 25 years is highest for white men, followed by black women, white women, and black men, and, except that between white men and white women, the differences are statistically insignificant. Contrary to earlier reports, the mass decreases rapidly after age 80 years. In evaluating an individual brain weight, it is important to compare it with the norm for each subgroup of a given age.
 
Last edited:

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
36,396
9,388
1,340
good stuff jordan, literature seems pretty clear

shame on several members for trying to manipulate the conversation in order to make the forum believe jordan is a racist
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: Arkage

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
Bumping this thread again because I found more scientific evidence for race differences.

I posted before that not all races "age" the same. Scientifically speaking, black people appear to be significantly older than white people at the same time frame. There are also differences in how each race are actual "born". With gestation times being shorter again in blacks, compared to other groups.

Since that time, I did decide to collect more research on this and conclusion remains the same. There are race differences in stages of development, most if not all linked to being biological. Very few have been argued to be cultural/environmental.



Comparison of Growth of Black and White Infants During Their First Two Years of Life
Growth data were analyzed on 406 infants (211 black, 195 white) during their first two years of life. Only term children weighing more than 2500 g were included in the study. Prenatal and postnatal care were provided at the same university affiliated health maintenance organization. Mean birth weight of black female newborns was 150 g less than white female newborns with a statistical significance of P = .028. Mean birth weight of black male newborns was 40 g less than white male newborns. The difference was not statistically significant. Black male infants were significantly heavier at 12, 18, and 24 months and significantly taller at 24 months than their white counterparts.

Significant differences in velocity of growth were seen between black and white female infants regardless of type of feeding. Black female infants gained more weight between 6 and 12 months and increased their length more rapidly between 18 and 24 months than their white cohorts. These data suggest that black infants demonstrate a somewhat different growth pattern than white infants.
Ethnic differences in achievement of developmental milestones by 9 months of age: the Millennium Cohort Study
These large-scale population based data on infants resident in the UK collected as part of the first sweep of the MCS have provided a unique opportunity to document ethnic differences in attainment of developmental milestones during infancy and to investigate the factors that influence this. We have shown that Black Caribbean and Black African infants are less likely, four and three times respectively, to have gross motor delay at 9 months of age compared with White infants. These differences could not be explained by potential explanatory factors included in the analysis such as biological indicators, social and economic markers, and environmental and household characteristics. Indian infants were almost two times less likely to have gross motor delay when the effects of mother’s education, household income, overcrowding, and dampness in the home were taken into account and this association remained after further adjustment for indicators of cultural tradition, family composition, and childcare. Pakistani infants were more likely to have gross motor delay compared with White infants but this difference disappeared after socioeconomic markers and indicators of cultural tradition were taken into account. Pakistani and Bangladeshi infants had an increased likelihood of fine motor and communicative gesture delay, which was explained by socioeconomic measures and indicators of cultural tradition. There was no difference in the likelihood of fine motor or communicative gesture delay for Indian, Black African, and Black Caribbean compared with White infants. Our results are consistent with reports of differences across ethnic groups in infant motor development from the US, Africa, and the Caribbean (Scott et al. 1955, Geber and Dean 1957, Grantham-McGregor and Back 1971, Werner 1972, Frankenburg et al. 1975, Super 1976). However, ethnic differences in infant development in the UK and explanations for such differences have been little investigated. One small study in a UK inner city setting showed that Jamaican infants were more likely to achieve motor milestones, such as sitting and walking alone, at earlier ages compared with their English counterparts (Hopkins and Westra 1989). The differences we observed between Black African and Black Caribbean compared with White infants are large and remain unaffected after adjusting for important covariates. This makes it tempting to conclude that the remaining effect must be a consequence of genetic differences. However, such a conclusion would be prematurely drawn. First, we have not included the measurement of genetic factors in our analysis, and, therefore, the presence of such effects cannot be demonstrated. Second, speculating on such effects should only be done alongside recognition that the model we have been able to test contains imperfect measurement. There is marked variability in the adequacy of socioeconomic measures across ethnic groups (Kaufman et al. 1997, 1998; Nazroo 1997,

Racial/ethnic variation in the motor development and performance of American children.
The literature on the motor development and performance of American children from several racial and ethnic groups is reviewed. The evidence suggests that Black infants are advanced in motor development during the first two years of life, and that Black children of school age, particularly boys, perform consistently better than White and Mexican-American children in running speed (dashes) and the vertical jump, with somewhat less consistent results for the standing long jump and softball throw for distance. In contrast, differences in the motor development and performance of Mexican-American and White children are generally inconsistent and slight. Environmental factors are most often cited as underlying racial or ethnic variation, but have not been systematically investigated. A biocultural approach is essential if an understanding of racial and ethnic variation in motor performance is to be attained.
The Comparative Motor Development of Baganda, American White, and American Black Infants
Baganda infants in Uganda were found to be significantly advanced in motor development during the first year of life when compared with Bayley's sample of American White and Black infants. Though they were not found to be as precocious as Geber's sample of Uganda infants, the same downward trend in degree of motor development during the second year of life was found. As age increased, developmental motor quotient (DMQ) decreased, but at 24 months of age the Baganda infants still obtained an average DMQ higher than either American sample. Several interpretations of these results are considered.
The Imagination of Early Childhood Education




Ethnic differences in growth in early childhood: an investigation of two potential mechanisms
Background: There are clear ethnic differences in birthweight. This study examines whether and how these disparities are replicated in a later marker of physical development, height at 5 years.

Conclusions: These results suggest that children from ethnic minority backgrounds are not disadvantaged with respect to height growth compared with the ethnic majority. However, if adiposity is more likely when children are tall for their age, then ethnic inequalities in adult health could increase as the current generation of children mature.
Blacks develop high blood pressure one year faster than whites, study finds
Blacks at risk of having high blood pressure develop the condition one year before whites and have a 35 percent greater chance of progressing from pre-hypertension to high blood pressure, according to a new study. More aggressive treatment of pre-hypertension could narrow the gap in hypertension rates between blacks and whites.

Comparative Study on the Effects of Ethnicity on Wisdom Tooth Eruption
The current knowledge base for evaluating the influence of ethnic origin on wisdom tooth eruption is still inadequate. We therefore analyzed and compared the chronology of wisdom tooth eruption in three ethnic populations-German, Japanese, and black South African-based on evidence from 2,482 conventional orthopantomograms. The investigated German population ranked in the middle in terms of the age of wisdom tooth eruption. The black South African population was the fastest and the Japanese population the slowest in terms of reaching the respective eruption stages. Population-specific reference data should be used when evaluating wisdom tooth eruption for the purpose of forensic age estimation.

Mineralization of the mandibular third molar: A study of American blacks and whites
The tempo of tooth mineralization is under significant genetic control, and the orderly progression of morphological changes—in concert with the long span during growth in which teeth form—makes “dental age” a useful measure of a person's degree of biological maturity. The third molar is of particular interest because (1) it is the last and most variable tooth to form and (2) it is the only tooth to complete formation after puberty, which has made it attractive in forensic and legal circles as an estimator of adulthood. Age standards are described here for mandibular third molar formation stages in a cross‐sectional sample of 4,010 persons (age range: 3–25 years), with proportionate sample sizes of American blacks and whites and males and females. Formation was scored against the 15‐grade ordinal scheme of Moorrees, and descriptive statistics were computed using proportional hazards survival analysis. Blacks achieved each formation stage significantly ahead of whites, but not in a uniform manner. Instead, there was an enhanced advancement in blacks during crown formation and during late stages of root formation. In both races formation proceeded faster in males, which is unique for the third molar, as prior studies suggest. Sample variance increases with the stage of formation, such that 95% confidence limits span 8 or more years for root formation stages. Consequently, the third molar provides a rough gauge of an individual's chronological age, but the considerable variability precludes any precise estimate, particularly in late adolescence where most forensic interest has focused.

Racial Differences in Bone Strength

Osteoporosis has been defined as a systemic skeletal disorder characterized by compromised bone strength predisposing to an increased risk of fracture. The clinical consequences of fracture include short- and long-term morbidity as well as increased mortality. Several authors have examined data from the Health Care Financing Administration and noted that fracture risk, particularly risk of hip fracture, is higher in whites than blacks in both sexes; the most recent published data reported an age-adjusted annual incidence rate for hip fracture of 10.1 and 4.1 per 1000 in white and black women, respectively, and 4.3 and 3.1 per 1000 in white and black men, respectively. Other analyses estimated the actuarial risk of hip fracture of persons age 65 by age 90 to be 16.3 and 5.3 percent in white and black women, respectively, and 5.5 and 2.6 percent in white and black men, respectively. This lower incidence of fractures among blacks has generally been explained by greater bone strength among blacks, although differences in non-skeletal risk factors for fracture, such as falls, cannot be completely excluded. Data from the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures (SOF) and the Baltimore Men's Osteoporosis Study (MOST) show that, in both sexes, blacks have higher adjusted bone mineral density than whites and a slower age-adjusted annual rate of decline in bone mineral density. Genetic, nutritional, lifestyle and hormonal factors may contribute to these ethnic/racial differences in bone strength.

Ethnic differences in bone and mineral metabolism in healthy people and patients with CKD
Several studies have shown racial differences in the regulation of mineral metabolism, in the acquisition of bone mass and structure of individuals. In this review, we examine ethnic differences in bone and mineral metabolism in normal individuals and in patients with chronic kidney disease. Black individuals have lower urinary excretion and increased intestinal calcium absorption, reduced levels of 25(OH)D, and high levels of 1.25(OH)2D and parathyroid hormone (PTH). Body phosphorus concentration is higher and the levels of FGF-23 are lower than in whites. Mineral density and bone architecture are better in black individuals. These differences translate into advantages for blacks who have stronger bones, less risk of fractures, and less cardiovascular calcification. In the United States of America, the prevalence of kidney disease is similar in different ethnic groups. However, black individuals progress more quickly to advanced stages of kidney disease than whites. This faster progression does not translate into increased mortality, higher in whites, especially in the first year of dialysis. Some ethnicity-related variations in mineral metabolism persist when individuals develop CKD. Therefore, black patients have lower serum calcium concentrations, less hyperphosphatemia, low levels of 25(OH)D, higher levels of PTH, and low levels of FGF-23 compared with white patients. Bone biopsy studies show that blacks have greater bone volume. The rate of fractures and cardiovascular diseases are also less frequent. Further studies are required to better understand the cellular and molecular bases of these racial differences in bone mineral metabolism and thus better treat patients.

Your Ethnicity Determines the Species of Bacteria That Live in Your Mouth
This bacterial diversity, though, wasn’t entirely random: It correlated with the ethnic group of the volunteer. In other words, people from each of the four different ethnic groups represented in the study (all participants self-identified as either Caucasian, African-American, Chinese or Latino) generally had similar species of bacteria, especially underneath the gums.

As a result, simply by counting which varieties of bacteria appeared in this area, the researchers developed a model that was able to guess a person’s ethnicity with an accuracy significantly better than chance—it got it right 62 percent of the time. Some groups were even easier to identify via the bacteria than others: It could correctly identify Latinos 67 percent of the time and African-Americans with 100 accuracy.

African-American/White Differences in the Age of Menarche: Accounting for the Difference
Lifetime health disparity between African-American and white females begins with lower birthweight and higher rates of childhood overweight. In adolescence, African-American girls experience earlier menarche. Understanding the origins of these health disparities is a national priority. There is growing literature suggesting that the life course health development model is a useful framework for studying disparities. The purpose of this study was to quantify the influence of explanatory factors from key developmental stages on the age of menarche and to determine how much of the overall race difference in age of menarche they could explain. The factors were maternal age of menarche, birthweight, poverty during early childhood (age 0 through 5 years), and child BMI z-scores at 6 years. The sample, drawn from the US National Longitudinal Surveys of Youth Child-Mother file, consisted of 2337 girls born between 1978 and 1998. Mean age of menarche in months was 144 for African-American girls and 150 for whites.

An instrumental variable approach was used to estimate a causal effect of child BMI z-score on age of menarche. The instrumental variables were prepregnancy BMI, high gestational weight gain and smoking during pregnancy. We found strong effects of maternal age of menarche, birthweight, and child BMI z-score (−5.23, 95% CI [−7.35,−3.12]) for both African-Americans and whites. Age of menarche declined with increases in exposure to poverty during early childhood for whites. There was no effect of poverty for African-Americans. We used Oaxaca decomposition techniques to determine how much of the overall race difference in age of menarche was attributable to race differences in observable factors and how much was due to race dependent responses. The African-American/white difference in childhood BMI explained about 18% of the overall difference in age of menarche and birthweight differences explained another 11%.

Genome-wide association study of age at menarche in African-American women
https://watermark.silverchair.com/ddt181.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAjwwggI4BgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggIpMIICJQIBADCCAh4GCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMa2zwBmCNc9euOspEAgEQgIIB7277oRdeuUcjK_-5CWnZE6cDg3Nc8GZwxw5Lq_H3MkKdFAewoud3gRqby5oYs5oSWtb3cmNJQ4rRVWAgkUy8dxm6z9d8NiD51CRUQGgu79rscPIIlChczrGMm8PIhda4bvw-gp5islHqviveS6YjTPIuCv31UYtl_dOybOg0MIlUOJ5V6NF1EC4oD1FJotLDwPaREogQ1GP8mbRWCUkNvClWyQWKsHnuo-OinhE9tza2f5n5KV5sj-a8ZCJurHz-3udCqlGBgKl1XJ81vLv56bE2c1b75cBJQhKC5YYCOrA33LdclzNUaHTMx351BaQ3T-lfrzfwiAn3Gh5sK7ewUD-PYIzMvnqT-FB2QIwqtTLVvBwIDnGa5zHhJHH5L65NQTifrxGpF1tFlL-7pEd9seVFvRJcH7pE69oPx7twp4q6A30q3DmTeTAzXAlUGos2QGdcdAWQAkB-x4YvurHsDAnPOA2vBjQQgvH26Ug664mcAv_NxqT4HV7jb8n1h79FjbOfWoi6ZgPmZMuoN3EaFeW0KjvmDuXblKU8zIca6KZx_3xJM9ZJ0ZNkF5jzzrV8sCS8kNBIuD3FkywjGAWWmM38HjULA_W_LfK3fDRNtOuMzeEDDa9Le5-jAiSqv2zCvCslnB2MkOSbhMYbRK29nQ

African-American (AA) women have earlier menarche on average than women of European ancestry (EA), and earlier menarche is a risk factor for obesity and type 2 diabetes among other chronic diseases. Identification of common genetic variants associated with age atmenarche has a potential valuein pointing to the genetic pathways underlying chronic disease risk, yet comprehensive genome-wide studies of age at menarche are lacking for AA women. In this study, we tested the genome-wide association of self-reported age at menarche with common single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in a total of 18 089 AA women in 15 studies using an additive genetic linear regression model, adjusting for year of birth and population stratification, followed by inversevariance weighted meta-analysis (Stage 1). Top meta-analysis results were then tested in an independent sample of 2850 women (Stage 2). First, while no SNP passed the pre-specified P < 5 3 1028 threshold for significance in Stage 1, suggestive associations were found for variants near FLRT2 and PIK3R1, and conditional analysis identified two independent SNPs (rs339978 and rs980000) in or near RORA, strengthening the support for this suggestive locus identified in EA women. Secondly, an investigation of SNPs in 42 previously identified menarche loci in EA women demonstrated that 25 (60%) of them contained variants significantly associated with menarche in AA women. The findings provide the first evidence of cross-ethnic generalization of menarche loci identified to date, and suggest a number of novel biological links to menarche timing in AA women.
Interpreting the continued decline in the average age at menarche: results from two nationally representative surveys of U.S. girls studied 10 years apart.
By race/ethnicity, average age at menarche estimates were as follows: non-Hispanic whites, 12.57 years (95% CI = 12.45 to 12.69 years) and 12.52 years (95% CI = 12.38 to 12.67 years); non-Hispanic blacks, 12.09 years (95% CI = 11.82 to 12.36 years) and 12.06 years (95% CI = 11.81 to 12.32 years); and Mexican Americans, 12.24 years (95% CI = 11.88 to 12.59 years) and 12.09 years (95% CI = 11.81 to 12.37 years). Higher relative weight was consistently associated with increased likelihood of having reached menarche.
Growth Differences by Age of Menarche in African American and White Girls
Results
Significant differences in BMI by timing group were found. By age 3 years significant differences were found between early- and mid-onset African American girls, by age 5 years between mid- and late-onset African American girls, and by 6 years among the three timing groups of White girls. Significant height differences were evident by age 5 years when comparing early- to mid-onset and mid- to late-onset girls in both race groups. Comparing across race and within timing group, BMI and height differences were evident. African American girls were more likely than White girls to experience accelerated growth and earlier menarche.

Secondary Sexual Characteristics in Boys: Data From the Pediatric Research in Office Settings Network
RESULTS: Mean ages for onset of Tanner 2 genital development for non-Hispanic white, African American, and Hispanic boys were 10.14, 9.14, and 10.04 years and for stage 2 pubic hair, 11.47, 10.25, and 11.43 years respectively. Mean years for achieving testicular volumes of ≥3 mL were 9.95 for white, 9.71 for African American, and 9.63 for Hispanic boys; and for ≥4 mL were 11.46, 11.75, and 11.29 respectively. African American boys showed earlier (P < .0001) mean ages for stage 2 to 4 genital development and stage 2 to 4 pubic hair than white and Hispanic boys. No statistical differences were observed between white and Hispanic boys.

Brain Morphology in Older African Americans, Caribbean Hispanics, and Whites From Northern Manhattan
Results Older age was associated with decreased relative brain volume and with increased ventricular and WMH volumes. Hispanic and African American participants had larger relative brain volumes and more severe WMH burden than white participants, but the associations of these variables with age were similar across racial/ethnic groups. Compared with men, women had larger relative brain volumes. Vascular disease was associated with smaller relative brain volume and with higher WMH burden, particularly among African Americans.

Conclusions Older age and vascular disease, particularly among African Americans, are associated with increased brain atrophy and WMH burden. African American and Hispanic subjects have larger relative brain volumes and more WMH than white subjects. Racial/ethnic group differences in WMH severity seem to be partially attributable to differences in vascular disease. Future work will focus on the determinants and cognitive correlates of these differences

The Washington Heights–Inwood Columbia Aging Project (WHICAP) is an ongoing community-based study of aging and dementia comprising older participants from an urban community. A unique aspect of the cohort is the inclusion of Caribbean Hispanics and African Americans, which facilitates the examination of race/ethnicity as a modifying factor in cognitive aging. It has previously been shown that the prevalence and incidence of cerebrovascular disease and dementia are higher among African Americans and Hispanics than among white subjects in this cohort.35 Therefore, it is important to examine racial/ethnic differences in brain morphology that may affect cognitive aging. In 2003, we began systematically acquiring structural MR images among active participants without dementia in the study cohort. The objective of the present study was to examine the effects of age, sex, race/ethnicity, and vascular disease history on common measures of brain morphology. Analyses focused on global atrophy (ie, total relative brain volume and ventricular volume), hippocampus and entorhinal cortex volumes, and severity of WMH.
 

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
What I find very disturbing about this info dump is that there is scientific evidence that human beings don't all develop the same.

Black children are already maturing before white children do, who are also maturing faster before Asians. Yet none of society is built around this fact.

You end up with a different definition of time among groups of humans. A black person in his 30's is technically older than a White person of the same age.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Tesseract

ArchaeEnkidu

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
3,960
6,266
755
I thought we already declared Jordan the winner a while back. I think he lost to some others but trounced Yoshi the wimp. I’m keen for episode 2 though. When does it drop?
No. Strange dismantled absolutely everything JordanN stated so I would argue he was the winner here. I think he bowed out because he knows when he is talking to a brick wall.
 
Last edited:

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
36,396
9,388
1,340
No. Strange dismantled absolutely everything JordanN stated so I would argue he was the winner here. I think he bowed out because he knows when he is talking to a brick wall.
the guy who called the other guy a racist eugenicist authoritarian totally dismantled everything and bowed because he was talking to a brick wall?

nah
 

ArchaeEnkidu

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
3,960
6,266
755
the guy who called the other guy a racist eugenicist authoritarian totally dismantled everything and bowed because he was talking to a brick wall?

nah
I would suggest you re-read Strange Headache's posts as they clearly went over your head.
 

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
In 2006, there was a major development in actually finding out the genes that could be or are directly responsible for intelligence. But guess what? The research was shut down.
Guess the reason? "Political correctness"


CHICAGO -- Last September, Bruce Lahn, a professor of human genetics at the University of Chicago, stood before a packed lecture hall and reported the results of a new DNA analysis: He had found signs of recent evolution in the brains of some people, but not of others.

It was a triumphant moment for the young scientist. He was up for tenure and his research was being featured in back-to-back articles in the country's most prestigious science journal. Yet today, Dr. Lahn says he is moving away from the research. "It's getting too controversial," he says.

Dr. Lahn had touched a raw nerve in science: race and intelligence.
It's a long ass article, so I wont bother quoting the whole thing, but this is yet another nail in the coffin to those who keep asking "show me the genes". Well, everytime someone does, they get called "racist".

What's funny, I bet people think the scientist has to be a "white supremacist" or share those beliefs right? Uh what's this, he's Asian?



Maybe it's a coincidence, but also around this same time, I also found yet another article that also made a discovery linked to genetic evidence of intelligence.


Psychiatric researchers at The Zucker Hillside Hospital campus of The Feinstein Institute for Medical Research have uncovered evidence of a gene that appears to influence intelligence. Working in conjunction with researchers at Harvard Partners Center for Genetics and Genomics in Boston, the Zucker Hillside team examined the genetic blueprints of individuals with schizophrenia, a neuropsychiatric disorder characterized by cognitive impairment, and compared them with healthy volunteers. They discovered that the dysbindin-1 gene (DTNBP1), which they previously demonstrated to be associated with schizophrenia, may also be linked to general cognitive ability. The study is published in the May 15 print issue of Human Molecular Genetics.
It seems like the mid 2000s was a boon for intelligence research. But unfortunately, it seems like all of them stopped because people cried "racist" rather than let science do its own thing.

Also, look at the new data I posted above. There is indeed evidence that Black people, White people and Asians all go through different stages of development at different rates.

This cannot be disputed anymore as being just a "mere" social construct.

Rushton had wrote about the r/k selection in Humans and this type of evidence seems to directly support this. Where different humans remained isolated around the world, had an effect on what their state of reproduction was.

In Africa, it was (and perhaps still does) make sense that children are born and raised faster to survive in their environment. In Asia, reproduction and human development is slower but it also means more emphasis on child rearing and a longer lifespan.




Again, we have the scientific evidence that says not all races are biologically the same. Black people are in fact a bit more older than white people at the same point of time.



Among other things.

Birth rate differences:


Life Span differences:


Edit: And before anyone comes at me with the "socio-economic" angle, I did look into it and the same gaps still appear, even in the U.S. Asians live the longest, white people are in between, and both rich and poor black people still have lower life expectancy than the above groups.






All these things Rushton wrote about 30 years ago have been confirmed by secondary/independent sources years later.


But race is stilllllllllllll a social construct, right? Society has completely failed that we're ignoring complete scientific evidence in favor appealing to people's feelings. This is outrageous. I do not think this is benefiting anyone and in fact, I find such radical science denial to be extremely dangerous. On par with trying to deny evolution or climate change. RACE IS A SCIENCE.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
13,572
21,319
1,300
Australia
No. Strange dismantled absolutely everything JordanN stated so I would argue he was the winner here. I think he bowed out because he knows when he is talking to a brick wall.
Yes, he would be one of the “others”. But the debate was Jordan vs. Yoshi and all Yoshi did was cry racist then run away while others did his heavy lifting. Jordan wins by default. Maybe for episode 2 we can give him a more worthy opponent.
 

CaptainAnchovie

Gold Member
Aug 22, 2018
369
410
350
As I read Strange Headache's post, he really just attacked the source of the information.
I don't subscribe to everything Rushton postulated, but the only thing in his body of work that that I believe is obviously manipulated is explained by Dr. Dutton here:

We still have an entire field of and Qualitative and Quantitative Genetic findings, the fields transcend the smearing and Nazi branding they catch.
 

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
Yes, he would be one of the “others”. But the debate was Jordan vs. Yoshi and all Yoshi did was cry racist then run away while others did his heavy lifting. Jordan wins by default. Maybe for episode 2 we can give him a more worthy opponent.
The problem is, what exactly are people disagreeing with me?

I've said that I see race the same way 99% of society sees gender. After 16 pages, none has explained to me how this makes me "racist".

I've altered my beliefs on intelligence only as the evidence sees fit. In fact, look at my most recent post. I did find the "genes explain intelligence" but the media had censored it.

But in 16 pages, there was no evidence of my belief in races are exactly like genders, to be "racist".
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: matt404au

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
Bumping this thread again with new information.

The following is just a wiki dump, but I thought it was very relevant to this thread. For 16 pages, I've been arguing that genetics has just as much influence as environment does. There has been a lot of resistance to the idea but I still maintain that, human beings are like all other animals, we are not exempt from the theory of evolution + natural selection.

Yet, I've been doing more reading and found it interesting that within Socialist academia, it was FORBIDDEN to ever make this connection. In fact, it was official Communist policy to block all research that challenged the notion of genes had an influence on biology.




But it didn't stop there. This dismissal of genes and science was adopted in Communist agricultural policy, and the results were lethal.






It's not my intention to turn this into a "conspiracy thread", but once again, I've posted many many many many times on Neogaf that there have been many attempts by scientists throughout human history to try and study the biological aspects of race but in every single example, they were literally dismissed, blacklisted, executed etc.

And no, they were not all J. Philippe Rushton. There where even normal people who had zero connection to any political groups that expressed interest in this idea of race & science but all met the same demise.

An example, is William Bradford Shockley Jr, who in 1956, won a nobel prize for his research of the transistor. He could be considered one of the fathers that lead to modern computers.



However, later in life, he also got interested in the study of races and it ended his career.




Another important figure in genetic research history, James Watson. Whose major contribution or perhaps one of the most important all time, was the discovery of the structure of DNA.




Yet, he too also went on to explain, that there is a such thing as a biological definition of race, and later got blacklisted and lost all his honorary titles over it.




Once again, I think there are far too many coincidences that the study of races, or the implication that race is biological and not a construct, keeps getting censored over and over for no good reason but touching people's feelings.

That's not what science should be about. It's important that nothing is off limits, or else we end up with the Soviet Communist system that banned the study of genetics and stunted scientific research for years.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
13,152
23,849
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
Do you mean the implication of blocking this research?
Well I believe it is intentionally keeping humans in the dark. I do not believe in any science being suppressed for "emotional" reasons. No matter how controversial.
Well you seem to imply that resistance to research on genetics is a communist ideology creeping into our society. I do find it alarming that well-respected, accomplished scientists are getting hashtag cancelled because of beliefs that diverge from the politically correct orthodoxy. I don't know if it is any more insidious than an ideology run amok, and people being too zealous to snap out of it.

The focus always seems to narrow onto two things:

- what percentage of a person's intelligence is due to genetics, and what percentage is due to environment
- the actions that should be taken now that we've proven the genetic link to intelligence

You keep hammering on how much it is linked to genetics, when pretty much everyone in the thread has already affirmed "yep, it's reasonable to say that a person's IQ is partially due to genetics and partially due to environment". So why keep hammering on what the exact ratio is?

Furthermore, you keep mentioning things like "the only solution would be to have the smartest people of that minority group reproduce, to bring up their average IQ". I find this idea pretty barbaric, especially when the science on IQ is still young and we don't have definitive answers on all the things that can affect a person's expressed IQ. Why does your focus keep coming back to how significant the genetic heritage is, and why do you keep suggesting "selective breeding", as it were, to improve the group's average IQ?

Edit: spelling mistakes.
 
Last edited:

pimentel1

Midas Member
Jul 22, 2018
1,421
1,059
695
Yoshi vs. JordanN
Super Mario Maker 2



Someone’s breathing fire over Yoshi’s home. Yoshi go handle this now.
 

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
Well you seem to imply that resistance to research on genetics is a communist ideology creeping into our society. I do find it alarming that well-respected, accomplished scientists are getting hashtag cancelled because of beliefs that diverge from the politically correct orthodoxy. I don't know if it is any more insidious than an ideology run amok, and people being too zealous to snap out of it.
It was one hypothesis behind the suppression, but it wasn't my intention to say that communist beliefs are the sole cause behind blocking this research. It does prove however, that there could very well be ulterior motives behind blocking the teaching of genetics.

I could very well see Western society being opposed to teaching race because it conflicts with the messages of "diversity" that are equally being pushed. But again, I don't actually want to turn this into a conspiracies theories thread. Maybe if more evidence shows up, I'll post it and then come to a better conclusion.



Furthermore, you keep mentioning things like "the only solution would be to have the smartest people of that minority group reproduce, to bring up their average IQ". I find this idea pretty barbaric, especially when the science on IQ is still young and we don't have definitive answers on all the things that can affect a person's expressed IQ. Why does your focus keep coming back to how significant the genetic heritage is, and why do you keep suggesting "selective breeding", as it were, to improve the group's average IQ?
IQ and success are heavily measured. From a moral point of view, I consider it the opposite of barbarism if we can indeed raise people's IQ up to what the Western average is (100).

50% of genetics will never disappear. Consider I brought up regression to the means in the past. Even after you take socio-economic status into account, the rule says that the IQ of offspring will regress to whatever average the population is.

Rushton actually demonstrated this by tracking the IQ of different racial groups over time. There where sometimes bumps and dips, but they never actually violated the genetic rule. Your children's IQ will gravitate towards your group's average and not any extreme outliers.

 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
13,152
23,849
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
IQ and success are heavily measured. From a moral point of view, I consider it the opposite of barbarism if we can indeed raise people's IQ up to what the Western average is (100).

50% of genetics will never disappear. Consider I brought up regression to the means in the past. Even after you take socio-economic status into account, the rule says that the IQ of offspring will regress to whatever average the population is.
But here's where I take issue: you don't know that selective breeding is the only way to address this issue that you are convinced exists. Treating a group of people as -- essentially -- a breeding stock that needs to monitor its dumber members for the sake of improving their average IQ is barbaric, and is a collectivist ideology. "If the group wants to improve, then the group needs to oppress their dumb people".

This is why I brought up nutrition and its long term effects on any particular group suffering from it. Since it takes generations for the damage of poor nutrition to "wash out" of successive children, one would think that if a cultural group that has suffered from malnutrition at a higher rate than other racial groups, assisting with that variable would be the more scientific and humane approach to improving that group's IQ.

The notion that we would finger-wag a group suffering from lower-than-average IQ (and I am not necessarily agreeing with this conclusion, merely stating yours) when there are other variables we can help improve is just science for the sake of science. Seems like misguided priorities, at best.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
13,572
21,319
1,300
Australia
Well you seem to imply that resistance to research on genetics is a communist ideology creeping into our society. I do find it alarming that well-respected, accomplished scientists are getting hashtag cancelled because of beliefs that diverge from the politically correct orthodoxy. I don't know if it is any more insidious than an ideology run amok, and people being too zealous to snap out of it.

The focus always seems to narrow onto two things:

- what percentage of a person's intelligence is due to genetics, and what percentage is due to environment
- the actions that should be taken now that we've proven the genetic link to intelligence

You keep hammering on how much it is linked to genetics, when pretty much everyone in the thread has already affirmed "yep, it's reasonable to say that a person's IQ is partially due to genetics and partially due to environment". So why keep hammering on what the exact ratio is?

Furthermore, you keep mentioning things like "the only solution would be to have the smartest people of that minority group reproduce, to bring up their average IQ". I find this idea pretty barbaric, especially when the science on IQ is still young and we don't have definitive answers on all the things that can affect a person's expressed IQ. Why does your focus keep coming back to how significant the genetic heritage is, and why do you keep suggesting "selective breeding", as it were, to improve the group's average IQ?

Edit: spelling mistakes.
I don't think suppression of science is an inherently left or right thing; I think it occurs whenever there is a dominant ideology irrespective of left or right. Go too far right and you get traditional fascism, i.e. exclusion of the out group and inclusion of the in group. Science that contradicts this is suppressed and, conversely, science that supports it such as genetic IQ differences and even pseudoscience such as phrenology are promoted. Go too far left and you get a different form of fascism that involves exclusion of the in group and inclusion of the out group. This is where all of the current_year propaganda buzz words around diversity, inclusion, etc. come from. There is no empirical evidence for diversity being a strength. Quite the opposite, in fact: it is a weakness that we must overcome to achieve our Western ideal of individual sovereignty, i.e. group-level correlations don't define the individual. Similarly, inclusion is code for the elimination of competition, which fundamentally runs against the capitalist roots of Western civilisation. Competition intrinsically results in winners and losers, and we can't have losers if everyone is included. Reciprocally, we can't have winners either. Evolution itself is synonymous with biological competition, so inclusion as applied in practice is denial of evolutionary mechanisms. If diversity and inclusion were solely applied at the opportunity end (as opposed to the outcome end), I wouldn't be against it, because some people genuinely don't have the opportunity to compete due to various life circumstances. However, anyone with two eyes and two ears connected to a functioning brain knows this isn't the case, and you can't use immutables to identify an absence of individual opportunity anyway.

We don't have an English word for this left-wing form of fascism as far as I'm aware, but many of the resulting behaviours such as science denial/suppression are simply the mirror image of the right wing version. This is why we see suppression of inconvenient biological science coming from the left and promotion of pseudoscientific gender/race science. Gender pseudoscience and race pseudoscience such as phrenology are simply the respective far left and far right versions of each other as far as I'm concerned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
But here's where I take issue: you don't know that selective breeding is the only way to address this issue that you are convinced exists. Treating a group of people as -- essentially -- a breeding stock that needs to monitor its dumber members for the sake of improving their average IQ is barbaric, and is a collectivist ideology. "If the group wants to improve, then the group needs to oppress their dumb people".
Selective breeding already happens. It's called immigration.
If you look at the complete breakdown of race and income in the U.S, you will notice that there are in fact groups with African ancestry that still report higher incomes than that of native African Americans (or the ones who have been in America since the 1600s).

However, I've mentioned on Neogaf that this actually represents a problem in regards to the development of these poor countries. The West is in fact taking the best and most educated from these countries, resulting in a bit of brain drain, when instead, I believe we should be more restrictive of immigration so the brightest people stay and can actually help fix their countries.

There's also nothing that says this type of selective pressure is supposedly "oppressing" lower IQ groups. I never said take away their food or breathing rights, or anything of the sort. There are millions of White people or Asians who have IQs lower than their group's average. They still live and interact in these societies.

The difference is, both groups had the benefits of undergoing natural evolutionary pressure thousands of years ago that selected for a higher IQ average.

This is why I brought up nutrition and its long term effects on any particular group suffering from it.
It's not nutrition. Again, there are still black people who have lived their whole lives in the U.S that enjoy success comparable to other white people or Asians.

This is why I keep talking in AVERAGES. There are still black people who are just as or even more successful than White or Asian Americans. The issue is the frequency of them.

The notion that we would finger-wag a group suffering from lower-than-average IQ (and I am not necessarily agreeing with this conclusion, merely stating yours) when there are other variables we can help improve is just science for the sake of science. Seems like misguided priorities, at best.
You would actually have a chance to debunk my research right now if you don't believe that we can't use genetics to raise the average IQ.

I want to see a test done where after 5 generations of selecting for a group who test higher on IQ tests have offspring that match their own average. If that fails to happen, then you would indeed prove that environment or class needs to be focused on. But if my hypothesis comes true, then clearly society needs to move in that direction.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
All this science brought up dehumanizes people. I don’t know why you feel the need to do this.
When people bring up gender differences, do you think it's always their intention to dehumanize genders?
I recognize that women and men differ based on physical strength or even differ based on average height, it doesn't mean I hate Men or Women because of it.

This is the same type of rationale I apply to the study of race. I recognize that we are all different, but it in no way means I hate other groups.

Native American Indians are actually going through a bit of a crisis. They are losing their culture and experiencing high death rates. Why would I, if I was racist, be in complete support with raising the Native American Indian numbers up so they don't face disappearance over the next few decades?





It may sound harsh but you can't replace Native Americans if all the original tribes die off and no one is having babies. I want their group to continue to exist as a unique part of American identity.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tesseract

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
13,572
21,319
1,300
Australia
All this science brought up dehumanizes people. I don’t know why you feel the need to do this.
Because modern left wing orthodoxy states that there are no differences between groups of people based on immutable characteristics like race and gender and, accordingly, they are pushing discriminatory/anti-competitive equality of outcome policies. The antidote is to identify such differences and understand why they exist but then realise that they are relevant only at the group level and cannot be used as predictors for individuals.
 

pimentel1

Midas Member
Jul 22, 2018
1,421
1,059
695
@JordanN @matt404au when I see science being used in the same the way that the ACLU tries to use science, all I see are people pushing narratives that are not helpful to anyone. I don’t believe you are a racist jordanN. I believe you are a scientist, and I’ve seen how science hollows people out and how analysis reduces those studied into numbers and stats. We’re people. I’ve studied human geography, seen how leaders make their decisions based on data, and look where were at now. The data, when applied, never works out how one thinks it will.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
13,572
21,319
1,300
Australia
@JordanN @matt404au when I see science being used in the same the way that the ACLU tries to use science, all I see are people pushing narratives that are not helpful to anyone. I don’t believe you are a racist jordanN. I believe you are a scientist, and I’ve seen how science hollows people out and how analysis reduces those studied into numbers and stats. We’re people. I’ve studied human geography, seen how leaders make their decisions based on data, and look where were at now. The data, when applied, never works out how one thinks it will.
So you believe that the solution is to suppress data rather than educate people in how to contend with it?
 

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
@JordanN @matt404au when I see science being used in the same the way that the ACLU tries to use science, all I see are people pushing narratives that are not helpful to anyone. I don’t believe you are a racist jordanN. I believe you are a scientist, and I’ve seen how science hollows people out and how analysis reduces those studied into numbers and stats. We’re people. I’ve studied human geography, seen how leaders make their decisions based on data, and look where were at now. The data, when applied, never works out how one thinks it will.
I understand where you're coming from.

Trust me, I wish we lived in a world where these patterns where not associated with everyday life. But even without being exposed to this data, I attest it is impossible to not notice these group patterns and the ramifications it can have.

For example, every time people bring up that "environment" is what causes group differences. Well, even if you travel back 1000 years ago, when the environment was a lot different than today, Europeans, Africans, Asians and the Amerindians all had their own cultures. They all built completely different societies based around shared traits.

We only saw one Roman Empire. We only saw one Mayan civilization. We only saw one Japanese civilization etc. All different groups geographically separated from each other, yet they lived completely different lives. It never meant every single Roman citizen was the same, or every single Japanese rice farmer was the same, but when you look at each kingdom or empire as a whole, it becomes obvious that they built a system that only they understood.
 
Last edited:

pimentel1

Midas Member
Jul 22, 2018
1,421
1,059
695
So you believe that the solution is to suppress data rather than educate people in how to contend with it?
I believe trying to use data to understand humanity is as futile and unproductive as trying to understand weather patterns and where its going day to day. There are more variables than anyone can comprehend and because of that, data tries to simplify complex situations and in the end causes more problems than it solves.
 

switchback27

Member
Jul 26, 2018
415
271
305
I believe trying to use data exclusively to understand humanity is as futile and unproductive as trying to understand weather patterns and where its going day to day. There are more variables than anyone can comprehend and because of that, data tries to simplify complex situations and in the end causes more problems than it solves.
Wouldn't this be a more reasonable sentiment? It is possible to observe human activity as data and try to predict or rationalize activities, but I do agree that relying exclusively on data is simplifying a complex problem solely so you can claim an answer, and may not present a solution that is palatable or desirable when applied to human activity (think that's what Dun was implying as well, with his comments on selective breeding).
 

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
36,396
9,388
1,340
the limbic is what it is, we're gonna have to poke and prod its depths if we wanna build psycho robots that feel
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
13,572
21,319
1,300
Australia
I believe trying to use data to understand humanity is as futile and unproductive as trying to understand weather patterns and where its going day to day. There are more variables than anyone can comprehend and because of that, data tries to simplify complex situations and in the end causes more problems than it solves.
That’s ridiculous. With this logic, you may as well throw out science altogether because it can’t reduce error margins to zero. I wonder — do you believe climate science predictions?
 

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
Once again, the data speaks about different racial group averages. It is in no way meant to be used to judge individuals!

Look at gender the same way. Car insurance is currently structured so that Men pay more than women. Does this imply that all Men are bad drivers, or do insurance companies look at the data and find that men are just more likely to get into accidents than compared to women?




Yet, no one calls Car Insurance companies "sexist" for using this policy.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.