• 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.

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,704
1,508
815
After deluge after deluge of post, I'm gonna have to conclude that either 1) Jordan is absolutely obsessed with this topic or 2) Jordan is part of, or poaches from, a collective group that spins these theories out as part of some political platform. Notice how his understanding of IQ leads to the justification for ending immigration of even skilled workers into America. In any case, either possibility is deeply depressing.

I could go through each and everyone one of Jordan's, what, 40 new links to bullshit, but I ain't got that kinda time. So to reiterate main points:

1) This survey done on IQ scientist opinions says they are essentially 50/50 divided on whether genes primarily cause the IQ gap or environment. This other survey says 17% thought genes were most important vs 32% environment (with rest % being even, I assume). There is no consensus on this matter among scientists who study it for a living.
2) There is consensus that the data is highly incomplete, and that no theory is definitely proven to any extent. The major public proponents of both sides agree to this; i.e. Flynn for environment and Murray for genes.
3) Declaring that this is settled science, as Jordan does, is in service to spreading his political ideology and his personal investment.
4) Jordan outright denies the Flynn effect, like a quack, as the Flynn effect gives significant power to the environment in its ability to reshape IQ averages.
5) If you're deeply interested in this topic, you're better served reading a book on it.

Jordan's links certainly have a conspiratorial appeal to them. In fact he seems to now be doubling down into a "There is a worldwide conspiracy to hide the truth on race IQ" territory, as this is the only way for him to get around the fact that there is no consensus and there is no conclusive data or theory. So, I mean, if you're cool with conspiracies like vaccines cause autism and the moon landing was fake and the twin towers was an inside job, Jordan may be your cup of tea. He's not mine.

Finally, if you just want a cursory summary of the subject by an actual IQ scientist, rather than from a journalist, blog, media head, article from 1970, or an obsessive Gaf user, read this short summary by David Reich, a Harvard professor that specifically researches population genetics.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
Notice how his understanding of IQ leads to the justification for ending immigration of even skilled workers into America. In any case, either possibility is deeply depressing.
That's not how it works. I don't think immigration is going to solve the declining Native American population. IQ remains tertiary in all of this.

Anything could be made political if you think hard enough, doesn't mean it HAS to be that way. I even said it's not my desire to actually look for a political conspiracy, I just want the study of race to be taught as a science without censorship.

I remember when Evolution was seen as highly politicized. Like, anyone who tried to teach it in the 90s was seen as anti-Christian. Just because you could find parallels and explanations that clashed with religion, didn't mean the entire theory was rooted in that belief.

4) Jordan outright denies the Flynn effect, like a quack, as the Flynn effect gives significant power to the environment in its ability to reshape IQ averages.
This will never explain the outright disparities between Europeans and Asians. Somehow this always gets ignored.
Also, Flynn Effect has a ceiling. It is not meant to increase forever. Flynn Effect says nothing about the actual genetic causes in IQ among Black, Whites and Asians.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tesseract

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
Also, in regards to the continued defiance that environment somehow carries more weight than genetics, I am looking at history as my basis for why races appear to differ from one another, but still share similar group patterns.

Europe is a great example of this. The region has been rocked with famines, environmental weather changes, wars, dictatorships, stock market crashes, unemployment etc, you name it. Yet despite all the catastrophes, we still see Europe as a whole resemble European societies, and not Asia or South American ones.

The reunification of the two Germanys easily proved this. The country did not immediately collapsed, nor are there any signs that Germany will fall back into low socio-economic status that had existed during the Communist reign.

If North Korea and South Korea, were ever to reunite, I would expect the entire Korean peninsula to resemble a highly advanced Korean society as opposed to a declining and substantially poor Communist one. That is because, 70 years of Korean separation would not have been enough time to greatly change the genetic makeup of both groups.

Environment is great for explaining short term gains, but not long term contributions that humans from thousands of years ago had to put up with and pass onto their offspring.

I think this is why people are so resistive to the idea when I say that Africans would benefit hugely if we were to encourage selecting for high IQ groups and having them breed more, in addition to other proposed techniques like improving environment. You would no longer be able to deny the history of humans which says that, each group under went [natural] selective pressures that lead to an increase in IQ.

Again, you would need to demonstrate that raising IQ somehow DOESN'T lead to more success. But this idea wouldn't make sense, because both rich and poor blacks still report different incomes and SAT scores.

 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Tesseract

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
13,152
23,849
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
Selective breeding already happens. It's called immigration.
So you don't deny it, you just handwave it and say "it's already happening".

This doesn't justify what you are proposing. Even if so-called "brain drain" is taking place, the leap to a society-driven or state-driven mandate for individuals above a certain IQ to breed is barbaric, and brain drain from immigration does not justify this latter concept.

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 conjecture, because outside of phrenology you have no way of knowing if the skills necessary to score higher on a modern IQ test would be the same skills that allowed for a group to survive "natural evolutionary pressure".

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.
But on AVERAGE, as I've pointed, a significant portion of the black population -- both within the USA and in their ethnic homeland -- suffer from malnutrition.

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.
I've already offered something that would help immediately and would also help offspring within 1 or 2 generations, but you continue to push the necessity of selective breeding upon a racial group "if they want to have higher IQ".

It's not about "debunking your research". It is a question as to why you continue to focus on ratios of genetics-to-environmental-factors and why you continue to push selective breeding as the humane answer to the problem you believe is occurring.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeafTourette

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
So you don't deny it, you just handwave it and say "it's already happening".
What else do you want me to say? Since organisms first existed, there have always been evolutionary pressures that caused certain populations to slowly diverge from the rest.
If you haven't realized it, immigration is an artificial means to this process. They are the elite of their country and thus they represent more potential.

This doesn't justify what you are proposing. Even if so-called "brain drain" is taking place, the leap to a society-driven or state-driven mandate for individuals above a certain IQ to breed is barbaric,
You haven't said anything that proves why its barbaric.

Also, I addressed this point before and I'm not sure if you're just conveniently ignoring it, but you do realize I've said in the past the goal is to bring them up to the Western average? I.e, once the Black majority reaches the same White average as 100, the program is rendered obsolete? Ironically, this doesn't mean that low IQ people stop existing. But it does change the frequency so it becomes less prevalent.

This is conjecture, because outside of phrenology you have no way of knowing if the skills necessary to score higher on a modern IQ test would be the same skills that allowed for a group to survive "natural evolutionary pressure".
If we accept that IQ is tied to success, then it's important to understand that IQ must have played a role in the development of different societies.
I have never once said that Africans were not perfectly suited for their environment. We do not need IQ tests to know that Africans have lived on their continent for at least 40,000 years.

For Europeans and Asians however, I believe their relative isolationism meant they did build societies that did favor higher IQ. This gets a little abstract, because a high IQ society could technically live anywhere around the world and build nations that resemble where they came from. Case and point, Canada,Australia and the U.S are geographically separated from Europe, yet what nations are they still modeled after? Both of them have obvious influences from the UK or France.

But I know what you're going to say "But JordanN! If you don't have to live in Europe to create European societies, why can't the rest of the world follow?"
Well, we do have an example of this. Look at the USA, but also look at the pre-Colombian civilizations that were also there before the Europeans. This is not to downplay their achievements, but it's obvious that before European contact, MesoAmerican culture was doing it's own thing. And that's ok. The Indians were here first, and they thrived in their own environment without European interference.

But on AVERAGE, as I've pointed, a significant portion of the black population -- both within the USA and in their ethnic homeland -- suffer from malnutrition.
Before I tackle this issue, let me read out the official definition of what malnutrition is.


This can be pretty fucking tricky, since someone who eats McDonalds for a living vs a kid dying of dehydration can both be considered "malnourished", even though the guy who eats Mcdonalds is still bound to live longer and participate in society, whereas the kid dying of dehydration only has 3 days to find water before he completely perishes.

With that in mind, I think it's important we actually find a more "universal" definition, otherwise the term itself becomes meaningless since we could argue everyone is malnourished if they ever ate junk food once in their life.



Well, at least we know most people in the USA are actually being fed food. They're clearly not starving or exposing their rib cages as whole.

Regardless, lets continue and see what science still has to say about malnourishment.

A lack of food access can cause health disparities for those of low socioeconomic status (LSES1). Obesity, for example, disproportionately affects children who grow up with LSES, compared to those with higher socioeconomic status (HSES).2 (Frederick et al., 2014) Similarly, heightened mortality seen among the homeless, can be attributed to an unparalleled rate of ischemic heart disease related to poor diet (Fazel et al., 2014). Both of these are attributes of the dual burden of malnutrition. The dual burden of malnutrition is when obesity occurs alongside malnutrition in the same individual, family or community. In the United States (US), 53% of households with an underweight person, are also housing an overweight or obese person in that same household (Doak et al., 2005).
To address obesity in parallel with food insecurity, organizations must focus on offering nutrient-dense foods (Correia Horvath et al., 2014). The purpose of this commentary is to bring light to the dual burden of malnutrition in the US3 and call organizations to serve healthier foods that facilitate life-sustaining aide for low-income recipients.

Ok, we now run back into the same trap of defining what malnourishment is. In the above study, it mentions that Americans are both suffering from obesity and being underweight at the same time. It could be argued that Americans aren't necessarily living healthy lives or they could improve their diets, but as a whole? It still casts doubt on how it's actually suppose to affect IQ differences.

Here's another study that's perhaps a bit more specific


Food insecurity, lack of access to nutritious food for an active, healthy life, is alarmingly increasing for older adults in the United States, with 8.4% of older adults being food insecure (Feeding America, 2016). This statistic is disproportionately higher in Hispanic and African American older adults. Although the national average of household food insecurity is 14%, it is 22.4% for Hispanic households (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], 2016) and 26% for African American households as compared with 11% for White non-Hispanics (Feeding America, 2017). Food insecurity is associated with poverty for older adults, which was 18.4% for older African Americans, 17.5% for older Hispanics, and 8.8% for the U.S. population in 2015 (Administration on Aging, Administration for Community Living, & U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2016).
14% of Americans households are considered food insecure, this number is somewhat doubled for Hispanic and Black populations, however, this is because both groups are also more at risk of being poverty.

All in all, it's far from giving an explanation that says the majority of Black Americans are actually starving or lacking food security, but only those who are in poverty run the risk of both things being doubled.

Keep in mind though, this is where the chicken and the egg scenario comes in. Again, if a lower IQ has genetic factors, than it's not just environment we have to worry about that leads to less success (and thus, less equal opportunities to have better nutrition).

Another problem is that if nutrition was truly what is holding groups back, then why is it we still Black Americans become great athletes? It wouldn't make quite sense to believe that black people can never get the same food as Whites or Asians, but then also outperform them in sports.

I've already offered something that would help immediately and would also help offspring within 1 or 2 generations, but you continue to push the necessity of selective breeding upon a racial group "if they want to have higher IQ".

It's not about "debunking your research". It is a question as to why you continue to focus on ratios of genetics-to-environmental-factors and why you continue to push selective breeding as the humane answer to the problem you believe is occurring.
And what was that? I cast doubt on your nutrition hypothesis since
1. Poor diets in general affect all Americans. Yet after you correct for income differences, malnutrition rates are similar among all races but there are still disparities in other fields (i.e sports, academics).
2. Europeans and Americans are geographically separated from each other, and in terms of actual diet, there is no conclusive evidence that says they all eat the same food. Hell, I don't even believe European countries that border each other also have the same nourishment/diets. However, there is still the same IQ pattern to be found among all of them.


Since IQ is at least 50% genetics, better nutrition alone isn't actually go to fix this gap. Just as how I don't expect malnutrition to fix the IQ gap between Europeans and Asians.
We see the gaps at ALL levels. Refer to the SAT table. Black Americans who make $70,000 and ostensibly have better food access than their peers, still don't score as high as Whites or Asians within the same income class.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
13,152
23,849
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
What else do you want me to say? Since organisms first existed, there have always been evolutionary pressures that caused certain populations to slowly diverge from the rest.
If you haven't realized it, immigration is an artificial means to this process. They are the elite of their country and thus they represent more potential.
I'm not trying to get you to say anything. I am directly challenging your assertion that "evolutionary pressures" caused higher rates of IQ yet you cling to the assertion that it is largely genetic. We're talking about a window of a few hundred to a few thousand years, and very little appreciable macroevolution (if any) has occurred during this period of time. At what point does environmental pressure become "evolutionary pressure", which then becomes "genetic"? Please show me the research indicating the timetable of this progression.

We lack the historical data to corroborate the IQ comparison, unless you can produce like comparisons between IQ tests (or equivalent) conducted 2000 years ago and the tests conducted today.

Otherwise, you are relying on inferences about how they would have performed on said tests. Quite a leap in logic.

You haven't said anything that proves why its barbaric.
I've said it quite plainly. You just glossed over it. Here, I'll re-quote:

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.
I don't believe in collectivist ideology nor do I believe in making group-based decisions for genetic experiments. A scientist would eliminate variables that skew statistics before embarking on more dramatic actions to prove their thesis. When it comes to human populations, we should be especially skeptical and cautions when treading into this territory.

So I guess I'll just repeat my observations yet again, because you return to the same argument over what ratio of environmental vs genetic is responsible for expressed IQ, and you return to the same argument as to what should be done about it (selective breeding). I do not believe human beings should be subjected to selective breeding programs, full stop.

Also, I addressed this point before and I'm not sure if you're just conveniently ignoring it, but you do realize I've said in the past the goal is to bring them up to the Western average? I.e, once the Black majority reaches the same White average as 100, the program is rendered obsolete? Ironically, this doesn't mean that low IQ people stop existing. But it does change the frequency so it becomes less prevalent.
I'm well aware of your aim, and it doesn't change my contention. No people group should have to go through such a program, nor should it be suggested when there are other viable options on the table that have more immediate effects, are more humane, and have more scientific backing behind them.

To draw a comparison, imagine you believe demons are responsible for behavioral deviances. And when investigating this issue, you develop numerous helpful patterns and methods of addressing the problem based on this premise. But you are also presented with evidence that behavioral deviances occur due to brain damage.

Now, you can either double-down on your beliefs that these issues are caused by demons, you can accept that perhaps these issues are caused by one or the other depending on the circumstances, or you can abandon your belief in demons. It would be inhumane to leave people suffering from brain damage because one takes it as a challenge to their belief in demons.

To carry this analogy over, no one is asking you to abandon your belief in demons (i.e. the role genetics play in IQ expression). Folks are just pointing out that expressed IQ is affected by both environment and genetics. Your response to this is to argue over the exact ratio of environment vs genetics and to insist on your particular exorcism (selective breeding) to fix the matter.

If we accept that IQ is tied to success, then it's important to understand that IQ must have played a role in the development of different societies.
I have never once said that Africans were not perfectly suited for their environment. We do not need IQ tests to know that Africans have lived on their continent for at least 40,000 years.

For Europeans and Asians however, I believe their relative isolationism meant they did build societies that did favor higher IQ. This gets a little abstract, because a high IQ society could technically live anywhere around the world and build nations that resemble where they came from. Case and point, Canada,Australia and the U.S are geographically separated from Europe, yet what nations are they still modeled after? Both of them have obvious influences from the UK or France.

But I know what you're going to say "But JordanN! If you don't have to live in Europe to create European societies, why can't the rest of the world follow?"
Well, we do have an example of this. Look at the USA, but also look at the pre-Colombian civilizations that were also there before the Europeans. This is not to downplay their achievements, but it's obvious that before European contact, MesoAmerican culture was doing it's own thing. And that's ok. The Indians were here first, and they thrived in their own environment without European interference.


Before I tackle this issue, let me read out the official definition of what malnutrition is.


This can be pretty fucking tricky, since someone who eats McDonalds for a living vs a kid dying of dehydration can both be considered "malnourished", even though the guy who eats Mcdonalds is still bound to live longer and participate in society, whereas the kid dying of dehydration only has 3 days to find water before he completely perishes.

With that in mind, I think it's important we actually find a more "universal" definition, otherwise the term itself becomes meaningless since we could argue everyone is malnourished if they ever ate junk food once in their life.



Well, at least we know most people in the USA are actually being fed food. They're clearly not starving or exposing their rib cages as whole.

Regardless, lets continue and see what science still has to say about malnourishment.




Ok, we now run back into the same trap of defining what malnourishment is. In the above study, it mentions that Americans are both suffering from obesity and being underweight at the same time. It could be argued that Americans aren't necessarily living healthy lives or they could improve their diets, but as a whole? It still casts doubt on how it's actually suppose to affect IQ differences.

Here's another study that's perhaps a bit more specific




14% of Americans households are considered food insecure, this number is somewhat doubled for Hispanic and Black populations, however, this is because both groups are also more at risk of being poverty.

All in all, it's far from giving an explanation that says the majority of Black Americans are actually starving or lacking food security, but only those who are in poverty run the risk of both things being doubled.

Keep in mind though, this is where the chicken and the egg scenario comes in. Again, if a lower IQ has genetic factors, than it's not just environment we have to worry about that leads to less success (and thus, less equal opportunities to have better nutrition).

Another problem is that if nutrition was truly what is holding groups back, then why is it we still Black Americans become great athletes? It wouldn't make quite sense to believe that black people can never get the same food as Whites or Asians, but then also outperform them in sports.

And what was that? I cast doubt on your nutrition hypothesis since
1. Poor diets in general affect all Americans. Yet after you correct for income differences, malnutrition rates are similar among all races but there are still disparities in other fields (i.e sports, academics).
2. Europeans and Americans are geographically separated from each other, and in terms of actual diet, there is no conclusive evidence that says they all eat the same food. Hell, I don't even believe European countries that border each other also have the same nourishment/diets. However, there is still the same IQ pattern to be found among all of them.
If you are (finally) willing to engage in the debate about nutrition and malnutrition, you are welcome to respond to the numerous posts I already made on the topic earlier in the thread instead of grabbing the topic out of the ether, ignoring what has been said so far, and jumping to new conclusions based on your incomplete reading of the facts. I've already answered several of these questions such as "why do black athletes exist if the black community is malnourished?" and so forth.

But I am glad that you are entertaining the notion that nutrition plays a role here. Keep digging into the facts.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
I'm not trying to get you to say anything. I am directly challenging your assertion that "evolutionary pressures" caused higher rates of IQ yet you cling to the assertion that it is largely genetic. We're talking about a window of a few hundred to a few thousand years, and very little appreciable macroevolution (if any) has occurred during this period of time.

We lack the historical data to corroborate the IQ comparison, unless you can produce like comparisons between IQ tests (or equivalent) conducted 2000 years ago and the tests conducted today.
Eskimos continue to do better on memory tests than Caucasian children. The Bajau people can stay underwater longer than most other humans on the planet. We've definitely seen significant human differences appear within the last thousand years.

I cannot go back in time and literally give the first European Caveman an IQ test, but since we do know there is a continuous pattern of Blacks and Whites scoring 15-points away from each other, it can be hypothesized that sometime when the last common ancestor split off, Europeans & Asians underwent something that gave them the biological boost in IQ.

My interpretation of this was the Cold Winters theory. European environment provided unpredictable weather that required humans to plan for the future, otherwise, when Winter would have rolled in, the Humans who didn't plan for the Winter would have all starved. Repeat this many times and you were bound to end up with a group that required a bit more intelligence to thrive.

This idea is also further strengthened when you take into account there was another competing group of humans called the Neanderthals, who only lived in Europe and Asia and are confirmed to have the largest brains of all Homo Sapiens.

Now, is this 100% the explanation to how the IQ split first happen? Ehhhh, maybe, maybe not. I have been open to the belief that there could in fact have been several events that lead to the rise in European IQ since the split from the last common ancestor. One such is the use of capital punishment during the Medieval era. I've heard of competing theories that Europeans during this time period had actually mass executed their criminals but eh, I still think something bigger had to have happen before all of this when you look at European history and still see cultural gaps compared to other societies around the world.

All in all, there are a lot of powerful theories behind this. I'm still open to reading more about them. But I still think the Cold Winters holds up as the strongest case for the IQ differences.

I don't believe in collectivist ideology nor do I believe in making group-based decisions for genetic experiments.
Who is to say they can't volunteer? The only group decision is by explaining to people as a whole what the benefits of doing this are and possibly guiding them towards the outcome with facts. Otherwise, there's nothing actually stopping Joe Scientist from having 20 babies with his wife vs Bob the Janitor who voluntarily chooses to never have children. If the experiment proves to be a success, then morally speaking, I would want to accelerate this process again, the average IQ raises from 85 to 100. There will be still be Bob the Janitors, but now there will be more Joe Scientist offspring running around.

I do not believe human beings should be subjected to selective breeding programs, full stop.
Then you're going to have to make it illegal for anyone to reproduce without giving their reasons for it. You don't need selective breeding programs to stop more people from giving birth to children with more red hair, or making their children taller by only reproducing with taller Men/Women (fun fact, the average human height is in fact increasing).

I'm well aware of your aim, and it doesn't change my contention. No people group should have to go through such a program, nor should it be suggested when there are other viable options on the table that have more immediate effects, are more humane, and have more scientific backing behind them.
There is nothing inhumane about high iq people breeding. If lower IQ groups voluntarily refrain from having children, that is their choice and is not inhumane either.

To carry this analogy over, no one is asking you to abandon your belief in demons (i.e. the role genetics play in IQ expression). Folks are just pointing out that expressed IQ is affected by both environment and genetics. Your response to this is to argue over the exact ratio of environment vs genetics and to insist on your particular exorcism (selective breeding) to fix the matter.
Controlling for environment does not control for genetics. There have even been studies that say different levels of nourishment doesn't all have the same impact on different cognitive abilities.
It can be a factor, but it's not one that's going to solve the other 50% gap caused by genetics.

If you are (finally) willing to engage in the debate about nutrition and malnutrition, you are welcome to respond to the numerous posts I already made on the topic earlier in the thread instead of grabbing the topic out of the ether, ignoring what has been said so far, and jumping to new conclusions based on your incomplete reading of the facts.
My post just covered this. American diets in general are lacking, but only a very few are actually affected by malnutrition. Unless you want to argue that even extremely rich people like Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos are malnourished, because they were caught one time drinking soda, it's an argument that goes nowhere.

Also, you run into the continuous problem with not explaining how are all European nations engorging themselves with the exact same diets as their neighbors. Do you believe Canadians are malnourished, British people are malnourished, French people are malnourished, yet why are IQ results still so similar?

I've already answered several of these questions such as "why do black athletes exist if the black community is malnourished?" and so forth.
What miraculous diet are poor white Americans on that makes them less malnourished than a top basketball player?

But I am glad that you are entertaining the notion that nutrition plays a role here. Keep digging into the facts.
Nutrition alone is not a good explanation when I've explained that Europeans suffered more famines throughout history than Africans living in America have. I don't believe there is any magic in the wheat poor European peasants eat, compared to the easily accessible vitamins and minerals that are now made available in most off the shelf food. In fact, their diets where probably a lot worse since there was no such thing as luxury outside of the noble classes. You could only eat food you were lucky enough to grow, whereas modern Americans are given thousands of choices to what food and drinks they can actually stuff into their body.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
13,152
23,849
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
Eskimos continue to do better on memory tests than Caucasian children. The Bajau people can stay underwater longer than most other humans on the planet. We've definitely seen significant human differences appear within the last thousand years.
I agree that differences have appeared. Only one of us is pushing the idea that the differences are genetic. You have yet to help me understand your own timetable for when something transitions from an "environmental pressure" to an "evolutionary pressure" to a "genetic factor.

Understanding your fact-based timetable for these transitions would help me better understand your premise. Precision is scientific.

I cannot go back in time and literally give the first European Caveman an IQ test, but since we do know there is a continuous pattern of Blacks and Whites scoring 15-points away from each other, it can be hypothesized that sometime when the last common ancestor split off, Europeans & Asians underwent something that gave them the biological boost in IQ.
>I can't proffer the similar test results for both groups
> let me use 100 years of data to make retroactive judgments stretching back 1000s if not 10,000s of years.
>facts and logic are on my side

Nah. Your methodology is not scientific.

My interpretation of this was the Cold Winters theory. European environment provided unpredictable weather that required humans to plan for the future, otherwise, when Winter would have rolled in, the Humans who didn't plan for the Winter would have all starved. Repeat this many times and you were bound to end up with a group that required a bit more intelligence to thrive.

This idea is also further strengthened when you take into account there was another competing group of humans called the Neanderthals, who only lived in Europe and Asia and are confirmed to have the largest brains of all Homo Sapiens.

Now, is this 100% the explanation to how the IQ split first happen? Ehhhh, maybe, maybe not. I have been open to the belief that there could in fact have been several events that lead to the rise in European IQ since the split from the last common ancestor. One such is the use of capital punishment during the Medieval era. I've heard of competing theories that Europeans during this time period had actually mass executed their criminals but eh, I still think something bigger had to have happen before all of this when you look at European history and still see cultural gaps compared to other societies around the world.

All in all, there are a lot of powerful theories behind this. I'm still open to reading more about them. But I still think the Cold Winters holds up as the strongest case for the IQ differences.


Who is to say they can't volunteer? The only group decision is by explaining to people as a whole what the benefits of doing this are and possibly guiding them towards the outcome with facts. Otherwise, there's nothing actually stopping Joe Scientist from having 20 babies with his wife vs Bob the Janitor who voluntarily chooses to never have children. If the experiment proves to be a success, then morally speaking, I would want to accelerate this process again, the average IQ raises from 85 to 100. There will be still be Bob the Janitors, but now there will be more Joe Scientist offspring running around.


Then you're going to have to make it illegal for anyone to reproduce without giving their reasons for it. You don't need selective breeding programs to stop more people from giving birth to children with more red hair, or making their children taller by only reproducing with taller Men/Women (fun fact, the average human height is in fact increasing).


There is nothing inhumane about high iq people breeding. If lower IQ groups voluntarily refrain from having children, that is their choice and is not inhumane either.
The inhumane part is not merely the method by which you put this breeding program into place, but the conclusions you've drawn and the solution you've offered. If malnutrition is a viable pathway to repair/improve IQ over the course of even 1 or 2 generations (it appears to be), then why would you instead focus your effort on breeding programs that -- by your own estimation -- would take 5 or more generations? It seems that you need the genetic link to be very strong -- almost exclusively responsible -- for this course of action to make sense. It seems this is why you continue to argue about the ratio of environmental factors vs genetic factors, in spite of the fact that nearly everyone in the thread has already agreed it is a mix.

In service of this breeding program idea, you are forced to emphasize the genetic impact to justify this idea. If we had concrete evidence this could be solved through breeding (even though that is still barbaric), maybe it would make more sense. But there remain significant variables for which you have not accounted, one of them being nutrition.

So when you keep dismissing these variables, keep insisting on your solution, and keep insisting on the conclusions you've drawn while ignoring scientific evidence to the contrary, it steers you out of the realm of "scientific investigation" and into dogmatism.

Controlling for environment does not control for genetics. There have even been studies that say different levels of nourishment doesn't all have the same impact on different cognitive abilities.
It can be a factor, but it's not one that's going to solve the other 50% gap caused by genetics.
What study has determined this is the case? How can you determine with such certainty that it won't solve any perceived gaps?

My post just covered this. American diets in general are lacking, but only a very few are actually affected by malnutrition. Unless you want to argue that even extremely rich people like Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos are malnourished, because they were caught one time drinking soda, it's an argument that goes nowhere.
As I pointed out in my previous posts, the American diet is confirmed to include foods that lower IQ, even within a 7-day period.

What miraculous diet are poor white Americans on that makes them less malnourished than a top basketball player?
I've already pointed out the irrelevancy of this question. An athlete's diet does not necessarily nourish a developing brain.

So unless you have IQ comparisons between poor white Americans and top bastketball players, I don't have anything further to prove. The burden is now on you.

Nutrition alone is not a good explanation when I've explained that Europeans suffered more famines throughout history than Africans living in America have. I don't believe there is any magic in the wheat poor European peasants eat, compared to the easily accessible vitamins and minerals that are now made available in most off the shelf food. In fact, their diets where probably a lot worse since there was no such thing as luxury outside of the noble classes. You could only eat food you were lucky enough to grow, whereas modern Americans are given thousands of choices to what food and drinks they can actually stuff into their body.
I never tried to argue that nutritional alone is an explanation, merely that it is a huge variable you are overlooking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeafTourette

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
The inhumane part is not merely the method by which you put this breeding program into place, but the conclusions you've drawn and the solution you've offered.
Sorry, that's not an argument.
"It's inhumane because... it's inhumane".

I cannot accept that as an answer. Again, give me the evidence that says people volunteering to have children is "barbaric".

I will wait for an answer before I deal with the rest.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
13,152
23,849
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
Sorry, that's not an argument.
"It's inhumane because... it's inhumane".

I cannot accept that as an answer. Again, give me the evidence that says people volunteering to have children is "barbaric".

I will wait for an answer before I deal with the rest.
I've already answered this, and framing my argument in that way only makes your own standpoint weaker.

It is inhumane because you are proposing an oppressive pogrom when you have not yet eliminated important variables (such as nutrition). I will use the example of demon possession again: you would rather leave people "possessed" in order to serve your overarching narrative of genetics being mostly responsible, and the solution you propose is based on the underlying assumption that genetics are largely responsible for the outcomes we see.

I have brought up a variable -- nutrition -- that you continue to dance around and misconstrue, but have yet to answer.

Futhermore, I have asked you to please help me understand your timetable for when an environmental factor shifts to "evolutionary pressure", which then shifts to genetic predisposition. Since environmental factors are not genetic factors, one would need to demonstrate that such factors were so prevalent over such a period of time that it eventually became a genetic predisposition.

It seems you are willing to admit there are environmental factors at play even within the realm of genetic predisposition, but you refuse to take that thought any further. Is that because it undermines your whole premise? Why are you unwilling to further establish your assertions? It wasn't I who claimed evolutionary pressure led to higher IQ. That was you.

So-called "evolutionary pressure" is environmental. So, help me understand when an environmental impact on group IQ stops being environmental and starts being genetic. It's your claim, after all.

In light of these missing pieces, it is inhumane to continue suggesting a genetics-based solution, whether the topic is behavioral disturbance, genetic defects, group IQ, or another other issue. "Science for the sake of science", as I mentioned before. You are treating the group as breeding stock who must obey special rules if they hope to improve their situation instead of pursuing the non-genetic variables they could pursue to to improve the situation. And when faced with this, you prefer to double down and insist that the ratio of environmental to genetic factors is strongly in favor of genetics, so strongly that the only answer needs to be selective breeding.

edit: typos and vague sentences
 
Last edited:

ArchaeEnkidu

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
3,960
6,266
755
@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.
Sure, and I am the queen of bloody England. JordanN isn't a scientist at all. He is an obsessed ideologue who will grab any and all "information" that proves his point, even if it has been proven to be false or from heavily questionable sources. Strange and others have politely destroyed him time and time again. If Andrew Wakefield had linked IQ to his vaccine ":research", JordanN would find some way to try and defend it.

After deluge after deluge of post, I'm gonna have to conclude that either 1) Jordan is absolutely obsessed with this topic or 2) Jordan is part of, or poaches from, a collective group that spins these theories out as part of some political platform. Notice how his understanding of IQ leads to the justification for ending immigration of even skilled workers into America. In any case, either possibility is deeply depressing.

I could go through each and everyone one of Jordan's, what, 40 new links to bullshit, but I ain't got that kinda time. So to reiterate main points:

1) This survey done on IQ scientist opinions says they are essentially 50/50 divided on whether genes primarily cause the IQ gap or environment. This other survey says 17% thought genes were most important vs 32% environment (with rest % being even, I assume). There is no consensus on this matter among scientists who study it for a living.
2) There is consensus that the data is highly incomplete, and that no theory is definitely proven to any extent. The major public proponents of both sides agree to this; i.e. Flynn for environment and Murray for genes.
3) Declaring that this is settled science, as Jordan does, is in service to spreading his political ideology and his personal investment.
4) Jordan outright denies the Flynn effect, like a quack, as the Flynn effect gives significant power to the environment in its ability to reshape IQ averages.
5) If you're deeply interested in this topic, you're better served reading a book on it.

Jordan's links certainly have a conspiratorial appeal to them. In fact he seems to now be doubling down into a "There is a worldwide conspiracy to hide the truth on race IQ" territory, as this is the only way for him to get around the fact that there is no consensus and there is no conclusive data or theory. So, I mean, if you're cool with conspiracies like vaccines cause autism and the moon landing was fake and the twin towers was an inside job, Jordan may be your cup of tea. He's not mine.

Finally, if you just want a cursory summary of the subject by an actual IQ scientist, rather than from a journalist, blog, media head, article from 1970, or an obsessive Gaf user, read this short summary by David Reich, a Harvard professor that specifically researches population genetics.
Just take a look at the Community Discussions thread. He tries to shove immigration in almost every other post of his. Dude is beyond obsessed and I don't think it is good for his health.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
13,572
21,319
1,300
Australia
Jordan, you are proposing incentives for higher IQ populations to reproduce while also citing research that you believe demonstrates genetic IQ differences between racial groups. What do you see as the end result?
 
Oct 26, 2018
4,179
3,330
440
IMO, IQ trends is a combo of both genes and external factors.

Check out any sites that dors IQ ranks.

Mongolia i susually rated pretty well. Poor country, poor infrastructure, people arent exactly pigging out with tons of food. And pretty sure given these cicumstances, the healthcare services there cant be the greatest.

Yet, pretty good scores rivaling your typical white dude or asian country no problem.
 

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
It is inhumane because you are proposing an oppressive pogrom
You cannot use your opinion and cite them as facts.
That is not evidence. I've explained this many times. Show me how getting different groups of people to voluntarily breed has anything to do with barbarism.
What is "oppression" in this scenario? What is "barbarism"?

I'm giving you one last chance. You know I don't like the "feelings over facts" argument so why bother to use this one on me?
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
13,152
23,849
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
You cannot use your opinion and cite them as facts.
That is not evidence. I've explained this many times. Show me how getting different groups of people to voluntarily breed has anything to do with barbarism.

I'm giving you one last chance. You know I don't like the "feelings over facts" argument so why bother to use this on me? I want evidence, not opinions of why you claim it's wrong. Saying it's barbarism with no evidence is not one of them.
Sigh. You're not in a position to argue about "one last chance" when you continue to gloss over the reasons I give you.

If you're asking me to factually prove that it is "barbarism", I cannot.

But that doesn't mean you can leave the claim unanswered. Call it dehumanizing, insensitive, inhumane, or whatever, the heart of the matter remains the same: why do you propose breeding programs for people to resolve an issue when the root cause has yet to be established? This practice has been used to oppress and eliminate ethnic groups for hundreds of years and is often referred to as eugenics (I'm sure you're familiar). The argument against such practices is that they suspend individual human rights for the sake of purported group benefits, often at extreme cost to those who fall outside the desired range of features.

If you believe in individual human rights, then I would like you to explain how that jives with your eugenics proposals given earlier in the thread. If you don't believe in human rights, I consider you a barbarian who needs to adopt to modern times. Sure, we can chalk it up as my "opinion", but you're fleeing to semantical dodges while failing to defend your own standpoints. If the exact wording I am using bothers you, then ignore my accusation of "barbarism" and just focus on proving why this course of action is required (something you have yet to do).
 

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
Jordan, you are proposing incentives for higher IQ populations to reproduce while also citing research that you believe demonstrates genetic IQ differences between racial groups. What do you see as the end result?
More access to higher skilled (and thus higher paying) job opportunities in life. More higher skilled professions = a reduction in poverty. Less poverty = less relation to crime or even malnutrition.

That's why I find the resistance to this idea extremely bizarre and literally immoral. In relation to Western societies, an IQ of 85 or less is not going to get you far compared to someone who does pursue the sciences and makes big money selling patents. This applies to all groups by the way. A white guy who works in the factory isn't going to be making the same salary as a Black engineer working at NASA.



 
Last edited:

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
Sigh. You're not in a position to argue about "one last chance" when you continue to gloss over the reasons I give you.

If you're asking me to factually prove that it is "barbarism", I cannot.

But that doesn't mean you can leave the claim unanswered. Call it dehumanizing, insensitive, inhumane, or whatever, the heart of the matter remains the same: why do you propose breeding programs for people to resolve an issue when the root cause has yet to be established?


There are already millions of people who are on the right side of the bell curve. It doesn't matter what their actual state of nutrition or income levels are, we do know for a fact that even within groups, there's still going to be a population of Blacks who do score the same or more than Europeans and Asians of IQs of a 100.

The difference once again, remains in the frequency of them. I want to to increase that by offering the already existing African groups with IQs of 100 or more to have more offspring.
This effect is already demonstrated when you look at immigration.



Nigerian Americans (correct me if wrong) are the most successful African group in the U.S. Their reported income level matches what the actual White average in the country is.



But it's only that way because immigration did select for the Nigerians who came from a higher educated class.
I have no idea what their nutritional habits are but quite frankly, I don't think it matters since are we going to spin the argument that Africa now has better food than the U.S?


DunDunDunpachi said:
This practice has been used to oppress and eliminate ethnic groups for hundreds of years and is often referred to as eugenics (I'm sure you're familiar). The argument against such practices is that they suspend individual human rights for the sake of purported group benefits, often at extreme cost to those who fall outside the desired range of features.
Show me how Joe Scientist voluntarily having 20 children is suspending his human right? Show me how Bob the Janitor voluntarily refusing children is suspending his human right?
That is not what suspending human rights is about, otherwise, are you saying it's a human rights violation whenever Women decide they only want to date tall men?
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
13,152
23,849
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com


There are already millions of people who are on the right side of the bell curve. It doesn't matter what their actual state of nutrition or income levels are, we do know for a fact that even within groups, there's still going to be a population of Blacks who do score the same or more than Europeans and Asians of IQs of a 100.

The difference once again, remains in the frequency of them. I want to to increase that by offering the already existing African groups with IQs of 100 or more to have more offspring.
This effect is already demonstrated when you look at immigration.



Nigerian Americans (correct me if wrong) are the most successful African group in the U.S. Their reported income level matches what the actual White average in the country is.



But it's only that way because immigration did select for the Nigerians who came from a higher educated class.
I have no idea what their nutritional habits are but quite frankly, I don't think it matters since are we going to spin the argument that Africa now has better food than the U.S?


Show me how Joe Scientist voluntarily having 20 children is suspending his human right? Show me how Bob the Janitor voluntarily refusing children is suspending his human right?
That is not what suspending human rights is about, otherwise, are you saying it's a human rights violation whenever Women decide they only want to date tall men?
Do you believe society should "ask" any human to not have sex if it is for the good of the group?

Naturally selecting for intelligence is going to happen anyway. That should require no further research or encouragement or guidance. What you are proposing is -- at the very least -- a program that is aimed at communicating to a racial group that their IQ should be tested and they should breed according to the results. This is not how humans should treat other humans given modern Western sensibilities of individuality and inalienable rights. The issue of them being forced or making this choice "voluntarily" is a matter of degree and does not erase the underlying ethical problem.

How exactly would you "offer" the chance to have more offspring to existing African groups with higher IQ? I am curious what sort of eugenics program you've thought up to make this feasible while avoiding dehumanization to a mere breeding stock.

Concerning immigrants having a higher IQ, one would think they would also have access to superior food, since the extreme poor and malnourished typically cannot travel to another country and acquire a job in the way you are describing. So, to answer your question, it seems perfectly sensible that any immigrant well-off enough to leave their country will have access to superior resources, food being one of those resources. Those well-off enough to leave their country would also have superior environmental circumstances, on average, than those so poor they cannot travel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeafTourette

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
Do you believe society should "ask" any human to not have sex if it is for the good of the group?

Naturally selecting for intelligence is going to happen anyway. That should require no further research or encouragement or guidance. What you are proposing is -- at the very least -- a program that is aimed at communicating to a racial group that their IQ should be tested and they should breed according to the results. This is not how humans should treat other humans given modern Western sensibilities of individuality and inalienable rights. The issue of them being forced or making this choice "voluntarily" is a matter of degree and does not erase the underlying ethical problem.
And here's the important part you keep missing out, it immediately becomes obsolete once the IQ averages for both groups come in direct proximity of each other.

If you're under the impression that I want IQ's to increase forever, ask yourself how come I'm not suggesting White people to keep breeding until they catch up with Asians?
Call it diminishing returns or an actual intellectual threshold, but the gaps we see between the two groups are far smaller, compared to going from an entire standard deviation that is 85 vs 100.

How exactly would you "offer" the chance to have more offspring to existing African groups with higher IQ? I am curious what sort of eugenics program you've thought up to make this feasible while avoiding dehumanization to a mere breeding stock.
They would just have to have more children. That's it. Assuming I had access to public funds or a large sums of money, I would spend it to educate the public on what IQ is and leave the choice to them, knowing what their reproductive habits will result in.

Concerning immigrants having a higher IQ, one would think they would also have access to superior food, since the extreme poor and malnourished typically cannot travel to another country and acquire a job in the way you are describing. So, to answer your question, it seems perfectly sensible that any immigrant well-off enough to leave their country will have access to superior resources, food being one of those resources. Those well-off enough to leave their country would also have superior environmental circumstances, on average, than those so poor they cannot travel.
We run into the chicken and the egg scenario. Do you think higher levels of nutrition is only because the elite has access to them, or because the population might lack the capacity to successfully feed themselves good food?

This problem goes in two directions. Communist European countries, even when they were severely malnourished, still had higher IQ's than African ones that are struggling today.

IQ of Germans living under Communism: = As low as 90.
IQ of South Sudanese Refugee Children = As low as 55.
Another massive study done on the African continent = An average IQ of 82.
IQ of Jamaican Children coming from rural areas = Mid/low 80s.
IQ of the Poorest American Whites = 98.

Again, this is where the part genetics, part environment comes into play. We can raise nutrition and living standards and possibly see an increase in IQ. But it does not explain away the massive differences when you compare both groups in similar poverty cases. Especially the Germans, who after unifying in 10 years, the gaps quickly started disappearing. Yet major gaps still exist between Black and White Americans despite improved living standards over the past 50 years.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
13,152
23,849
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
And here's the important part you keep missing out, it immediately becomes obsolete once the IQ averages for both groups come in direct proximity of each other.
No, I'm not missing on anything. You admit that you wish to use these pograms, and that's enough.

But to your point, the ability to affect a population and their future IQ in such a way won't "become obsolete". To suggest that a society which has already crossed that line will suddenly pump the breaks after "the IQ averages for both groups come in direct proximity of each other" is ignorant of history.

Furthermore, how do we gauge "direct proximity" of IQ, and who is to say some identitarian group won't insist a low-IQ group must surpass other groups, in order to right the historical stupidness of their race due to the other races oppressing them? Sound familiar? What prevents other racial groups from using the same breeding techniques and staying ahead of the IQ curve? What prevents society from using these breeding techniques for other factors? Brave New World, here we come.

It's not that I cannot understand your logic. There is a certain "rightness" to it when you want the outcome to be higher IQ. But the method is barbaric and worse, it is ignorant to how actual society works.

If you're under the impression that I want IQ's to increase forever, ask yourself how come I'm not suggesting White people to keep breeding until they catch up with Asians?
I never made this suggestion. As I pointed out above, you should probably answer what is preventing other groups from imitating the same techniques and staying ahead of the curve? Will they be held back so that others can catch up? History shows us that is usually what occurs in the name of equality.

Call it diminishing returns or an actual intellectual threshold, but the gaps we see between the two groups are far smaller, compared to going from an entire standard deviation that is 85 vs 100.

They would just have to have more children. That's it. Assuming I had access to public funds or a large sums of money, I would spend it to educate the public on what IQ is and leave the choice to them, knowing what their reproductive habits will result in.

We run into the chicken and the egg scenario. Do you think higher levels of nutrition is only because the elite has access to them, or because the population might lack the capacity to successfully feed themselves good food?

This problem goes in two directions. Communist European countries, even when they were severely malnourished, still had higher IQ's than African ones that are struggling today.

IQ of Germans living under Communism: = As low as 90.
IQ of South Sudanese Refugee Children = As low as 55.

Again, this is where the part genetics, part environment comes into play. We can raise nutrition and living standards and possibly see an increase in IQ. But it does not explain away the massive differences when you compare both groups in similar poverty cases. Especially the Germans, who after united in 10 years, the gaps quickly disappeared. Yet major gaps still exist between Black and White Americans despite improved living standards over the past 50 years.
This is where you continue to ignore facts. The effect of nutrition is multigenerational and is something we have only discovered in the last 10 or 20 years. The topic of "nutrition" is not a topic we fully understand, as a whole. Malnutrition has immediate effects, lifetime effects, and it also affects successive generations. Meaning, once enough serious malnutrition enters the bloodline, it will take several generations to return things back to "average", to say nothing of improving upon that average. So, a German stock of humans who have been well-nourished (on average) and have maintained higher total population total (on average) would bounce back from the short- and mid-term negative effects of poverty and malnutrition more quickly than an African stock of humans who have been poorly-nourished (on average) and haven't been able to maintain as high of a total population (on average). The latter group is going to be suffering from the perpetual negative effects while also not being able to birth as many smart people (or dumb people). This compounds over time.

Weather, warfare, disasters, technological invention, etc will compound these issues, resulting in two groups that have a gap in expressed IQ due to purely environmental factors.

And that is why I ask yet again: what is the timetable for when an environmental factor becomes an "evolutionary pressure" and then becomes a genetic predisposition? Because depending on how you define this, many of the things you're chalking up as "genetic" are actually just the long-term effects of adaptation and can be manipulated by controlling environmental factors affecting this group.

IQ also seems to correlate quite cleanly to total percentage of world population over the last 2000 years:

Europe



Africa



Asia (take note of China)



Notice how this was not due to selective breeding or special programs, but just the natural consequences of supporting higher and higher population groups, allowing society to take its course and for the smart people to procreate as they choose.

I use the phrase "allowing society to take its course" on purpose, because your pogrom would be the opposite. It would be steering a specific part of society along a specific course, and those ambitions haven't worked out too well throughout history.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
4,179
3,330
440
JordanN has to have a background in anthropology or something because got to admit folks, it is impressive how and where he finds these charts.

As I said before, I personally think IQ is based on both internal traits and external factors. It's not going to be 100% genes, and not 100% external.

Just as a kid growing up isolated in a dirt poor home can have different shitty external stimuli vs a well to do family, everyone who has different looks, size and even voice tone can also have different brains. Heck, studies even show different groups of people trend to different brain size and weight, so pretty sure born and bred influence can be a factor too. Don't be too black and white people..... no pun intended, although very fitting for this thread!

Don't really care if anyone disagrees because nobody is going to change my mind.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: God Enel

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
No, I'm not missing on anything. You admit that you wish to use these pograms, and that's enough.
And I haven't seen an actual rebuttal from you that says people voluntarily breeding and raising their group averages is bad.
One more time, it is a fact that Women actively seek out taller men. Why aren't you calling this barbarism?

But to your point, the ability to affect a population and their future IQ in such a way won't "become obsolete". To suggest that a society which has already crossed that line will suddenly pump the breaks after "the IQ averages for both groups come in direct proximity of each other" is ignorant of history.
I mean... the European IQ being 100 kinda proves you wrong. If they want to go above this, what are Europeans waiting for? And what exactly would be the purpose?
Again, we can already make comparisons to Asians who are 5 points ahead of them. They do slightly better in terms of education and & income but that's basically it.

Furthermore, how do we gauge "direct proximity" of IQ,
The same way we already guage the gap between blacks, whites and Asians. Test them and compare averages.


DunDunDunpachi said:
and who is to say some identitarian group won't insist a low-IQ group must surpass other groups, in order to right the historical stupidness of their race due to the other races oppressing them?
Why isn't there an identitarian group that says we must all be giants, in order to right the historical shortness and those oppressing them?
Even if there was such a radical group out there, they would still need to convince the majority what are the benefits of everyone being 999 IQ or 20 feet tall.

What prevents other racial groups from using the same breeding techniques and staying ahead of the IQ curve?
Nothing. And honestly, I think countries like China or Japan may one day be the first countries to go in that direction and exploit genetics so they produce perfect offspring. Whether or not this will have positive or negative effects on humanity, doesn't change the fact we would be forced to go up against 7 foot tall genetic super freaks that are both stronger and smarter than you.

You could call me a prophet and I'm merely just describing what the reality of humans will be like in the next 50 years. The knowledge of genetics was always Pandora's box, so either we ban this research now, or we watch as other countries who aren't concerned about the backlash start taking advantage and alter their own genetic makeup.


It's not that I cannot understand your logic. There is a certain "rightness" to it when you want the outcome to be higher IQ. But the method is barbaric and worse, it is ignorant to how actual society works.
Western society isn't giving people a leg up if their IQs are in fact too low. The army already has official IQ limits before they deem someone unsuitable for combat.
There is a certain "rightness" but that's because it's based on demonstrable facts. The only ignorance comes from denying this information.

This is where you continue to ignore facts. The effect of nutrition is multigenerational and is something we have only discovered in the last 10 or 20 years. The whole concept of "nutrition" is not a topic we fully understand, as a whole. Malnutrition has immediate effects, lifetime effects, and it also affects successive generations. Meaning, once enough serious malnutrition enters the bloodline, it will take several generations to return things back to "average", to say nothing of improving upon that average. So, a German stock of humans who have been well-nourished (on average)
You don't know this.

Europeans had famines before any of them set foot in North America and decided to found the U.S. They still had nutritional problems since the continent was also racked with wars, economic collapse, brutal communist regimes. If you're trying to paint a picture of Europe where everything was stable and in perfect order for thousands of years, you are notoriously naive.

Malnutrition has never been race exclusive. All groups throughout human history have been deprived access to the best foods.

And that is why I ask yet again: what is the timetable for when an environmental factor becomes an "evolutionary pressure" and then becomes a genetic predisposition? Because depending on how you define this, many of the things you're chalking up as "genetic" are actually just the long-term effects of adaptation and can be manipulated by controlling environmental factors affecting this group.
Human beings are constantly changing. I can only give you an answer when I actually have something to compare it with.

For something that significantly changed the size of the brain, the last example happened was when Neanderthals roamed the earth, which was 40,000 years ago. And it was only in Europe & Asia.


 

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
JordanN has to have a background in anthropology or something because got to admit folks, it is impressive how and where he finds these charts.
My original dream career was Veterinary Technician. So from Elementary to High School, I was studying biology.

My actual career today is much closer to 3D Artist. A complete 180 from pursuing a Biology profession.

However, this may shock you but 99% of all my scientific knowledge actually came from wanting to be an Artist. Especially when it came to learning how to draw people, or design environments, I actually gained a greater understanding of human civilization and started noticing certain "patterns" in my work.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
13,152
23,849
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
It's pointless. Very little of what you posted in your last reply was an actual response to the questions I posed, as if you could not grasp the meaning of what I typed. What you are engaged in isn't science. It's dogmatic.

You still haven't explained your timetable of when an environmental factor becomes a genetic one, which is rather crucial to your whole argument. The lack of doing this so many times in a row tells me you'd rather ignore questions instead of confronting them. "Humans are always changing" is not a valid reply. I am asking for a more precise definition to your terms because you continue making the case that genetics are so important. Yet... you admit that environmental factors have shaped some (or all?) of these genetic predispositions.

So which is it? If the factors involved in IQ -- even the genetic expressions -- are largely shaped by environment, then it would seem selectively breeding people like livestock is the incorrect way to go. Instead, we should be working to elevate those environmental factors, especially when the tradeoff is unconscionable. I am not even trying to prove the "100% environmental" standpoint, since we all know we are subject to our genetic strengths and weaknesses to some degree. But you refuse to land here. You continue to push how significant genetic disposition is in IQ, flying in the face of evidence brought to your attention.

Like I said, it's pointless. You've replied to fewer than half of the questions I've posed on this page alone, and out of the questions you did answer, only half of those showed a glimmer of comprehension. You're dogmatically blinded. Not racist, just blinded.
 

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
Yet... you admit that environmental factors have shaped some (or all?) of these genetic predispositions.
Unless you have a radical mutation, environmental factors wont completely change your [entire] genetic makeup.

Case and point, North Koreans are malnourished and it affects their height. While they're shorter than their South Korean neighbors, they're not 99% shorter than them.

We don't see the affects of malnourishment dropping IQs to 0 unless you're dead. It has an impact, but it doesn't render you completely impaired.

I've showed you that Communist Germany negatively impacted IQ scores, but it didn't actually drop them down to the same IQ scores that South Sudanese children report. Environment is only partly responsible for the gap, genes explain the other half of the story.

Instead, we should be working to elevate those environmental factors, especially when the tradeoff is unconscionable.
Environmental factors have been improving forever. Yet why are there still gaps when Europeans are compared with Asians?
Are Europeans more malnourished than Asians? It doesn't make any sense.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
Ohhhhhhhhhhh yeah, there's one more thing I forgot to mention.

You know, we've been talking about Europe, Asia and Africa but seemingly ignore ethnicities?

Human beings intermarry all the time, so what's happening to these "malnourishment genes" when a French person marries a British person whose ancestors more than likely had different diets? Or what happens when a White Australian comes to the U.S and marries a White person whose ancestors were 80% of different European origins?

Despite the cultural mosaics being moved and blended around, White Americans still report IQ's that are closer to the European average, and not the African or Asian average.

I could also use the same argument for Black Americans. What do you think happens when they intermarry with other black people who may have came from rich families and thus had better diets? Are you arguing they're not suppose to have high IQ children, regardless of which income class they come from?

There is also a study that confirms this,

Ancestry proves more powerful than health effects on determining IQ results

This paper uses data from 130 IQ test administrations worldwide and employs regression analysis to try to quantify the impact of living conditions on average IQ scores in nationally-representative samples. The study emphasizes the possible role of conditions at or near the test-takers' time of birth. The paper finds that the impact of living conditions is of much smaller magnitude than is suggested by just looking at correlations between average IQ scores and socioeconomic indicators. After controlling for test-takers' region of ancestry, the impact of parasitic diseases on average IQ is found to be statistically insignificant when test results from the Caribbean are included in the analysis. As far as IQ and the wealth of nations are concerned, causality thus appears to run mostly from the former to the latter. The test-takers' region of ancestry dominates the regression results. While differences in average scores worldwide can thus be plausibly viewed as being influenced by genetic differences across world regions, it is also possible that score differences are influenced by regional differences in culture that are independent of genetic factors. Differences in average IQ across world regions may change in the years ahead insofar as the strength of Flynn effects may not be uniform, but some regional differences in average g levels seem likely to continue indefinitely.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
IQ also seems to correlate quite cleanly to total percentage of world population over the last 2000 years:
None of your graphs are labeled or actually explaining what they have to do with IQ.
For example, Year 0? How did they acquire that data?

But if you're saying IQ is tied to population growth, no, that is blatantly false. Africa has a bigger population than Europe or America, but the average IQ is 82.


I use the phrase "allowing society to take its course" on purpose, because your pogrom would be the opposite.
You mean stagnate and fall behind?




If we let current society take its course, then it's more likely we'll see more Asians take over high ranking positions. In fact, I would argue the above graph already makes that point.

It would be steering a specific part of society along a specific course, and those ambitions haven't worked out too well throughout history.
Show me in history when selecting for higher IQ mates has lead to failure?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.