Although HBD claims some human populations are more intelligent and well behaved than others, this is usually explained in terms of evolutionary adaptations to different environments. Very rarely does HBD ever claim that some populations are more evolved than others. Of course this is not surprising. The very idea of some extant life forms being more evolved than others is considered pseudoscience by the likes of biologist Stephen Jay Gould and his millions of followers.
It used to be argued that the oldest population was the most evolved. Before the days of evolutionary theory it was argued that Europeans were the first humans, made in God’s image, and as they migrated in different directions, they began to degrade into other races.
Once evolutionary theory became accepted, there was Carleton Coon’s theory which seemed to imply that Europeans were the oldest modern humans and thus the most evolved, while other populations were behind the curve. Of course this assumed that different races all made the leap to humanity in different places, a theory that has since been replaced by the single origin model which argues that modern humans all evolved in one place (sub-Saharan Africa) 200,000 years ago, and only after leaving Africa 70,000 years ago did they split into different races.
Of course this allowed Afrocentric types like Louis Farakhan to argue that since the first modern humans were Africans, they are the parents of other races, and other races must respect their parents. However scholar J.P. Rushton flipped this argument on its head by arguing that the earlier a race split off the main trunk of the human evolutionary tree, the less advanced it was, arguing that Negroids were the oldest race, Mongoloids were the youngest race, and Caucasoids were intermediate. Rushton based his theory on the idea of evolutionary progress which I’ve blogged about in-depth. However when I personally asked Rushton about this splitting off date theory (which I thought was absolutely fascinating) he seemed ambivalent, noting that his colleagues felt it made no evolutionary sense. I tried to argue that it was very logical, but not wanting to belabor the point, I dropped the subject.
But I return to it now, by noting a genetic linkage tree geneticist Cavalli Sforza published:
A genetic tree created from page 119 of L.L. Cavalli-Sforza’s book “The Great Human Diasporas”
Now Sforza is very politically correct and would never imply any kind of racial hierarchy, but when you look at his tree above, and compare it with brain size data of various populations in the chart below, a striking pattern emerges. Sub-Saharan African populations branch off the genetic tree after just one split, and have a brain size of about 1275 cc (1270 cc for Bushmen, 1280 cc for other sub-Saharans). Australoids branch off the tree after three splits and have a brain size of 1225 cc. Pacific Islanders (1317 cc), Southeast Asians (1332 cc), American Indians (1366 cc), whites (1369 cc), and non-white Caucaoids (1293 cc) all branch off the tree after four splits and all have bigger brains than less branched populations. Lastly, the biggest brains on Earth belong to East Asians (1416 cc) and Arctic people (1443 cc) and these branch off after five splits (more than any other populations). Coincidence? Although there are exceptions (australoids having smaller brains than Africans, despite doing more branching), there appears to be an extremely strong correlation (roughly +0.9) between the amount of branching in a population’s evolutionary history, and how large its mean brain size is. A similar correlation would probably exist between the mean IQ of each population and the degree of branching, but since Lynn’s IQ data is so controversial, I focused on the brain size data instead.
Table from Richard Lynn’s book “Race Differences in Intelligence”
Of course much depends on how the populations are classified. Sforza divided humans into nine genetic clusters. Using a different number of clusters you might get different results, but it is interesting that the classification scheme that Sforza considered reasonable, caused the degree of branching to correlate so well with brain size, even though Sforza himself rejects racial theories. Of course it should be noted that these brain sizes have not been adjusted for nutrition, and such adjustments would probably decrease the brain size differences between first world and third world peoples substantially, though I believe the rank order of brain sizes would remain.
When doing this type of analysis, it’s important to compare life forms with the same level of taxonomic specificity. So you compare races within the same species, species within the same genus etc
More (physiological) evolved = generally, more beneficial or neutral genetic mutations + pretty significant physiological differentiation from species that founded the human species, that is, the primates. Soon, mediterranoids and Nordics are the most evolved, because they are the ones that carry more beneficial or neutral mutations, S-P-E-C-I-F-I-C-A-L-L-Y in relation to the physiological aspect.
Are the least resemble monkeys. In these specific perspectives.
The most mentally evolved are the Jews, but for reasons a little more complex, as this evolution takes place from great cost to a minority of the population. This however, does not make them smarter, so I have already spoken. Specific perspective.
The most mentally evolved human subjects are those which consist of great wisdom.
Jews are far from White gentiles, when it comes to geniuses and civilization progress. Jews can’t build things, at least not very good at it.
Yes, i know. But ashkenazim are probably, very eugenized. In these perspectives…
I was surprised to learn Einstein had a relatively small brain at only 1200 cc
I would not be surprised. Still, according to Cesare Lombroso, the brains of famous geniuses of the past gravitated between the very large and very small. Very small brains can produce great connectivity because of the smaller surface for thought travel.
Famous geniuses had very big brains on average
https://brainsize.wordpress.com/2014/09/21/estimating-the-iq-of-geniuses-from-their-average-brain-size/
Why do big brained people have higher IQs if smaller brains are faster at connecting thoughts? Unless big brains bring other advantages, including more thoughts to connect
Well you have to factor in his age & his generation, but yes, his brain wasn’t big.
But it doesn’t mean he wasn’t incredibly brilliant. The relationship between brain size & IQ is perhaps analogous to the relationship between height & weight. Height causes weight because each inch of height increases a persons size just as each cubic inch of brain increase IQ.
But we still see short people who weigh 300 lbs so there’s no reason a small brain can’t have an IQ of 160. Just a lot less likely though
But no one knows what Einstein’s IQ was
Is not that simple, Pumpkin, because you have a variety of possible combinations, like, large neural connection, and small brain, small neural connection and large brain, etc … large brain and large neural connection… You are also dealing with lateralization, as the brains with larger neural connection tend to be less lateralized.
Greater connection between hemispheres could be related with ”sensation seekers” and with Einstein brain, maybe…
Less and less likely that Einstein was super-ultra-mega-master-plus bright as most people imagine. Nobody remembers Nikola Tesla, amazing, it really works!!!
Remember that France, especially in the nineteenth century, was a country of most of the Alpine subrace. Large heads. I do not doubt that many geniuses were large heads, but according to the studies that used Lombroso, many geniuses had small heads too. Please focus on word average.
More evolved is a meaningless way to put it.
If you call lower parasite load in the arctic and spandrel IQ evolution “more evolved” then sure.
A human in SSA is well adapted to his environment. Just like other races.
Rushton’s colleagues were correct about his speculations making no evolutionary sense
Rushton himself said the same thing. but consistency can’t be expected from racist morons.
the real motivation for Rushton:
Since 2002, Rushton was the president of the Pioneer Fund. Tax records from 2000 show in that year that his Charles Darwin Research Institute was awarded $473,835, or 73% of the fund’s total grants that year.
Rushton was obsessed with race for the money and notoriety. for any other reason? for a curtailing of aa or foreign aid? what else?
Canadian science is a joke compared to American science. even Canadian scientists know this. and psychology is a joke compared to the natscis.
it’s a who’s who of douche bags.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Fund#Scientific_research
What real scientists thought about Rushton’s theory:
“There are insurmountable problems with the application of Rushton’s theory of human life histories, in particular his reliance on the concept of r- and K-selection (see later in the article). Chief amongst these problems is the fact that r- and K-selection theory is now considered virtually useless. Biologists who
study life history evolution began to falsify this idea in the late 1970s. Since that time, multiple experiments have failed to corroborate the core premises of r- and K-selection theory. It would have been impossible not to notice this event (sort of like an elephant walking into your living room). In addition, even if the theory itself were reliable, Rushton has applied it incorrectly to describe the supposed genetic tradeoffs he wishes to explain.”
http://mathsci.free.fr/graves.pdf
If you’re in the middle of a large African city, you do not say that. Some African tribes are adapted to their environment, but many others are not. And SSA on average, are not adapted a novel anthropomorphized environments. ”Adapted” is relative, very relative. But, i’m talking about people, individual people and not statistics or ” cold evolution scientific models”.
My God, you treat ”blacks SSA” like animals. Look at those parasitic wasps killing spiders in Costa Rica, they are adapted!!!!
End of history.
I’m talking about morphological characteristics versus a geographic area.
Only about that, ok!! 😉
That’s the only real evolutionary difference between populations, which is why talking about one being more evolved seems silly.
Blacks are more evolved to skin resistance or to develop muscles, on average. No seems silly.
It’s an anachronism to say that one population evolved from another unless it can be shown that one of them hasn’t changed. Otherwise, it would be more accurate to say that the two populations diverged and underwent separate natural selection. Which means neither population would be synonymous with the original. For example, humans and chimpanzees both diverged from a progenitor species but neither humans nor chimpanzees are the same as that progenitor species.
It’s an anachronism to say that one population evolved from another unless it can be shown that one of them hasn’t changed.
I think all populations have changed, but I’m arguing that that those that branched off the evolutionary tree first, & didn’t do any more branching, are generally more phenotypically similar to the common ancestor of all human populations than are populations descended from more splits in the tree.
For example, humans and chimpanzees both diverged from a progenitor species but neither humans nor chimpanzees are the same as that progenitor species.
True, but i would argue that chimps look, sound & behave far more like the progenitor species than humans do.
“I think all populations have changed, but I’m arguing that that those that branched off the evolutionary tree first, & didn’t do any more branching, are generally more phenotypically similar to the common ancestor of all human populations than are populations descended from more splits in the tree.”
Consider a gene pool that splits into two populations. Both groups should have roughly the same genes. What matters are the selective pressures each is exposed to afterwards. Not how many times or how recently it splits.
What makes populations who have experienced more splits “more evolved” (your words not mine) is that they have expanded to fill more niches. They’ve undergone a greater variety of selective pressures. However, even a species who’s never split to fill a different niche could undergo tremendous change due to the ‘butterfly effects’ in their own.
“i would argue that chimps look, sound & behave far more like the progenitor species than humans do.”
You want to believe chimps are similar to the progenitor species because they’re more similar to it than humans. My point is that being more similar isn’t necessarily the same as being similar.
What makes populations who have experienced more splits “more evolved” (your words not mine) is that they have expanded to fill more niches. They’ve undergone a greater variety of selective pressures. However, even a species who’s never split to fill a different niche could undergo tremendous change due to the ‘butterfly effects’ in their own.
I agree with everything you say here. All I’m saying is there seems to be a correlation between degree of splitting & how “evolved” the life form appears to me, & i agree its because they’ve probably adapted to more niches. Splitting seems to be a proxy for evolutionary activity; evolutionary growth.
But I also agree that a life form that never split could in theory have changed far more which is why splitting should only be viewed as an indicator. I just find it an especially interesting indicator
obviously the splitting requires a certain genetic distance between the branches. clusters are only distinct of there is void between them.
so with more branches there is necessarily more genetic change.
but it all depends on whether the groupings really are by genetic clusters.
so for example one could construct a tree for SSA by itself with just as many branches as the tree for those outside of SSA, because there is so much genetic diversity in SSA.
very likely C-S chose the clusters he did so as to correspond to the common wisdom regarding race.
so here’s a cluster map for Europe:
are the Scots and Irish less evolved than the Italians, because the Italians in C-S’s map come at the end of three more branches? C-S is an Italian aristo btw. the Sforzas were like the Medici.
the Sforzas were like the Medici.
The Sforzas were the rice eaters of Italy through their own cultivation techniques.
It goes to show you that the European can invent and do things independently of East Asians, who could only brag about gun powder and rice. The Sforzas could have made sushi and fried rice, had they lived longer.
Common sense says that humans are more evolved than chimps, If you can;t say that, then the concept of evolution should be retired, and what good would that do for intelligent thought.
Some here say that certain races are perfectly adapted to their environment, and that’s all there is to say about adaption, But environments change, and part of adaption is to be adapted to change. It seems likely to me that some human groups are on the whole better than others at reinventing themselves and handle new challanges.
But environments change, and part of adaption is to be adapted to change. It seems likely to me that some human groups are on the whole better than others at reinventing themselves and handle new challanges.
Exactly. There’s a difference between adapted & adaptable. All life forms (even brainless plants) are well adapted to their ancestral environment, but intelligent life is especially good at adapting when the environment changes.
Other animals adapt by evolving into a new type of species over millions of years: when they need to fly they evolve into birds over millions of years, when humans need to fly, they build an airplane
Intelligence is the cognitive ability to adapt at the level of behaviour which makes the adaptation quite rapid & flexible because it’s controlled by the goals of the specific individual
Of course intelligence doesn’t have a monopoly on adaptability. Bacteria quite adaptable too because they mutate so rapidly . But they adapt by evolving into a different species of bacteria which proves the first species couldn’t adapt
By contrast humans adapt not by changing our species, but by changing our behaviour; though with genetic engineering, we may even be adaptable enough to change our species too
‘It seems likely to me that some human groups are on the whole better than others at reinventing themselves and handle new challanges.’
Based on….?
The reason you think this way is because you believe IQ has an easy transfer to “nature.” Recall Sternberg’s Kenya study — practical skills needed to survive in a village have negative correlation with IQ. Now, it’s hardly a definitive study, but it does show us that this whole phenomenon is more complicated.
Also, environment does change, but again, not in the way YOU are thinking. There are less parasites in certain places. Your head loses more heat in certain places. etc. etc. Has nothing to do with nature being much harder.
Also, the ability to respond to ‘novel’ situations mean jack for a species UNLESS the other members of the species possess the ability to LEARN. So, g(f) or whatever is LESS IMPORTANT, than the basic ability to understand whatever it is others discover. That is how humans beat their environments — they share.
‘Common sense says that humans are more evolved than chimps, If you can;t say that, then the concept of evolution should be retired, and what good would that do for intelligent thought.’
Neither common sense nor the theory of evolution say those things. “More evolved” does not mean anything. Evolved more recently? Possesses more/less of a particular trait (in this case, intelligence)?
more nonsense from pp.
stenotypy and eurytypy should apply to intelligence too.
but pp is still identifying words with things. vague, abstract, ideological words/expressions/phrases with things.
an example might be the recent genetic adaptation of Tibetans to high altitude. if one were ill-adapted to high altitude what phenotypes might this affect in addition to aerobic fitness? might those ill-adapted to high altitude also be shorter or dumber if raised at high altitude?
but there are a few lowlanders who are adapted to high altitude by accident. Reinhold Messner is an example.
Cranial capacity can evolve either larger or smaller. For example, cro magnons had larger cranial capacity than their descendants because they evolved during an ice age. So it has nothing to do with who’s “newest” other than the fact that the colder environs were the last to be populated which increases cranial capacity. Also, there may be correlation between cranial capacity and intelligence but it may have more to do with heat conservation than intelligence. Frost pointed out on his blog long ago that North Amerindians have larger cranial capacity than South Amerindians but similar intelligence.
I suspect there are three forces at work. First, having a big brain costs energy. Second, this cost is balanced by the benefits of intelligence and heat conservation. Some people assume the intellectual demands of a cold environment was the primary favoring larger cranial capacity. Instead, it may be that heat conservation is the primary factor which merely allowed intelligence to increase. Or perhaps heat conservation and intelligence are merely coincidental. A final factor may be that hot climes suffer more malaria which takes a huge toll on child brain development. People usually think about this in terms of what it does in terms of individuals but it would also affect evolution. There’s little selective pressure to develop larger brains or intelligence if half the children suffer brain damage from disease.
PS: It was recently discovered that the pygmies stunted size and short life expectancy was not the result of malnutrition but natural selection. It’s related to genes that help resist malaria. I find that very interesting and it shows the huge impact disease can have. That’s why I mentioned tha in terms of intelligence and cranial capacity.
I probably does factor in whatever traits you consider. It is a given that different genes react differently and that the right stimuli can cause one gene to replace another gene as the most related to a certain thing you measure. So, in a way is the main rule because it is everywhere and always, as a factor, usually marginal factor.
Maybe for the sake of argument lets assume that given any measure, and given any gene X which causes A, there exists another gene Y and an environmental factor F such that, when F is imposed on the environment Y causes A, and X no longer causes A.
But, there is no guarantee that this will happen for any insteresting effects A and realistic factors F. And it is even less probable that this will happen in a way that somehow suites the wishes of our times.
The differing neurological architecture point about men and women was from a study I’ve cited a few times.
And it’s not that blonde hair popped up separately. It’s that blonde hair evolved with different genetic architecture and in response to a different environment. That shows us that the phenomenon I’m talking about occurs in humans.
You brush off studies as “trivial.”
I disagree. You give me no reason to believe that intelligence is somehow the exception rather than the rule in biology, where the same phenotypes arise from different environments with different genes.
the ‘more evolved’ talk is evolutionarily silly. Big reptiles dominated for over a hundred million years….where were their cities? are humans more “evolved” than they? they dominated for longer…thus far.
for all the talk about liberal creationism, HBDers are teleology-thumpers to a man.
—
missing heritability would be solved or explained by different genes combining in different ways or responding to different environments to produce the same IQ. such is common in the rest of biology. such is a confirmed fact between men and women.
where is occam’s razor now?
”the ‘more evolved’ talk is evolutionarily silly. Big reptiles dominated for over a hundred million years….where were their cities? are humans more “evolved” than they? they dominated for longer…thus far.”
Again this simplex comparison the brain size among totally different species??
‘Again this simplex comparison the brain size among totally different species??’
Again this simple attempt to have IQ/head size explain far more than it can?
such is a confirmed fact between men and women.
Men and women share all their genes, and nature tries to keep the sexes similar, for simplicity. NE asian women have broader hips to give birth to bigger heads, and NE men got broader hips too. Why not as long as the negative consequences are minor.
So no argument about sameness of ethnic groups can be made based on similarieties between men and women. In fact, if men and women within the same race are different at all, then it would be sensational if men of different races didn;t differ in all kinds of ways.
‘So no argument about sameness of ethnic groups can be made based on similarieties between men and women.’
Do you mean the differences between men and women? What I said is that missing heritability is NOT a problem if different genes and environments combine to produce the same results. Or, in other words, some genes respond better to certain environments than others and maybe — but not necessarily — there are crossing reaction norms. This phenomenon is common in the rest of biology. And in humans, men and women use different parts of their brains to produce the same IQ results.
“Education is associated with higher later life IQ scores, but not with faster cognitive processing speed.”
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/pag/28/2/515/
Apparently, education can make you “smarter.” Not faster, though. And no, they didn’t just “get the direction of causality wrong.” They controlled for IQ score. They addressed the causation.
No I mean that similarities between men and women, in smarts for instance, CANNOT be taken as a sign that different genetics can result in similar manifestation of for instance intelligence. It is of course possible that different genes can produce appearantly like results. But the is no reason to believe that would be the rule.
men and women use different parts of their brains..
And there are differences. Tests nowadays are carefully designed to be gender neutral, and it is of course a challange to totally gender neural and relevant at the same time. In Denmark, if a test is not gender neutral with respect to the scores, they re-make the test and hope the new version will be more gender neutral.
‘But the is no reason to believe that would be the rule.’
I gave a reason: the phenomenon is common and observed in biology. Why would humans be different, exactly?
‘Tests nowadays are carefully designed to be gender neutral,’
They are designed to be “culture-fair,” too. And? They aren’t. But that is a tangent, anyway.
I gave a reason: the phenomenon is common and observed in biology. Why would humans be different, exactly?
I you transfer a danish rat population to L.A. I guess they could fit in quite well (no joke intended here). That would be an example of different genetics producing the same fitness, and it’s not hard to imagine that. I’m sure there are examples of this happening, and when we humans study it, it looks to us like these animals are the same, despite different genes, but the animals may disagree.
That example isn’t quite analogous. It’s more like….rat genotype A has the max P value in Denmark. When you put the rats in L.A., suddenly, genotype B has the max P value. In which case, you would have “missing heritability,” because you won’t be able to find many specific genes that will produce globally high P values. But, the trait would still be highly heritable.
What you descibe is certainly possible, if you allow a little difference. So it happens in biology, and it may happen with humans, and when it happens let’s celebrate that. But there lots of signs that this is not the main rule for humans. And where you don’t observe this phenomenon, accept that you don’t. Don’t say, regardless of what I observe it could/should/would be there because I have seen it with hamsters.
Swank, you’re barking up the wrong tree.
The black-caucasoid intellegence gap has been found all over the world & has existed for over 20,000 years.
https://pumpkinperson.com/2014/12/05/has-the-black-white-iq-gap-existed-for-20000-years/
It’s clearly not a function of their genotype not being suited to one particular time & place
‘So it happens in biology, and it may happen with humans, and when it happens let’s celebrate that’
Unless you believe humans exist outside of biology, I would say that the reasonable inference is that this phenomenon does occur in humans.
‘But there lots of signs that this is not the main rule for humans. ‘
Such as?
The fact that we tend to observe high h^2’s in different populations around the world but fail to find “global IQ” alleles DOES indicate that this is the main rule for humans.
Nice try, pumpkin.
First, all of the IQ gaps between blacks and whites are not static. The gap in Britain is much smaller, the IQ gap between USA northern blacks and USA southern whites is much smaller (it may be almost insignificant, I’m not sure), etc. (all of the cold climate states tend to have higher IQs….did US populations from Europe ~ 200 years — all evolve in a different direction within that time because of ‘cold climate?’ Of course not).
As was pointed out to you in that prior blog post, SSA’s lack of “lasting inventions” (whatever that even means) is more a function of lifestyle in tropical SSA. Culture explains it.
IQ is not the ‘genetic thing.’ Supposedly ‘g,’ or better, ‘intelligence,’ is. And if so-called ‘practical intelligence’ or whatever else, forms part of that genetic component intelligence, then indeed, the Kenya example from Sternberg makes my point.
Swank, I posted a reply that accidentally ended up above this subthread, to whet you appetite, I agree that what you talk about is omnipresent, but…. big but.
‘But, there is no guarantee that this will happen for any insteresting effects A and realistic factors F. ‘
I don’t disagree. However, there are good reasons to believe that this is the case, as I have pointed out. A) This phenomenon is common in biology and B) “Missing Heritability” is no longer a problem or issue with this explanation.
Swank
Richard Lynn found a similar black-white gap in Britain . If that’s changed, it’s because of selective immigration from Africa (Obama’s brilliant dad is example). We see the same thing in the U.S. where Indian immigrants are way smarter than the average Indian
Comparing northern blacks to southern whites ? The brightest in both races migrated north plus northern black have more white admixture
Culture explains lack of important inventions in SSA? You should visit SSA because if you would you would see that not all SSA are the same. Some speak different languages than others . Some have different religions & customs & histories. There’s no single SSA culture today, let alone for the past 20,000 years
‘Richard Lynn found a similar black-white gap in Britain . If that’s changed, it’s because of selective immigration from Africa (Obama’s brilliant dad is example’
Lynn has been refuted too many times by too many sources to be taken seriously, pumpkin. Selective immigration from Africa doesn’t explain the current status because immigration has become less selective over time, not more.
‘Comparing northern blacks to southern whites ? The brightest in both races migrated north plus northern black have more white admixture’
That’s a theory. I’m not sure why we should believe that only the smart blacks wanted to leave the south post Civil War. Of course, the alternative theory is culture. The North’s culture has always differed from the South’s. The white admixture smokescreen is another theory — one that has been contravened by current credible science.
‘You should visit SSA because if you would you would see that not all SSA are the same. ‘
Not all Europeans are the same, either…and?
There are general aspects to the culture that are similar.
Caesar on the Britons, “They are the most ignorant people I have ever conquered.”
Cicero, on the Britons, “they cannot be taught to read, and are the ugliest and most stupid race I ever saw.”
The Moors thought the Europeans were incapable of abstract thought.
Alright Swank, but to take a concrete example.
Let the measure be a SAT-like test.
Let the (interesting) effect A be superior performance on the test
Let X represent the jewish gene-pool, which at the present condition produces A (superior performance).
Let Y represent the white american gene-pool.
Now we are looking for an environmental factor F such that Y instead of X produces A, i.e. white americans overtake jews on the test. Don’t you think the factor F has to be pretty extreme for that to happen?
Or alternatively let the factor F be quite realistic, non-dramatic.
And suppose that F causes Y instead of X to produce the (other) effect B.
Do you think the effect B can be of the same significance as A?
And if you have any example that you believe in, not merely the abstract possibility, please share.
‘Don’t you think the factor F has to be pretty extreme for that to happen?’
Maybe, maybe not.
What’s extreme? Extreme outliers don’t necessarily have to be that “extreme” in our sense of it.
I already did cite examples. First, men and women use different neurological architecture to obtain the same IQ. I don’t see why this finding couldn’t extend to differing genetic architectures obtaining the same IQ. What’s ridiculous is that, in fact, we likely do see this. Unrelated individuals receive the same IQ scores, same test scores, etc. etc. etc.
Blonde hair evolved separately among dark-skinned and light-skinned peoples. And different genes do the lifting. Why not the case for “intelligence” or even IQ? We ALREADY see this in humans with other traits.
In Kenyan villages, success in the village was found to negatively correl with ‘IQ’ by Sternberg. Admittedly that’s a mult-part proposition. First, “intelligence” over and above g and IQ. Second, IQ as a proxy for some “way” of getting to or using the same intelligence. Third, “success” in the village as indicative of intelligence.
Besides, it’s not really an ‘abstract’ possibility. Most of HBD’s arguments rely heavily on abstract “inferences” and speculation. In the face of missing heritability, the most reasonable inference is what I said, for the reasons I cited.
Judaism is the exegetical religion par excellence. the value put on study and learning transfers from religious to secular.
what are the test scores of European gentiles living in Israel?
there was a time in the 19th century when the outstanding minority in the Russian Empire wasn’t Jews, it was Germans. one sees this in the character of Stoltz in Oblomov.
Jews do not have especially large heads as far as i can tell. but they were an out group, so to speak, who would emulate the in group. Ralph Lifshitz is an example.
and looking into the Judenfrage one finds that the Sephardim and Mizrahim are in fact quite distinguished in the 20th c for their small numbers in Europe, even though they are unaccomplished in Israel compared to the Ashkenazim.
so the most obvious explanation for 20th c Jewish accomplishment is that Judaism, and especially its Ashkenazi variety,
1. has selected for intelligence, especially verbal intelligence,
or
2. that the culture and minority status together by itself has produced superior results.
Swank, both bats and mosquitos suck blod, isn’t that amazing? No seriously,
You point out that blond hair has evolved by different routes. You note that men and women have the same IQ despite different brain architecture, yes it can happen. Some indians have the same IQ as some europeans, and you have found a study about a kenyan village. All either trivial, or at best curious, but not of significance.
— I already did cite examples.
If you were to claim that America now belongs to latinos, because latinos are superior at storing more than one native language in the brain (interesting), and that in the future world this is major success factor (significance), and that latinos have this capacity due to the indian genetic infusion (plausible candidate for an explanation), and you could point to evidence that this effect is already showing.
Then you would have an example.
The differing neurological architecture point about men and women was from a study I’ve cited a few times.
And it’s not that blonde hair popped up separately. It’s that blonde hair evolved with different genetic architecture and in response to a different environment. That shows us that the phenomenon I’m talking about occurs in humans.
You brush off studies as “trivial.”
I disagree. You give me no reason to believe that intelligence is somehow the exception rather than the rule in biology, where the same phenotypes arise from different environments with different genes.
Yes it happens with humans, and it applies to intelligence. Those assertions I regard as trivial.
The kenyan study is not trivial since the outcome was a bit unexpected, but it lacks applicability in any significant context. Or maybe not, you tell us what that implies for the american society. And not what it COULD imply theoretically, what it seems to imply actually.
‘Yes it happens with humans, and it applies to intelligence. Those assertions I regard as trivial.’
So trivial that they make comments such as “the black and white gap is genetic” meaningless or nearly so.
‘Or maybe not, you tell us what that implies for the american society. And not what it COULD imply theoretically, what it seems to imply actually.’
You realize that >90% of HBD is what X or Y “COULD imply,” right? ANYWAY….it implies that individuals who live in certain subcultures must develop other skills that may be negatively correlated (or more weakly correlated than skills in the dominant culture) with IQ.
“.it implies that individuals who live in certain subcultures must develop other skills that may be negatively correlated”
Danes must eat to be as tall as somalis, right? I asked for some sign of what you’re talking about in operation, not the necessesity or possibility of it. Those are kinda obvious.
If you’re asking for a direct study on the matter, one hasn’t been done, and it’s unlikely that one will get done because of ethical limitations.
If you want something direct….I don’t know….a drug dealer who can easily do drug dealer math but who can’t do generalized math.
Before you say “they’re both math,” consider that…in some generalized word problem, Mr. Drug Dealer will try to tie it to many concrete particulars. He won’t “assume” anything.
I’m not talking about studies, I talking about yours or someone else’s observations.
So the drugdealer argument is maybe the best one I’ve seen from any “denier” on this blog so far. At last something tangilble. I read a book that looked into the profitability of small time drug dealing, the conclusion was it didn’t pay a lot, and even if you got good at it and rose in rank, you were still at risk, or maybe more at risk of being killed or wounded.
So, if you have the talent, drugdealing would be the worst way to capitalize on it. In a society so drenched in affirmative action, (if you believe in AA), it seems a little strange that drugdealing should be a major reserve of talent. But it is the best I;ve heard so far.
Cranial capacity can evolve either larger or smaller. For example, cro magnons had larger cranial capacity than their descendants because they evolved during an ice age
True, but decling brain size is the exception, not the rule. In the several million years since ancestral humans & chimps diverged, brain size has more than tripled
A much less rapid , but similar pattern is seen in the evolutionary history of other animals too. Newer dinosaurs had bigger brains than older dinosaurs & scientist Dale Russel argued that had dinosaurs not gone extinct, they would have evolved into big brained bipeds
. So it has nothing to do with who’s “newest” other than the fact that the colder environs were the last to be populated which increases cranial capacity.
Well i see it as a continuation of a larger trend of increasing brain size over evolutionary time which began long before humans left Africa & migrated North
But you’re right that the high correlation between how “new” a population is & how cold its ancestral climate is makes it difficult to separate the two effects
Also, there may be correlation between cranial capacity and intelligence but it may have more to do with heat conservation than intelligence. Frost pointed out on his blog long ago that North Amerindians have larger cranial capacity than South Amerindians but similar intelligence.
Jensen argued that people in warm climates have small brains for two reasons:
1) warm climates require less IQ to survive in & thus less brain size
2) in warm climates big heads overheat like a lightbulb & thus are especially disadvantageous
Caucasians in the Mediterranean and North African region are much more intelligent and socially evolved than blacks from the Sub-Saharan region. These places are just as hot as Africa proper, if not more, especially with the desert regions. Not only are blacks dumber on average, they’re family/social ties are far more distant than Southern Euros and quite far off from Nordics (who show less caring behavior than Southern Euros when it comes to family).
Why do you think blacks are so dysfunctional when it comes to investing in their children, to the point of being non-supportive? Even in other dysgenic populations, children out of wedlock are often cared and supported by their dads. Black men just run off and never see their children.
A final factor may be that hot climes suffer more malaria which takes a huge toll on child brain development. People usually think about this in terms of what it does in terms of individuals but it would also affect evolution. There’s little selective pressure to develop larger brains or intelligence if half the children suffer brain damage from disease.
This fits in well with Rushton’s r/K theory. He argued that unpredictable environments selected for r genotypes
If you live in environments where babies are randomly afflicted with disease & death, evolution favors a strategy of having as many babies as possible since at least some will become healthy adults
Considering how burdensome & metabolically & developmentally expensive big brains are, in such an environment evolution would select more for traits that increased sexual success
Rushton even found this in dandelions. Those in fields where random death occurred because people walked all over them had more seeds than those in fields with less random death
”If you live in environments where babies are randomly afflicted with disease & death, evolution favors a strategy of having as many babies as possible since at least some will become healthy adults”
CAN BE true in some cases but not in others because disease there everywhere. Black death is a example of risks to live in cities.
I think that in good climates, the life is more easy and people have many kids as possible… like, like…. like a underclasses in developed countries. 😉
Evolutionary psychology simply love this kind of cute and elegant theory, but i think that species ”R-strategy” tend to live in environment with less risk to extinction or predators like SSA africans. Is more like malthusian theory than ”instinct smart R strategy”. When environment is good, people and animals, in general, tend to have more kids, simples as that. No ”r strategy” like ”…have kids as possible to combat pathogens”. Nope.
Regardless of IQ, intervention programs and programs designed to enrich children -WORK-. The students achieve much higher and turn out much better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abecedarian_Early_Intervention_Project#Significant_findings
And education itself DOES probably raise IQ
“This study represents a unique case in which we are able to attribute a substantial portion, roughly one-third, of the Flynn effect in a certain period directly to a specific cause, a large-scale educational intervention.”
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/2/425.full
”Education” (i.e, doutrination) increase iq, not real intelligence.
Doctrination and not doutri-nation.
”Again this simple attempt to have IQ/head size explain far more than it can?”
Swank,
these is Pumpkin, not me. Remember??
And the hits just keep on coming:
“Our result showing that culture-loaded knowledge tests (crystallized tests) are more strongly related to general intelligence than are culture-reduced cognitive processing tests (fluid tests) fits better with the idea that g loadings reflect societal demands (Dickens, 2008) than that they reflect cognitive demands (Jensen 1987).”
http://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Kees-Jan-et-al.-2013.pdf
i noted this months ago. Pepe responded, as she always does, by plugging her ears and saying “la, la, la, la, la, i can’t hear you. la, la, la, la, la.”
Culture loaded tests are simply better at measuring intelligence among culturally homogenous populations.
But culture reduced tests work better in culturally heterogenous populations.
there are no culture reduced tests.
to believe there are such requires the believer have an IQ < 100.
there are no culture reduced tests.
There’s no such thing as culture fair tests, but to say there are no culture reduced tests is absolutely ludicrous
again…IQ < 100.
there is no means of assessing or measuring culture load.
all one can say is something like—Japanese scored as high as Americans on this test, but when given an English vocab test they didn't get a single one.
that does NOT mean the vocab test is more culture loaded. there's a Japanese version after all.
so the RPM is like an English vocab test for the white dominions.
Americans, Canadians, Antipodeans should score about the same. they all speak English.
btw, here’s the small head of the greatest Go player of the 20th c.
here’s the small head of one of its greatest chess players (on the right).
that does NOT mean the vocab test is more culture loaded. there’s a Japanese version after all.
A Japanese version defeats the purpose. How do you measure who are verbally smarter, Americans or Japanese, when they take 2 completely different vocab tests ?
The purpose of culture reduced tests is to make cross culture comparisons.
no. that’s easy. you test concepts and/or information common to both cultures.
but as i intimated and now state explicitly:
the RPM and other such putatively culture reduced tests are like a test of English vocab for a Japanese when given to SSAs and other crushingly poor, illiterate, third world peoples.
no. that’s easy. you test concepts and/or information common to both cultures
I actually like that idea. A verbal test administered in different languages but testing knowledge that is relevant in every culture. Very interesting; never been tried to my knowledge
because these peoples are little exposed to the concepts and way of thinking of these non-verbal tests.
the culture-reduced and/or fluid vs culture-loaded/crystallized dichotomy is just jive talk, just words which don’t refer to things in the real world.
and de facto, though not de jure, are just the verbal vs non-verbal test.
dumbass mofo, globe trotting puzzle giver, that’s always what a translation of the WAIS from one language to another entails. and in America don’t you think the verbal items are chosen to be as relevant to every American as possible? are chosen to be as culture-less as possible according to the subjective assessment of the test makers?
that’s always what a translation of the WAIS from one language to another entails.
You’re getting confused again. WAIS translations are normed in the countries they’re translated in. The verbal scale translations are not used for crosscultutal comparison
and in America don’t you think the verbal items are chosen to be as relevant to every American as possible
I do; that’s why I said i like your idea of doing it globally. Duh
If I recall, we have both said this several times in many ways. Chinese score well on IQ tests because of the overlap between Western culture and EA culture, etc. etc. etc.
Even said it earlier in this thread. Europeans are separate but they have common cultural elements. IQ tests are good at measuring cultural distance.
Also, on the subject of ‘culture reduced,’ etc….I know I have cited this academic parlor trick by Jensen before:
” This is admittedly a highly subjective judgment, and that is why this particular hypothetical continuum is of quite limited usefulness and not of crucial importance in the objective study of mental tests. Among various judges, however, there is a high degree of subjective agreement as to the relative positions of many test items on the continuum. By using the average rankings of the culture loading of items by a number of judges from different subpopulations and backgrounds, it is possible to select test items from the large pool of ranked items that stand at clearly separated points on the culture-loaded continuum. Tests that are
termed “culture free,” “culture fair,” or “culture reduced” usually consist of items that have been judged to be less culture loaded than the items typically found in other tests in which item selection was not based primarily on this kind of judgment.”
Highly subjective judgment but NEVERTHELESS a LOT of us have so judged.
it’s impossible to reason with a woman. when you get a penis, then we can talk.
of course they’re normed locally, and an attempt is made to make the items equivalent across languages.
so the “reasoning” is like this:
1. when a Japanese is “retarded” on a test of english vocab, it’s because the test is loaded.
2. when a Bushman is “retarded” on the RPM, it’s because he’s retarded.
3. and the big brained cro-magnon? what would he do when Pepe gave him one of her puzzles?
which reminds one how Caucasians are atavistic in one way more than any. they’re hairy.
Jews are notoriously hairy. Alec Baldwin is half yeti.
compare to Toshiro Mifune
http://cache2.asset-cache.net/gc/115793216-japanese-actor-toshiro-mifune-standing-bare-gettyimages.jpg?
v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=lGnjDs01aeQKqjld9R%2FRaSPde90ipoRwSDH8RB9o83ouZvCmB8OL0qTm1V9%2FBxmP
why are the Ainu so hairy? they live in Hokaido, the cold part of Japan, and have other traits in common with Caucasians. seems as if NE Asians really aren’t better adapted to cold than Europeans.
1. when a Japanese is “retarded” on a test of english vocab, it’s because the test is loaded.
2. when a Bushman is “retarded” on the RPM, it’s because he’s retarded.
The RPM seems to require a very basic level of schooling before its valid, so no, I wouldn’t give that particular test to bushmen
“Jews are notoriously hairy. Alec Baldwin is half yeti.”
Are you implying Alec Baldwin is part jewish? He’s not jewish. He’s an Irish drunk like you. He just doesn’t eat as much rösti 🙂
baldwin is a Caucasian. that’s all i meant. i have no idea what rosti is. and i of my 16 great great grandparents, only three had Irish surnames.
how many of your 10 distinct great great grandparents had names other than McCoy or Hatfield?
again i would urge haldol. at least the voices will stop.
Speaking of Sternberg, I like the cut of his jib.
“Sternberg took office in July 2013 as the University of Wyoming’s 24th president. His major aim was to push the “development of ethical leadership in students, faculty and staff.”.[10] Therefore, Sternberg wanted to change the University of Wyoming’s test-based selection process of applicants towards an ethics-based admission process: “The set of analytical skills evaluated in the ACT [American College Testing] is only a small sliver of what you need to be an ethical leader.”[11]
After arriving at the University of Wyoming, President Sternberg’s term was marked by tumult in the faculty. Not later than three weeks being in office as Wyoming’s new president the provost and vice president for academic affairs was asked to resign and stepped down.[12] In the next four months, three associate provosts and four deans were asked to resign or resigned voluntarily—many explicitly citing disagreements with President Sternberg’s approach.[13] In the Chronicle of Higher Education, November 15, 2013 (“President of U of Wyoming Abruptly Resigns” by Lindsay Ellis), Sternberg’s tenure was described as “a period that saw rapid turnover among senior administrators and unsettled the campus.””
And of course he ruffles feathers.
—
It’s funny that upper-class elite types do “well” on IQ tests, but they don’t tend to do outstandingly well. My theory is that the whole ‘hard work’ studying stuff is a joke, joke, joke — for them. These individuals have an entire life that trains them to do well enough on the tests with minimal effort. Built-in success. Path of least resistance.
If you ever talk with an upper class individual — even a vapid one — you will see what I mean. “What an idiot, but I think they’d do well on one of those tests.”
1. whatever the means of selection, whatever the system, some will be selected and some won’t. some will win and some will lose.
2. objective criteria cannot be improved on with subjective criteria.
3. it is better that the criteria be the same for everyone.
4. if some segments have talent which the system does not or cannot recognize then the criteria should be changed.
i sat the ACT twice. i did no better the second time. but both times i scored in the 99th percentile. had i lived in Wyoming i might have applied to UW and been rejected for insufficient ethics? thanks rabbi Sternberg, i’ll take your word for it who’s a good person and who isn’t.
Allegedly, his Kaleidoscope criteria aim to address (4).
from the same source:
Additionally, other provosts blamed a lack of respect for and interest in human capital. According to Peter Shive, a professor emeritus, Sternberg asked everyone to wear the school colors, brown and gold, on Fridays…
According to the Wyoming News, Sternberg’s four-month presidency produced more than $1.25 million in administration-related costs equivalent to the costs of 31 faculty staff positions for one year.[18] This includes: $377,000 for Sternberg’s severance pay, including $325,000 that he will be paid 2014.
he may have been a good psychologist. if such is possible. but now he’s clearly a nut.
He clearly can’t play the game of politics very well. I still like that he tried to do something new.
I’m guessing that he’s trying to apply his theories before he’s finished developing his theories.
But then again, his claims about Kaleidoscope and how his holistic criteria actually tend to increase student quality, solely measured by SAT and ACT score, are from him.
A big oil accusation!
http://abovethelaw.com/2013/11/how-not-to-make-an-energy-lawyer-law-students-object-to-the-politicization-of-their-studies/
what’s this called?
Sternberg was an undergraduate student at Yale University. Neither of Sternberg’s parents finished high school, and he was only able to attend Yale through achieving a National Merit Scholarship and receiving financial aid.
so he benefited a lot from “those tests”.
Something is just off about it, though.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/11/18/how-new-president-supposed-clean-house
He says ‘I want them to have a curriculum that is better geared toward interests we can serve in the state,’ they say ‘you like big oil.’ I can see his point, regarding a niche intrastate market. It’s not like Wisconsin is anything but a regional school. Plus, Wisconsin practices diploma privilege — graduation from law school auto-admits to the bar. It does make sense that the best way for a school like Wisconsin to be competitive, in the legal market, is to churn out graduates who are well acquainted with skills needed in the Wisconsin law market.
” Bacteria quite adaptable too because they mutate so rapidly”
Pumpkin,
This mutation is not happen at individual levels (i believe individual mutations don’t have any effect on population, only if this hypothetical individual procreate with many, many people in a isolated tribe). Is not mutation, is not change of biology, but selection. In the case of bacterias, environment ”change” to ”aggressive mode on” and many bacterias are killed. Is not mutation, is selection. Is not a creation of a new phenotype, is a elimination of today-contextually-non-adaptable phenotypes. Natural genocide.
Is not agility of simple forms of life of fragility at individual levels.
Is not agility of simple forms BUT fragility at individual levels. Compares bacteria with planet earth, with humans with solar system, scales.
You need analyse individuals to conclude that can’t be only ”””culture”””. If the culture was the most important element to explain multifaceted real differences in intelligence among human varieties, then, any immigrant who migrate from Africa to ”U”SA, would ”intelligent”. Can be possible he increase their set of ”knowledge”. But it don’t will necessarily imply he ”will be” genius or gifted.
The idea of lack of environmental stimuli itself is bad for intelligence, to be stupid. A real smart person, i.e, who are intelectually CURIOUS. will be self-motivated to learn and inovate in ANY PLACE, ANY CIRCUNSTANCE. You simply can’t stop this kind of people, only (possibly) with medication, like adhd.
Even with no ”official (scientific) knowledge”. This explain, according a non-eurocentric vision why all beliefs and religions (primitive rational knowledge) around the world have many similarities like the belief of God (super power force) existence. Intelligent people create things even by simple observation, perception, without any ”cultural advantageous landscape”.
Re-formulating the quote of Malcolm of Jurassik Park
The life finds a way.
The intelligence too.
That’s just an idealization. You’re talking about two separate traits: intelligence and curiosity. I don’t doubt that intelligence ‘finds a way.’ But intelligence ‘finds a way’ to succeed in its current conditions. Curiosity is more about a general love of learning. Many “smart” people are not curious people.
Very well said, many ”SMART” people are not curious. And many this ”SMART” people who was ”quotized” for yourself, score higher in iq tests, scholastic tests, etc…
I was polite in my affirmation.
INTELECTUALLY CURIOUS PEOPLE…
and not only curious people. Is not idealization, only for you and your blue caps.
You SEEMS do not understand the sentence ”finds a way” and my example of non-occidental regional culture and systems beliefsand its similarities in primitive rational thinking.
Intelligence, as inner motivation to analyse and cognise the phenomena and or patterns, no need to ”advantageous, i.e, western, cultural landscape”, only the will to understand the world where lives.
Culture always is a product of intelligence and not the inverse. Intelligence happen first TO CREATE culture, by nothing.
‘only the will to understand the world where lives.’
What you describe is curiosity, not intelligence.
Is this what you mean by ‘intelligence finds a way?’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kamkwamba
Even without a bibliotèque, this guy ”finds a way” to learn, intrinsically motivated. Today (since 80’s), with internet, tv and cultural globalization, great part of humanity around the world have at least little access to ”OFFICIAL western knowledge”.
Little environmental stimuli, different than ”chateau schools” (or, mini-high-tech alexandria bibiotèch school) in american ghetto, is enough to flourish this kind of motivation.
Just because some people manage to overcome the odds against them doesn’t mean that a) the odds aren’t against them and b) they always overcome the odds. Stop talking out of your ass.
Asians lack the intellectual curiosity of Whites, where blacks are basically unfitted for any civilization that requires intellect.
You lack intelligence for sure. What is your IQ score?
It’s more than 300. What is yours?
All civilizations and societies require intellect you dildo. A lot of these just so racial stories transform the last 500 years into all of recorded history.
“It’s more than 300”
This is just another proof of studipity. You are just piece of shit. Your mom conceived you when she was working in Nevada.
and JS is correct as usual.
what is ancient China to Aristotle’s Athens?
NOTHING!
it’s simply INFERIOR.
one needn’t be a racist moron to say this. it’s simply a FACT.
”Just stupid” look a metastasis of a certain person here… 😉
Correct, China has never produced any remarkable thinker in the likes of Aristotle, Descartes and Voltaire, besides the boring filial piety Confucius and a few bi-syllable, ancient rhyming names.
and more than that the Chinese do NOT in fact have larger cranial capacity.
peeeeepeeeee has a very low IQ, is non-white…so naturally gravitates toward east asian supremacist Canadian pseudo-scientists like Rushton.
she has a very low IQ so she must simultaneously claim that IQ is a valid measure of intelligence and that it is not a valid measure of intelligence.
it is valid to establish the superiority of peeeeepeeeee’s people, but invalid when it comes to her own very low IQ score.
.
No, you’re a POS, for calling me one.
I never made any mean-spirited comments to anyone here!
Abusing just shit (JS) is joy.
JS “takes money from bobos” to the tune of > 200 k per year. or so he claims.
”What you describe is curiosity, not intelligence.”
Nope, is a most simple concept of intelligence.
A desire to understand may be associated with the ability to understand, but it is not the same thing.
BUT nothing what you say here will change the reality that you don’t want to see.
Yes, aren’t same thing in a minority of cases, but to a majority of cases will positively correlated. The most part of time, the self-motivated or intelectually curious will be apt to understand what he’s obsessive.
You’re just asserting that they are significantly correlated in the majority of cases. I’m not sure that’s true at all. Attend school at an elite institution. The vast majority of individuals are not that curious.
The Moors thought the Europeans were incapable of abstract thought.
And given the Moors (Muslims) who had borrowed from Aristotle and made him into one of his own, this speaks of an insult. Europeans did however surpassed the Muslims in philosophy, science and technology. However, the Muslims also excelled where the Chinese didn’t.
I’m not answered it. If the answer was to me. Older ”muslims” was not very different than europeans, specially than southern euros.
Yes, you are correct, the Medieval Muslims, at least the intellectual elite should look like this guy who lived in Iraq, basically a Southern Euro type with headscarf, and not the trollish low level Arab whom you see in the media today, wanting retribution from the West. And they were probably more of these individuals in the past, before their dysgenic imbreeding drift with black slaves and peninsular bedouins (see HBD Chick’s post on reverse renaissance of the Muslims).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Baqir_al-Sadr
Hilarious website on the supremacy of the Medial Latitude Caucasians (mostly Southern Euros).
http://www.geocities.ws/medhammer/
But there is a grain of truth that Southern Euros have done more for humanity than Nordics or East Asians. Also, the author says the Muslims were the Southern Euro types in the past.
The Moors thought the Europeans were incapable of abstract thought.
It is at most curious what the Moors thought a thousand years ago. Now is the first time in world history that SOME people, western people, have a nuanced picture of themselves and others.
Rushton speaks of testosterone and high IQ, leading to inventions and breakthroughs from White men, that one doesn’t find with East Asians and blacks, who are at the opposite spectrum in regards to racial attributes.
”You’re just asserting that they are significantly correlated in the majority of cases. I’m not sure that’s true at all. Attend school at an elite institution. The vast majority of individuals are not that curious.”
Elite institution, you say all now.
Creativity need balance between health and disease (levels of pathogenic interaction or mutations). East asians tend to be less mutational race??
Clearly creative personality combined many traits commonly found in blacks and in east asians.
Rushton, like Lynn, has been so thoroughly refuted that it is hard to take him seriously as a source.
he claimed the Irish were a low IQ population.
so did the Know-Nothings. so did Swift.
yet today the Irish have a higher standard of living than their former masters.
Ignore Rushton’s take on the vis-a-vis comparisons between the different Euro groups. He is however right to say Asians have both high IQs and high inhibition, making their intelligence almost void and counter-productive. The boring Asian elites at Harvard is one good example.
Most “elites” at elite schools are “boring.”
Reverse ecological fallacy in 3…2…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne-Marie_Imafidon
reverse eco fallacy is…
inferring traits of the group from those of a small part of the group, small example of the group?
drrr…droool…
Yeah, I cited to an intelligent black person for that purpose.
right. so given America is still the world leader in something…namely entertainment a lot of foreigners must think highly of black Americans. or at least more highly than rednecks think of them.
imagine a Boer who loves some black American entertainers. does he think American blacks are special? i wonder.
eve with those “atavistic” Xhosa clicks he must’ve liked this though:
It could also be the unfortunate case that the world enjoys laughing at blacks.
So do you think that America is a lost cause?
what’s the cause? America has never been a cause. “America’s not a country. it’s just a business.”
the US stock market has beaten all except Germany’s over the last 20 years. but…
To illustrate this point, based on the current 2012 reports, foreign sales appear to
account for 28.7% of total sales…
so it’s not entirely an American stock market.
it is clear that small 90+% black African countries can do much better than average as countries go. PM made fun of the tourism, tax evasion economy, but i can imagine SSA developing with some European or East Asian “managers” just as Barbados and the Bahamas has developed, but Peru and Bolivia and Haiti have not. blacks didn’t just leave the South so they could use white drinking fountains. they left for jobs. those jobs disappeared or moved to China. those clever Chinese are doing jobs which black Americans formerly did, just as farm labor today is almost exclusively Latino. that is, tourism and tax evasion aren’t the only things blacks can do. even if you’re an HBDer, that’s the fact.
someone other than Mo Ibrahim is gonna make billions in Africa.
Instead of viewing America as a business, I see it as some dysfunctional public school propped up by welfare subsidies with dysgenic bred children who are always bickering much ado about nothing. When were public schools ever pleasant places to visit, let alone sending your bright kids for an education.
JS may be wrong here.
FANUC is a Japanese company and leads the world in automation. “leads” is an understatement. when American manufacturers buy robots, they buy them from FANUC.
Having a Central Asian STAN file patents means nothing, as this chart is meaningless.
Summarizing…
Whites are so useless that deserve disappear, look whitey!!! Japaneses are so bright. Some rare black individuals are so smart. Whites are dumbest. No fight against immigration, no fight against rapes…
grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Today, ”white people” are the weakest human race living because the parasitoids that invaded and brainwashing your collective mind. You (mula) only will can compare ”decanted caucasoids” with any other races, when it to be in equality of conditions.
you know more than me.
i just typed in “patents per capita by country” and then “images”.
but FANUC is still the world leader in factory automation.
People who take the “why haven’t any blacks won the fields medal” and similar claims seriously should honestly rethink the issue.
I have already said it before, but a large part of genius is the opportunity to be heard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Blackwell
You are completely retard. Look at biography of many geniuses. (but it don’t will change nothing about your BELIEFS).
Genius is not ONLY the opportunity, or culture.
You accuse me to be deterministic (”always” the correlation between big brain, intelligence and iq, you remember???) but you all the time are extremely convinced about their beliefs. All is ”culture” for you.
”The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. ” Bertrand Russell.
I doubt really that any hbd blogger already affirm ”no black already win field medals” but in fact, is very rare to happen. Only that. You can accept it??
What their intention here showing RARE examples??
You could praise ”white people” one time in your life???
I didn’t say it was ONLY the opportunity. But a large part of it IS the opportunity. A lot of the ‘self-made’ geniuses were extraordinarily lucky in many ways.
Genius like creative and intelligent people is inborn. What you are saying is about the EXTERNAL MANIFESTATION or Popularization of talent, and not, ”environment made genius”. Take it of your head.
Off course, we have many kind of situations or levels of intelligence, genius or creativity combined with levels of functionality and in the end, lucky (unfortunately) and selection by zelites.
Yes we can say ”environmental OR circunstancial factors made recognized genius” but not biology of genius itself.
”Most “elites” at elite schools are “boring.”
Reverse ecological fallacy in 3…2…”
You could ”quotized” whole sentence, better… 😉
I THINK when JS say ”asian cognitive elite are boring”, he want to say ON A-V-E-R-A-G-E.
Your comment is again very weak. You answer a short term, action and reaction. This explain many of your contradictions.
Actually the “reverse ecological fallacy” was me calling an own goal on myself preemptively before linking to that Nigerian prodigy. Only the first part was responsive to his post.
ok.
sometimes I’m glib, santo. see my discussion of Roger Sternberg qua U. Wisc. President.
huh? he was U of Wyoming pres. not the venerable U of Wisc. pres.
OH….
well then nothing he did makes sense to me.
that’s sad!
I guess the same reasoning would apply to Wyoming law, but with such saggy LSAT/GPAs….who even cares? It’s not even regional.
this from a Brownzilian.
or do you look like Gisele Bundchen or Jorge Lemann?
both Brazil and Argentina are counterexamples to the Alfred Rosenberg theory of history. aren’t they?
.
Dementia mula is racist too. Too bad.
Gisele= bitch stupid with ugly nose.
Lemann= parasitic foreigner.
Brazil is a ”natural” laboratoire, by mixing race.
I’m look like myself, mediterranean, with bear, like greek, without bear, like a neotenic med iberian, but with very recent non-white ancestors.
that’s cool Santa Claus.
but Brazil is or was racist in ways America isn’t.
“cabelo ruin”
“he turned out dark in that picture.”
sorry,
“cabelo ruim“
to each his own my Brownzilian brother, but i loves me the big German witch nose.
.jpg)
steffi graf is durante compared to gisele. i guess i’m a nose perv.
”sometimes I’m glib, santo. see my discussion of Roger Sternberg qua U. Wisc. President.”
Where??
Greater majority of brazilians are racist, homophobic and misoginic. Brazilians like many other latin americans, are very conservatives.
Giorgio Widela,
and??
”you know more than me.
i just typed in “patents per capita by country” and then “images”.
but FANUC is still the world leader in factory automation.”
”East asians” don’t exist, there JAPANESES, who are very different than continental east asians (and they deserve their positive considerations too). Again, europeans suffering by enormous dysgenics effects today, immigration en màsse, lower fertility… You simply can’t compare them this way. Europeans, generally, inventing new things to think, to live, to work, etc… Inovations isn’t same thing than Inventions.
Can someone explain why Japan didn’t reach its full potential in the ww2 ? at that time its Gdp and percapita was even lower than Italy, despiste being already one of the most populous countries at that time, meanwhile after the war they have now the third or fourth economy, which makes more sense given their huge population, why pre war Japan was weaker?
My opinion, eastern asian societies and specially Japan are localized between ”creative non-traditional modern western cultures” and ”bigger brain timeless traditional survive-simplistic-culture arctic tribes”. Some western nations (specially with the parasitoids highly creative and energic ashkenazim jews) seems ”always” in cultural transformation, like body when disease advance.
Mongoloid branche, if really evolved firstly in mongolian plateaux, developed ”advanced cognitive survival traits” earlier and as ”founder effect traits”. Lower creativity levels there in hunter gatherer societies because greater natural selection, eliminated chances to diversify types of intelligence like creativity, and because they need survive above anything else.
Giftedness related with bigger complexity of brain and physiological costs like psychopathologies tendencies, specially to highly creative ones and allergies.
DRD4 is a vestigial genes in natives asian americans.
Extreme conformism in Japan produce environmental factors against self expression of creative castes.
Japan, until ww2, already developed very well, to a modern western society style, but with their traditions.
Japan was not ”weaker”.
Creativity, generally, work against tradition (older and fossilized creativity).
South Korea have lower Gdp compared with other nations, but they seems are more fair society than many rich nations with higher Gdp. Italy have higher Gdp than South Korea (seems), but it’s a very geographically unfair country with ”Austria levels” (Veneto and Lombardia) and ”Eastern Europe levels” (Sicilia and Calabria).
Ashkenazi aren’t all that creative compared to Europeans. Their cognitive profiles are similar to East Asians, but they are less inhibited, thus more “wild” and showing greater energy and ambition, making better use of their intelligence.
It’s no surprise that many Ashkenazi Jews have found affinity with East Asians, more so than Europeans (despite being Caucasian). They have similar cognitive profiles.
dunno what you mean by “similar..profiles”.
in factor scores jews and mongoloids are opposites. mongoloids score higher on visuo-spatial tests (relative to europeans) but not on verbal tests. jews score higher on verbal tests but not on visuo-spatial tests.
surprising to Asian imbeciles like pp…verbal IQ is more strongly associated with social class and is more heritable and more g-loaded than non-verbal IQ. that’s because either 1. verbal IQ really is a better measure of general intelligence or 2. IQ tests are crap.
santoculto I didn’t understand your answer at all, but the thing I did understand really didn’t answer my question, why Japan in ww2 had an economy 8 times smaller than Germany, while today is one third bigger. Likewise in percapita that are now at the same level, while in ww2 Japan was about 6 times poorer. From 1868 to 1939 they had many decades to develop their full potential and they didn’t, until after 1945.
I’m not asian & if you weren’t so dumb you’d realize verbal tests are only more heritable in culturally homogenous populations. You are innately incapable of grasping this simple concept
so innately incapable that i’m in the BGI study, and you aren’t nor could be. nor EVER could be.
you’re a dumb Asian/South Asian peeeeepeeeee.
or you’re an extreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeme white trash Canadian.
if their track record in the west is anything to go by:
1. Asians are pushy striving fucktards.
2. they’re as creative as a rock.
3….
their Western “show” shows why the West is the best and why NE Asia will always be lower. lower than the lowest of Western Europe.
keep chinking it up. you’re a chink or a white trash pos homo.
Then why the most Watched video in youtube was made by a Korean? by the way talking about youtube, why didn’t Chad Hurley and Jawed Karim couldn’t made youtube without the help of a Taiwanese?
If you’re in the BGI study it’s because as a Promethean explained to me, college admission tests don’t measure g beyond IQ 140 & research shows they give especially exaggerated scores for people of your self-proclaimed high social class
You would never have qualified for the BGI study based on your scores on official IQ tests you took (WISC, Raven)
You’re probably the genetically dumbest person in the entire study
you’re a teenage cunt and slut.
go eat a burrito and fuck off la cucaracha.
“as a Promethean explained to me”
dear God. i thought maybe you’d score 65 on an IQ test. but now i’m thinking 50 max.
if the Promethean or you knew what an IQ test was, you’d know that the SAT, ACT, GRE, LSAT, GMAT, etc. were the best IQ tests there are. lion and his commenters/pride know this. you don’t, because…
1. you have a very very low IQ.
2. high IQ societies have only low IQ members.
3. your social IQ is too low to see this.
if the Promethean or you knew what an IQ test was, you’d know that the SAT, ACT, GRE, LSAT, GMAT, etc. were the best IQ tests there are
100% wrong.
this is the Canadian hockey loving, terrance & phillip loving simpleton.
why are these the best IQ tests? because stupid “legacies” do best on them? no!
the reason is the sample size. every new question is vetted.
everyone sitting any of these tests must answer a number of questions which won’t count toward his score. he can’t know which these are. these “dummy questions” are used in future tests to the extent that they discriminate and discriminate in a “non-discriminatory” fashion. the race and class background of testees is accounted for.
the result is MUCH MUCH MORE info on test items than any self-described psychologist’s/or psychologists’ IQ test has or ever can have.
peeeeepeeeee trusts theories of psychologists and the morons in high IQ societies.
i trust data.
btw, i’d also include the MAT, although it’s purely verbal. i’m sure i’ve forgotten a few.
the total number sitting any self-described IQ test in a year is at most 1/100th the number sitting the college/school entrance tests.
whoever would claim the RPM or the WAIS a better test than the ACT or the LSAT or whatever…
is a MORON!!!
with an IQ too low to make high scores on these tests.
the reason is the sample size. every new question is vetted.
You’re an absolute idiot. I could fill the world’s largest library with all you don’t know about psychometrics & test item analysis.
You have no idea how the vetting process works or what they are & aren’t vetting for or why they decide to accept or reject items.
For someone who spends every night posting on IQ, it’s astonishing how little you know about the field.
you’re a moron obsessed with race and IQ. you’ve given puzzles to people around the world. you knew Rushton. more and more it sounds like your job is 100% bullshit. and a job almost anyone could do better than you.
the vetting is statistical pp. it’s not theoretical. statistics is something you don’t understand. the test item is included if it discriminates without discriminating against non-whites or other minorities.
i’m a credentialed actuary and have a BSc in maths, and a perfect score on the old SoA exam in statistics.
i understand.
you don’t!
now the underclass like pp might wish that there was some test which was able to ascertain “genetic IQ”…even though the very idea of “genetic IQ” is something which only morons can believe in.
but whatever the test the college/school entrance exams are the best that such test can be. they may still suck. i wouldn’t deny that. but they suck the least of all such tests.
contra Swank the problem is NOT that entrance exams are crap…even if they are crap. the problem is a racist society and class rive society. all of the smartest people i’ve known had very high SAT scores so far as i knew what they were. the tests are VALID.
so if one has a high “genetic IQ”, forgetting that such talk is 100% jive, but scores low on the SAT or ACT or whatever…
why should it be that he makes up for this in some other way? why should “grades”, which are unique to the US and Canada, be the measure.
some must be selected. some must be de-selected.
the problem is a racist/classist society not the tests.
I don’t care what degrees you have or what tests you claim to have done well on.
You lack an understanding of psychometrics & your arguments are so confused they don’t even need a response. They discredit themselves.
pepe’s only talent—stupidity, arrant stupidity.
pp is “more evolved”.
she’s one more link in the chain from human to sheep.
from man sized penis to penis sized clit.
”Ashkenazi aren’t all that creative compared to Europeans. Their cognitive profiles are similar to East Asians, but they are less inhibited, thus more “wild” and showing greater energy and ambition, making better use of their intelligence.”
Slightly disagree with you because the will to self expression and energy to do something great, is very important to creativity. Ashkenazim have more specialized creativity where they are very bad in visual arts for example, but they are very good and competitive in other traditional creative fields. Europeans tend to have more balanced creativity, it explain only a one single village in Europe, with creativity and love for beauty and perfection in EVERY aspect (visual, technical, expressive or emotional, etc), and natural landscape contributing considerably to this piece of heaven on earth. European traditional cultures is creativity too, ”but” old or fossilized creativity., no-dynamic creativity.
Yes, ashkenazim have more ”older” traits like higher rates of mental complexities or disorders and physiological traits as assymmetric fraces, etc.
”santoculto I didn’t understand your answer at all, but the thing I did understand really didn’t answer my question, why Japan in ww2 had an economy 8 times smaller than Germany, while today is one third bigger. Likewise in percapita that are now at the same level, while in ww2 Japan was about 6 times poorer. From 1868 to 1939 they had many decades to develop their full potential and they didn’t, until after 1945.”
Because Japan increased more than Western Germany??? During the japanese miracle, its economy growing at least 16-25% by year, 1950’s-1960’s. Western Germany, without 15 million of germans who living in Eastern Germany, growing higher than 10% during little time (1950’s) compared to Japan. Usa invest many money in Japan after ww2 and South Korea after ”Korea’s war” to combat China ”red empire” and to do propaganda about capitalism against ”socialism”. Japan growing like China today during 30 years followed, like Western Germany growing one decade called ”german miracle”. Germany reunification in 90’s, Germany economy at same time have advantages and very severe disadvantages of communism heritage in Eastern Germany.
Thanks 🙂 until recently I didn’t realize how Japan in ww2, despiste being already a great power, had such an small economy, I was so used to the present Japan gdp size that I was a lot shocked, I wonder if Japan grew as much as later, it would have overtaken Hitler’s Germany, if they were Axis again, the main power would be Japan, I mean WTF, the Japan of that time was even smaller than Italy gdp !!! (though as expected at least bigger than Spain, which was so weakened from its former glory of being the Spanish empire of Columbus)
Japan economy during ww2 was slightly lower than Italy, already impressive since the end of Tokugawa era.
Now I remenber, thanks to wikipedia, that China and Russia today are Great Powers, but are also developing countries and a lot more poor than the developed world. Now I see the similarities with the Japan in ww2, Japan today is rich but it wasn’t before. All I see in common between Japan pre-ww2 and present China and Russia, is Military strenght (and some economic). Now I see, Japan ww2 was like China today, Imagine if China or Russia now started a war with United States.
I commited a injustice here, because Western Germany also was helped by americans with Marshall Plan, the third country that received more money, behind Great Britain and France.
Japan society before the western intromission, were very advanced but with their own way, is incomparable when qualities are similar or very near each other. Is subjective.
If Rushton’s evolutionary theory is based on the idea of progress then his evolutionary theory is wrong. PP I’ve said this 6 gazillion times. Evolution is not progressive.
Of course Rushton’s theory still makes sense, but not in the way of evolution being progressive. Different environments, mutation, genetic drift, natural selection. That’s how phenotypes nd genotypes change from parent populations. Evolution is not a ladder pp. Our understanding of evolution is much better now than it was when Rushton had his theories on evolution. It’s not progressive. It’s not linear.
I love Rushton, but I’ve said it 6 trillion times and I’ll keep saying it: evolution is not progressive. It is non-linear. Assuming evolution to be progressive means it’s going for an end goal. But there are 4 different ways for selection to occur. Mutation, genetic drift, natural selection and migration. That’s what drives evolutionary change in a species. We also adapt differently to different environments so therefore to say one group is “more evolved” than another is ridiculous and shows no understanding of evolutionary biology.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_14
Please stop saying this. I know it’s hard to let go of theories, but it’s wrong.
You say one species is “more evolved”, but there is no way to quantify this. So therefore it’s not a theory and it’s based purely on subjectivity.
Don’t be stupid, of course there’s such a thing as more evolved. Modern humans living today are more evolved than Homo Habilis, who lived 2 million years ago. Even 14-year-old kids know that, RR.
No there is not.
Selection still occurred in Africa as it did anywhere else in the world. To say one population is more evolved than another shows no understanding of evolutionary biology.
Ask Razib Khan if it makes sense. Also ask him if Australoids and Pacific islanders are negroid. You know what he’ll say.
Ask Razib if modern humans are more evolved than Homo Habilis
For you to say that some populations are more evolved than others means you think that evolution speeds up or slows down based on environment. It doesn’t. It occurs through natural selection, migration, genetic drift and mutation.
Homo sapiens aren’t more evolved than H. Habilis. Different pressures produce different phenotypes and genotypes over time. Are H. Sapiens more fit than H. Habilis? Yes. But they’re not more evolved. More fit does not mean more evolved.
You’re basically saying that evolution slows down or speeds up based on environment. That’s laughably wrong. Did you not see the Nicholas Wade quote? Multiple sections on the genome are under selection in Africans, East Asians and Europeans. How can you say one population is “more evolved” than another when you see differing sections of the genome under selection in genetically isolated populations?
Homo sapiens aren’t more evolved than H. Habilis. Different pressures produce different phenotypes and genotypes over time. Are H. Sapiens more fit than H. Habilis? Yes. But they’re not more evolved. More fit does not mean more evolved.
Fitness has nothing to do with it. Modern humans are more evolved than H. Habilis because we’ve gone through more evolutionary stages. We’ve been more species than they have.
Anyways, I’m not going to waste anymore time arguing with you. You’re never going to understand.
Fitness has everything to do with it. That’s the damn point of evolution. Fitness. Populations adapt to their environment. They die there gain new mutations in that environment over time, irrespective of any migrations or population movements. We’ve interbred with more species than they have but that doesn’t mean more evolved. We killed them off. We were more fit but not more evolved. With your reasoning, then if they would have killed us off they’d be more evolved.
That’s retarded. You don’t have tk argue about this with me anymore but I’d I see you say more evolved I will continue this conversation.