I have previously complained that some scholars overestimate the average IQ of black Africa by using samples that have access to a lot more schooling than many people in the region. A commenter suggested I do my own estimate of the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africa by correcting for this problem.
One of the best studies of black African IQ was done by the late J.P. Rushton who decided to test university students under the best testing conditions imaginable. Why university students? Because if he could show that even the best and brightest black Africans, tested under superb testing conditions, still scored very low, then he could be certain the average IQ in Africa was every bit as low as scholar Richard Lynn had claimed. Rushton describes the study here:
Rushton found that on the Raven IQ test, the average black university student in South Africa has an IQ of 84 (U.S. norms), though this might be reduced to 83 since the test norms may have been inflated by the Flynn effect (the students were tested about seven years after the Raven’s 1993 norming).
An IQ of 83 on U.S. norms is equivalent to about 79 on U.S. white norms. The reason the IQ is so much lower using white norms is that the white American mean is not only higher the American mean, but the white American SD is narrower than the American SD (see here for the math and rationale).
Estimating the average IQ score of sub-Saharans
Now if the average South African black University student has an IQ of 79, what does that tell us about the average IQ of black South Africans as a whole? Assuming the average first year university student has about 13 years of schooling (and given the high dropout rate in South Africa, the average first year university student never gets much beyond the first year) and the average South African had about 8.2 years of schooling at the time of this study, then the students Rushton tested were 4.8 years more educated that the mean of their country.
Now in the U.S., for whatever reason, educated people score higher on IQ tests, by about 3.54 points (3.66 points using white norms) per each year of schooling. Assuming the same pattern applies in South Africa, black South Africans who are 4.8 years more schooled than the average South African, should have IQs that are 4.8(3.66) = 18 points higher than the average South African. So if the black South African first year university students average IQ 79, the average black South African should average IQ 79 – 18 = 61.
Estimating the real intelligence of sub-Saharans
Now, just because I estimate the average IQ of black Africa to be 61 does not mean I believe this is an accurate reflection of their intelligence. The average South African adult (circa 2000) hardly attended high school let alone uinversity (largely for structural reasons, independent of his ability) and it is known that each year of missed schooling shaves 1.8 points off one’s IQ score (though probably not one’s real intelligence), so if South Africans stayed in school as long as Westerners, they would probably average 70 instead of 61.
Some readers might be confused as to why I’m arguing each year of missed schooling shaves 1.8 points off IQ, when above I said people with more schooling average 3.66 IQ points higher for each year more schooled. The 1.8 figure is the independent effect of more schooling on IQ, while the 3.66 figure is just the difference in IQ between people with different schooling (including both the effect of schooling on IQ and the effect of IQ on schooling)
Estimating the genetic IQ of sub-Saharans
So IQ 70 probably reflects the actual level of real intelligence of black South Africans. Of course their real intelligence could probably be higher if they had received First World nutrition, particularly during the prenatal stage when the brain is most growing. I’ve previously documented that black Africans are probably about 0.8 SD below their genetic potential for height. Assuming they are also 0.8 SD below their genetic potential for intelligence would raise their IQs by an addition 12 points, bringing them to about 82.
Comparison with white Victorians
It is interesting to compare the adult Raven IQ of 61 for black Africans with the adult Raven IQ of 70 for white Victorians. Like black Africans, lack of schooling made the Raven unfair to Victorians and correcting for the schooling effect, raises their IQs to about 78, which might be a good estimate of their real intelligence.
Also like modern Africans, even real intelligence was stunted. Victorians appear to be even much more malnourished than modern Africans, being about 1.5 SD shorter than whites today. If we assume malnutrition also stunted their real intelligence by 1.5 SD (23 IQ points), that fully explains why their real intelligence was nearly 23 points lower than whites today who score 100.
Of course if the dysgenics theory is true, it would imply that Victorians should be genetically much smarter than modern whites and thus be much higher than modern whites after correcting for nutrition. Of course if dysgenics is true, then people have probably also become genetically shorter despite becoming phenotypically taller, which means I under-corrected IQ for nutrition and doing the full correction would make white Victorians much smarter than modern Whites.
While I’m open-minded to the dysgenics theory, I think that dysgenics should have caused a major decline in a test called Digit Span given the insensitivity of this test to both nutrition and schooling, and that apparently hasn’t happened.
Iq 70 of White British victorians was caused entirely by structural psychometric divergences and it’s mean that is very likely to NOT express real intelligence of WBV ( i like to see WBV as retard… But not π )
Some universities are very rigorous to accept students, others not. In Brazil, public university students scores higher than private ones. Public brazilian universities have national cognitive ‘elite’ while private ones have those who are the middle class. In Brazil, middle classes ‘have’ average iq 95-100 ( national average is 87). On average, middle classes tend to score 5-15 points higher than national, depending what is your demographic preponderance. I think ~ 80-85 represent the iq ”of” african middle classes if they have average national iq 70 and not the smartest one like you ( seems) said. I read in the Richard Ling-Lynn book that in sample of engineering students, whites score 110, indians score 107 and blacks score 103. The average of the smartest group of south africans is likely to score in the 100-105 iq levels,
Sexual selection have a impact to create a relative correlation between iq and Height. I ”think” this correlation generally doesn’t mean that tall people are natural-logically smarter ( smarter on what?? Verbal? Spatial?? Leadership or dominant interpersonal??). Mean when selection favour a certain trait, other desirable traits tend to be selected too. Power agregate power. At least those anedoctal compilation about Height of Nobel prizes made by someone in the ”Brain size” blog show us that ”they” ( those who are analysed) have average height if compared with their respective countries,
If height was necessary to compose a high profile cognitive phenotypes, then ”yugoslavians” should score very higher in iq scores.
Pure environmental, circunstancial or in this case, geopolitical factors, have a great impact in observable collective achievements like the gangster who infiltrates in the power positions. Is clear that modern ”cognitive elite” are creating a dysgenic-induced scenario. Don’t mistakes naive-stupid-energic social warriors with fabian zionist elite.
Iq 70 of White British victorians was caused entirely by structural psychometric divergences and itβs mean that is very likely to NOT express real intelligence of WBV
White Victorians had genetic IQs at least as high as whites today, but poor prenatal nutrition probably dragged down their real intelligence by at least 23 points.
And then on top of that, the lacked schooling so did not try hard on IQ tests or did not understand instructions. This dragged their scores down another 8 points.
I don’t know if it’s possible to happen. First is necessary define ”poor nutrition” and Standard normal nutrition. Extreme poor nutrition is very likely to affect baby intrauterine development. It is different than normal lower diet.
But even fashion models who have lower diet tend to have normal kids.
The normal diet individual consume is not like the modern Standard but the 50’s middles class family.
Britain in second half of XIX, seems, look like China in the first half of XX, or better. I can accept/understand that there are ”Flynn Effects” in very deprived nations but the ”Empire where the sun never fall” was not a poor nation like many subsaharian africans today.
Yes it’s 100% possible. Nutrition has made brain size bigger over the past 150 years or so. That alone should cause a rise in real intelligence. And if nutrition increased the size of the brain, it probably also increased other aspects of the brain besides just size, like brain efficiency and neurological development.
Further sometimes identical twins are born with unequal nutrition in the womb. The one born with a smaller head has a lower non-verbal IQ even at age 15. This mirrors the Flynn effect where past generations had smaller heads and especially low non-verbal IQs.
Non-verbal IQ ? You mean spatial IQ ?
Then, selection have a minor rule than we are imagining???
Today over-nutrition will make americans smarter??? Huuuum….
150 years?? But, human beings on general already have big-big brains than primates since first known civilizations. Better nutrition create humanity????
I don’t understand.
Non-verbal IQ ? You mean spatial IQ ?
It depends how you define spatial. Older IQ tests just divided scores into verbal and non-verbal. All of the non-verbal tests were visual in nature (i.e. involved looking at pictures or manipulating objects)
Then, selection have a minor rule than we are imagining???
Today over-nutrition will make americans smarter??? Huuuumβ¦.
Smarter at non-academic tasks like playing video games.
150 years?? But, human beings on general already have big-big brains than primates since first known civilizations. Better nutrition create humanity????
I donβt understand.
No, humans have bigger brains than apes for genetic reasons. Evolution. But once we switched to agriculture, our brains shrunk from malnutrition. They were still much much much bigger than ape brains, but they were below our genetic potential. With the rise of industrialization, we are recovering all the brain size we lost from agriculture, and certain parts of intelligence seem to be improving.
There wasn’t malnutrition before agriculture ?!
Lol, seriously I don’t get it.
I can understand that malnutrition become worst with agriculture but I really doubt that we were near our actual level of nutrition before agriculture.
We evolved as hunter/gatherers to eat the food that was available to hunter/gatherers. So our bodies were extremely well adapted to hunter/gatherer food, and thus it was extremely nutritious.
I still doubt that if we have to survive in the nature we will have the same level of nutrition than in first world society .
Spatial IQ is a relatively specialized abilities ? Why we use it in IQ test(I mean the cube subtest) ? It’s like using social IQ ?
I would not say spatial IQ is specialized. Anytime you manipulate objects, you need spatial IQ. Manipulating objects (tool use) is pretty much the foundation of intelligence in humans and non-humans.
Spatial IQ isn’t as specialized as social IQ but it’s still relatively specialized.
For exemple, spatial IQ isn’t useful when you cannot see.
That’s like saying verbal IQ isn’t useful when there are no people.
What I mean is cube subtest, I already told you.
Pure spatial IQ, not when there is a logic reasoning to do like in raven matrices.
There is no such equivalent(of the cube subtest) in the verbal part of the test.
And btw, verbal IQ is not useless when there is no people, you can classifie ideas and concepts with it and memorize them more rapidly.
Do you understand ?
Pure spatial is still quite useful.
And btw, verbal IQ is not useless when there is no people, you can classifie ideas and concepts with it and memorize them more rapidly.
It might be hard to classify ideas into categories if there are no people to teach you a language. Categories and concepts often come from words. That’s why manipulative people often create new words to advance political agendas or get rid of existing words when they become politically inconvenient.
Why mesuring pure spatial is useful ?
Classifie things with symbols or others thing, you should able to do that with a human brain.
What I mean is verbal IQ can be a little bit useful without people but spatial without vision is totally useless.
One might argue that spatial IQ is more useful without vision because you have to imagine everything, though if you’ve never had vision, this might be impossible.
Did years of schooling at university or things like that have an effect on IQ test results like elementary and high school have ?
It hasn’t been studied. A study of kids who dropped out of high school found their IQs dropped 1.8 points per year. Don’t know if the same effect would occur in people who drop out of university.
Can you estimate then the average IQ of US Blacks which cannot be only 85? Or may be they lost IQ during slavery(selection of muscles) ?
Well if black Africans have a genetic IQ of 82 and white Americans have a genetic IQ of 100, and if U.S. blacks have 80% African DNA and 20% white DNA, then their genetic IQ should be:
0.8(82) + 0.2(100) = 86
What do you think is the non genetic proportion in IQ variation ?
(I mean do you think IQ is 80% genetic 20% non genetic for example)
Studies of identical twins raised apart suggests that by later adulthood, 80% of the IQ variability in Western countries is genetic, but Mugabe argues that the twins are not raised sufficiently apart (some grow up in the same part of the country) and that the genetic effects are not independent (i.e. some genes might only increase IQ if the person is raised in America but decrease IQ if the person is raised elsewhere). Mugabe also notes that no IQ genes have been consistently found (excluding pathological cases)
If we follow 160 IQ Mugabe reasoning we could do a study in which a twin is raised in the better possible conditions and the other one in an environment in which he have litteraly no food during several weeks and he end up with a 20 IQ in adulthood.
This is quite stupid because we can’t define a limit to such study because genes are useless without environment.
Or may be it isn’t stupid, and I ask you(or him) what is the limit and why should we choose this limit ?
A good study would be to have many pairs of identical twins & have half of each pair born and raised in America and the other half born and raised in Nigeria. If there was still a strong IQ correlation despite the twins growing up in such different environments, that would be strong evidence of independent genetic effects.
Vocabulary was created to compactualize feelings, thoughts and categorize ”things”, animals, events etc. No there a rigid explanation, for example, for us give the name ”cow’ to this non-human animal, probably, a sofisticated onomatopeia. But, our brains can internalize this free association and search mentally by useful informations that correlates with this non-humans animals.
Pure verbal capacity is based in the capacity to understand the environment where you are Interacting by observations and understanding ( perceptions) of these patterns. This capacity obviously which is used in the human social environment.
Pure forms of specialized intelligences express the real g, the capacity to found, understand and Interact intelligently with environmental patterns, using any or apropriate abstract skill, like measure mentally the size or height of ”things” AND give names ( symbols) and concepts of this things. Give or search meaning to the things is very important to survive as well estimate proportions.
Evolution, heritability: Intelligence vs Height
+Africa/North Eurasia comparative
Please pardon my English, I am a French speaker from France and I havenβt wrote such a long piece in English for a while.
As shown from twin studies and empirical observation, height is a highly heritable polygenic trait. We can all see that there are taller families and shorter families, yet when it comes to race, Nigerians have an average height similar to the Chinese, both are shorter than the Korean and the Senegalese who are much shorter than the Dutch but taller than the Portuguese. Not only are height averages overlapping between racial groups but they are also greatly instable over time and subjected to strong environemental influences, mainly nutrition and general health.
The fact that racial groups may overlap in height or intelligence means that this traits have not been under the same environemental evolutionary pressures as visible racial characteristics. If Europeans had evolved into an intellectualy superior race in adaptation to their environement, then the most intelligent African could not be as intelligent as the less intelligent European, much as the lightest skinned non-albino African is always darker than the darkest skinned European. In addition, all individuals within a race should have very similar intellectual levels and intelligent Africans should be as rare as albinos.
If the IQ gap does not come from evolution, then its genetic component is very speculative because apart from traits selected under environemental pressure, genetic variation greatly ignores racial categories (blood types are randomly distributed among races for instance) and most of it occures within a group, especially Subsaharan Africans who concentrate the vast majority of human genetic diversity.
The only alleles suspected to be associated with intelligence that have been identified so far only give minimal advantage to their carriers and were found in quite small percentages of the studied populations. +3 IQ points for 10% of a group is only +0.3% for the whole group and the proportion is too small to argue for an evolutionary selective process.
The hereditarians say that North Eurasians have developped a superior intelligence in order to survive in a colder and supposedly harsher climate. That only makes sense to them because they experience winter and know it as the tougher season in the latitudes wher they and their readers live. What they seem to ignore is that tropical and equatorial climates are harsh and hostile environements quite far from the postcard image that they have in mind.
Endemic malaria, extreme heat combined with high humidity, low fertility of soils without chemicalsβ¦
They believe that prehistoric African hunter gatherers lived in a kind of Eden Garden where everything was there for them to pick while actually, in the extreme biodiversity of the rainforest there are as many deadly plants as there are nutritive ones and all have to be found within countless of valueless plants or flora with ambivalent properties that can be beneficial or harmful depending on the quantity or the preparation. Hunting and orientation are also complicated by the low visibility in the dense rainforest, hunters most often chase game that they donβt see and must grab information from secondary sources to track their prey and then be able to find their way back to their camp. As a whole, a rainforest is one of the most complex and hostile environement that exists and that explains why most of the uncontacted tribes currently existing are in Amazonia, Borneo or Papua New Guinea. This is also from this environement that came the last evolution of the hominid family (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) that has remplaced archaic varieties that had been living under cold and temperate climates for millenas before. It is also there that the most intelligent non-human primates live
In comparaison, Europe, even during ice ages presented less challenges: clear forests or open terrains, low diversity of wild foods, high availability of animals to hunt like mammoth, deers, hog⦠In the winter, there is still enough fungi, berries or insects to feed and sustain a hunter-gatherer population. During the ice ages when Europeans had to survive in the tundra or the taïga (the environments of the Inuits who are not really noticed for their achievments), Africans were subjected to severe drought that caused the desertification of most of the continent. I do belive that the absence of water is more problematic than low temperatures.
So during the hunter-gatherer stage of human evolution, I see nothing that could have selected North Eurasians on the basis of intelligence whereas this is when evolution by natural selection had the most time to occure. The reason why intelligence canβt have been a naturally selected trait is that natural selection causes the potentially genetically gifted to die in infancy or shortly after puberty because they are phisically too weak to survive while mere brutes who are just smart enough to take part in hunting and gathering can thrive and reproduce. Remember that in these times, life expectancy was not over 30 years, infant mortality was terrific, the time for knowledge accumulation and transmission was short and individuals had little opportunity to express their individual IQ related skills, individuallity as a whole is actually meaningless in this type of societies.
During agriculturalist stage, Europe and Noth-East Asia had fertile soils, moderate precipitations and a long growing season (winter is only 3 month) that give serious advantages for agricultural productivity. Moreover, these areas are shaped by narrow valleys and peninsulas that create the ideal conditions for high concentrations of populations that lead to more complex societies, all of this in a largely malaria-free environement. With such conditions for population growth (high availability and concentration of human capital) It is not surprising that Europe and East Asia ended up surpassing the Middle East in terms of civilizational development eventhough East Asiaβs developpement appears quite inferior when we take its larger population and the much earlier begining of its civilization into account. In fact the most troubling with East Asia is the extreme staticity of its history.
At the same time Subsaharan Africa has naturally oxyded low fertility soils, its seasons are extreme with 6 months of heavy rainfall and 6 months of drought when crops canβt grow, the only thing constant is heat, not the heat of a pleasant mediterranean summer but oven-like heat in the order of the fridge-like polar cold. Africa is a huge flat continental mass and that causes human dispersal instead of the concentration needed for social complexification. Have you ever noticed that large flat continental masses like pre-colonial Brazil,USA, Australia, Argentina or Siberia had limited civilizational development while the overcrowded Nile Valley, Honshu Island, Italy or Andine Altiplano had more complex societies ?
But the worst of all I think is malaria, it even has altered the African genome giving better restistance but not immunity. Malaria is endemic, highly incapacitating and relapsing and Africa was almost under the constant conditions of a pandemic. While human concentration is crucial to civilization, human concentration also increases the incidence of malaria and the same goes for water : water from rivers and the even more dangerous static irrigation water. Europeans knew of Africa long before the Americas and yet could not colonize it, even India fell under their control before Africa and they had to wait until the developpement of anti-malarials to penetrate the interior of the continent. The Arabs have been in regular contact with Subsaharan Africa for centuries but could not establish themselves there either. To a lesser extent, tse-tse flies also impeded Africaβs development by the impossibility of keeping chattel in infested areas. Besides all of this, the slave trade contributed to maintaining very low population densities.
Inspite of all of this, Africa, especially West Africa has made some appreciable achievements, the arts of the Ashanti, Igbos or Yorubas are quite remarkable, the Sahel had literate societies and exemples of monumental architecture. All those peoples have attained the iron age, manufactured textiles, created calendars, a lot have developped organized states and are absolutely not cavemen as you seem to believe. In contrast, pre-colonial Brazil or North America have remained very backward and took nothing from the Aztecs or the Incas, Neither did Siberian peoples who could have had contacts with China.
Now Africa has great pains entering in the industrial age and its not suprising when we consider that before colonial rule became truly effective in the early 20th century african peoples only had on average reached the developement of the ancient Celtic peoples. Africa is experiencing the only one real big leap forwards that has ever happened in human history. You must realize that a country like Botswana came from a totally illiterate tribal society to a middle-income economy enjoying standards of living similar to Moldavia or ThaΓ―land, all that in less that 100 years, and this happened in the context of an exceptional demographic boom that economic growth could not follow in many countries of this continent especially when 40-50% of the population is under age 15.
But a country like Botswana is not just lucky for its diamonds, it is also endowed with a strong ethnic majority β the Setswana people β while most other African nations are mostly fictional, created by foreign powers ignoring ethnicities that are the strongest bases for common identification and stable government. Ethnic politics (tribalism), like racial politics consist in ruling by divide and prevent a development-focused leadership. What you must also aknowledge is that Africans donβt carry their lives like a burden, they know that people in other places have more material wealth but they are relatively contented with what they have and are not dedicating their lives to catching up with the west but failing because of inherent inferiority. They have just their own conceptions of what matters in life and deal resiliently with its hardships. If you only went to any country in Africa or met Africans overseas you would immediatly forget about the pretended mentally-retarded 70 average IQ or you would conclude that IQ has no meaning. Common folks there cope with life ingeniously and with great wisdom and I often wish the west could be a little more African-minded sometimes.
Now itβs time to say a bit about the numbers, the average national IQs that the Pioneer Fund clique creates by selecting studies that fit their objectives and by producing estimations out of nowhere. First of all, serious researchers generally prefer first-hand data, this is not mandatory but when a real non-ideologic practical goal is pursued, this is better. When using second-hand data, scientists rather use studies from the same years and do not take data from various decades and then apply approximative statistical adjustments. More importantly, data selection must follow systematic methods and no double standard is acceptable, and this is the most criticizable aspect of the Pioneer Fund Cliqueβs pseudoscientifical efforts to demonstrate the undemonstrable. Examples of unsystematic selection are numerous and always intended to lower African or black Caribbean countriesβ averages IQs while Chinaβs well known unrepresentative PISA scores are found unquestionably relevant.
It also seems like the Rushton, Jensen, Lynn and cie have magical powers since they have been able to find average IQs for impenetrable countries like North Korea or Somalia. Their argument is that IQ scores corelate so much between neighboring countries that it is possible to safely estimate the average IQ of a country by averaging that of its neighbors, but there are apparently exceptions to this rule like HaΓ―ti that without any data is given an IQ like it is million miles away from the Dominican Republic. Corelations between neighboring countries are various, GDP per capita, Climate, life expectancy, language family are relatively similar between neighboring countries, but since serious scientists are never trying to demonstrate the GDP of a race, the life expectancy of a race or the birth rate of a race, they do not create data for North Korea by averaging that of China and South Korea, they do not either create Mexican statistics with information from Indios and Metizos supplemented by Argentines to account for the white Mexican population.
When data does not exist, it just does not exist and countries are put in the Β« no available data Β» category. Now I do not pretend that IQs should be equal around the world, it even makes no sense to me that Africans given their general health status and lower acces to education or many other first-world life improvements should magically be able to perform as well on IQ test as well fed Swedes, Chinese only-child cram schoolers or malaria-free Argentines. But I donβt trust Pioneer Fundβs IQ scores, and I do believe that the most intelligent people in the world are those who know that life is more than IQ and that humanity is more than races.
So in the end, intelligence may be partly heritable, and I think we inherit it from parenting styles and by the adults who shape our future more than from our genes which in any case like for height can account for variability within a group but certainly not for variability between groups that we indentify by their adaptive traits. What the hereditarians really do not understand is that races are not million people large families that descend each one from distinct ancestors whose 160000xgrandchildren have evolved to become subspicies organizing their lives following their specific instincts.
”That only makes sense to them because they experience winter and know it as the tougher season in the latitudes wher they and their readers live. What they seem to ignore is that tropical and equatorial climates are harsh and hostile environements quite far from the postcard image that they have in mind.
Endemic malaria, extreme heat combined with high humidity, low fertility of soils without chemicals⦔
I believe that happened some selection for intelligence but not in a frequent way what probably happened among eurasians. I have the theory that in tropical, less unstable environment, non-cooperative people have more chances to procreate than cooperative people. What we see today in african populations are these non-cooperative (specially the alpha black men) in higher proportions. People who cooperate less tend to have R-reproductor genes than those who are more prone to be cooperative.
At least in my case, i’m not denying the harsh nature of intertropical environments but you need understand that cold environments are very very hard to live than in tropical ones. Look for the diversity of fauna and flora in the tropical lands and compares with lower rates of diversity in colder areas. Even non-human animals ”know” that is hard to try to live in these areas.
Look for all hunter-gatherers remanescent groups, they are very clever to live in their respective enviroments. But i think that ”nature favor” the r-reproductors among subsaharian africans.
The factor climate are other complication that humans need to think in the cold areas. Seems to make all differences.
You make very valid points. Basically, blacks are less cooperative, because of their evolution from warm tropical areas. This also effects other races to a certain extent. Caribbean Hispanics are often cockier, arrogant, and less cooperative than Hispanics who live on the mainland of Latin America. In terms of hot weather, a desert climatic condition is more tolerable than a warm humid one. Humid weather, especially at high temperatures does not make people happy.
JS,
yes and i think african geography also may have a impact too because their greater areas to live while southeast asia are very maritime in their geo-nature and present more challenges.
”Humid weather, especially at high temperatures does not make people happy.”
Yes, but it will be less dramatically complicated to live than in very cold or extreme-climate areas.
A group of people living in cold areas NEED to cooperate one each other while a group of people living in hot tropical areas no have this necessity. Groups in cold areas tend to live more concentrated while in hot areas, we can live dispersed.
In regions where ”life” risk is enormous, people need to be very objective while social subjectivity will be more common among tropical areas. I know that great ”cats” tend to live in savannah and not in the middle of a densed tropical forest. Of course, again, for those who misunderstood what we are talking, i’m not denying the risk to live in tropical areas without modern technology, but is O_B_V_I_O_U_S that cold areas are very hard to live compared with hot areas. I’m not talking ”hot areas are easy to live” please, but ”hot areas are less hard to live than cold and very cold areas”. Without facilities of modern technology, anywhere will be hard to live. Cold areas, much more.
Thank you for your answers, I thought I would be called names or censored but you seem open to conflicting ideas.
All of what you say is a lot of “I think”, “maybe” or absurde generalizations.
First of all, let’s take a look at the evolution of mankind since Australopithecus:
Every new stage of human evolution happened in Africa and replaced archaic varieties that had thousands of years to evolve into something even more intelligent in colder climates. Do you agree with that or you oppose the Out of Africa theory ? If we look at other primates around the globe, none has evolved into something rivaling the intelligence of chimpanzees. So the evolutionary pressures that lead to complex intelligence seem linked to the tropical environement. Africa being the largest tropical mass in the world, it is most likely there that tropical-related evolutions happen there.
Look at the average morphology of blacks, they have the most bipedism-fit bodies, bipedism leads to better hunting but allows the sophistication of the hand since it is no more needed for locomotion. then that theory is only mine but I think that the new capacities of the hands have led to an evolution in the brain. This theory is my own
Also blacks, with their phenotype are very different from most types of mamals. They have sparse kinky hair while primates protect their skin with extensive straight hair. This in my opinion leads to better body heat regulation in the tropics and made them fitter for their environement and decreased their mortality and removed a filter to the expression of other traits. Because you know how natural selection works, if its selects your body to be sunburn resistant, it just doesn’t care about any other thing. You can be a genius, if you have a +50 IQ points booster gene but you die from sunburn at age 6, you will never pass this trait.
Your argument on social cooperativism is invalid to me simply because hunter-gatherers have no choice but cooperation, individuallity is not even thinkable when you are in a constant struggle against the forces of nature and necessities of survival. Plus you need to realize that this personality trait is very uncommon in Africa, in my experience I felt Africans to be somewhat parasitic to each others and I’ve never seen one to act like loner, on the contrary they rely on extended networks of supposed kins.
I’m in France and most blacks here are from Africa. A friend of mine that is a black HaΓ―tian adopted by white parents has an interesting story about a relation with some African neighbors from Mali. When she was in college in Paris and moved alone to her appartment, her neighbors were a large Muslim Soninke family, the appartment was always crowded and the household was polygamous. when one of the wives realized that my friend lived alone, she started knocking at her door to invite her to eat with them (on the assumption that she was African too). So my friend was embarassed and and told her no several times until she (the neighbor) came with a meal. At that point, my friend was embarassed and told her she was raised in the French culture and that was not the kind of things that made here comfortable, the neighbor answered that she had sympathy for her because she lived alone and that should be painfull. So no selfishness is maybe something prevalent in US blacks but certainly not among Africans. By the way, in France we like Africans or at least we do not see them as inferiors.
So that selfishness thing is probably cultural and not innate.
I know both cold and tropical climates. I’ve lived in Toronto (the winter was horrific but did not give the natives perceptible advantages), France happens to have cold winters and my girlfriend is from Ivory Coast so I spend my holidays there during the wet season, it’s a lot of vaccines to take, draining constant heat, short days… It is only good because of the people there.
Non humans don’t “know”, they evolve to have instincts that allow them to survive in a given place.
I’m just realizing one thing… If you are North American and you never experienced life in Europe, you don’t really know how is the weather there… (western) Europe has winters but never has more than 30 days of snowfall in a year, the weather is mild, summer is moderately warm and winter is moderately cold. Only very few little homeless persons die from sleeping outside in winter. this is for Europe.
Then to have an idea of what were the conditions in the ice Age, we can compare to the arctic tundra and taΓ―ga of today. I said that I found extreme drought (Arizona, Sahara, Australian Outback, Sahel…) more problematic because water is THE thing that you can’t live without for more than a few days. in the arctic, you just need to find some combustible and smelt ice to get water. What do you do in the desert or semi-arid steppe ? I don’t know, the camel does, some cactus do, but I personnally can’t figure out. Check at the worldwide consequences of the ice age and you will see that Africa had lost almost all ow its forests and turned into deserts and arid steppes.
The whole r-k theory makes no sense, every peasant society needs farm hands and is obsessed with fecundity. do you really think that the Chinese had a constant historical 1.66 child per woman (under-replacement of generations) and that it its 1.3 billion population is now down from 4 billions some thousands years ago ? That makes no sense and data shows that in the 1950’s before the one-child policy, China’s fertility rate was 6 children per woman, higher than India, in Subsaharan proportion. Now it is clear that this one-child policy has favored nurturing, greater ressource allocation on one child, the Chinese kid-emperor is a well known phenomenon. But it has also created a dramatic gender-imbalence by the fact of parents killing their girls to have one boy that will be there in their old days.
What the Pioneer Fund clique calls r-k model is known to the demograhs as “demographic” transition, when lower mortality leads to lower natality because of 1) beter survival-optimism by the parents toward their child and reduced need to replace her by an other in case she dies 2) rural exodus and adaptation to an urban life that needs less children than farm life 3) higher cost of raising children in the city where you must buy foods and not grow it in your fields, pay for school, have a less crowded dwelling and many other things.
Guys, do you really know about everything you are talking about (you think a lot) but what do you actually know about blacks, Africans, Europe, Asia, history, genetics, evolution, and all those complex things that make humanity unique. It’s not good for you to think like that, you are missing a lot of things in hatred…
I would also appreciate that you answer every points that i’ve raised in my comment, and not pick the things that you can only handle with the help of herideterian literature and your prejudiced minds.
Thank you, I’m also pleased that you make the effort to deal with my english.
This comment was for me**
When i say ”i think” ”maybe”, yes, because i’m humble based on some perspectives, just it.
”Every new stage of human evolution happened in Africa and replaced archaic varieties that had thousands of years to evolve into something even more intelligent in colder climates. Do you agree with that or you oppose the Out of Africa theory ? If we look at other primates around the globe, none has evolved into something rivaling the intelligence of chimpanzees. So the evolutionary pressures that lead to complex intelligence seem linked to the tropical environement. Africa being the largest tropical mass in the world, it is most likely there that tropical-related evolutions happen there.”
I ”THINK” it is impossible for humans only became smart just when they arrived in the cold regions. First it is important to ask how they managed to get there. But I do not think illogical to think that they have increased their already high intelligence when faced with major new challenges.
I could oppose to this theory, if I wanted.
You’re talking about something that happened thousands of years ago and that humans are not exactly the same as today. You can not extrapolate these observations with the world today, if since then, there has been many changes.
Assuming outside of Africa, the most intelligent human beings have left this region, curiosity is a very common feature in most intelligent people and because of the initial founder effect that separated Eurasian and sub-Saharan Africans, most diverse natural genocidal events which may have contributed to raise the intelligence of human beings in other regions. It is observed with frequency that the temperate regions were those where civilization has flourished. Very cold climates naturally limit the possibility of increasing population and more mutations. In very harsh environments, conservation is more important than the development itself.
”Look at the average morphology of blacks, they have the most bipedism-fit bodies, bipedism leads to better hunting but allows the sophistication of the hand since it is no more needed for locomotion. then that theory is only mine but I think that the new capacities of the hands have led to an evolution in the brain. This theory is my own.
Also blacks, with their phenotype are very different from most types of mamals. They have sparse kinky hair while primates protect their skin with extensive straight hair. This in my opinion leads to better body heat regulation in the tropics and made them fitter for their environement and decreased their mortality and removed a filter to the expression of other traits. Because you know how natural selection works, if its selects your body to be sunburn resistant, it just doesnβt care about any other thing. You can be a genius, if you have a +50 IQ points booster gene but you die from sunburn at age 6, you will never pass this trait.”
I’m reading Darwin and he says that gradual changes are rare, because when a population undergoes natural selection, these gradations, which are not selected because they are less evolved than ours morphology, are extinct.
Therefore, such ‘missing links” in fact may have been lost because of its lower reproductive value or because they were less suited to our condition, because that saves human beings, is your intelligence, and nothing else.
In my opinion, the sub-Saharan are looking at more primate than any other population, especially starting from the idea of the theory outside of Africa. The fact that they developed specific adaptations, does not mean that look more like primates, while the cro magnon look completely different.
Perhaps Africans only look robust and that we spend an idea of ” animal ” than human… because primate generally are phenotypically robust.
”Your argument on social cooperativism is invalid to me simply because hunter-gatherers have no choice but cooperation, individuallity is not even thinkable when you are in a constant struggle against the forces of nature and necessities of survival. Plus you need to realize that this personality trait is very uncommon in Africa, in my experience I felt Africans to be somewhat parasitic to each others and Iβve never seen one to act like loner, on the contrary they rely on extended networks of supposed kins.
Iβm in France and most blacks here are from Africa. A friend of mine that is a black HaΓ―tian adopted by white parents has an interesting story about a relation with some African neighbors from Mali. When she was in college in Paris and moved alone to her appartment, her neighbors were a large Muslim Soninke family, the appartment was always crowded and the household was polygamous. when one of the wives realized that my friend lived alone, she started knocking at her door to invite her to eat with them (on the assumption that she was African too). So my friend was embarassed and and told her no several times until she (the neighbor) came with a meal. At that point, my friend was embarassed and told her she was raised in the French culture and that was not the kind of things that made here comfortable, the neighbor answered that she had sympathy for her because she lived alone and that should be painfull. So no selfishness is maybe something prevalent in US blacks but certainly not among Africans. By the way, in France we like Africans or at least we do not see them as inferiors.”
His anecdotal observation in relation to his friend seems anecdotal only. People ” stupid ” (I hate that term, but I have to use it) tend to be naturally contradictory, emotions tend to be disconnected with their attitudes. Therefore it is common that the white man is seen bewitched by the charisma and the sincerity of these people, but like them, comparatively speaking, are like children, what they say in a sincere way today, may not be valid tomorrow.
I know a few black people (mostly elderly black women) that are spectacular, but that does not mean ‘black people are nice’ ‘but to every rule, good or bad, there will be exceptions. On average, I do not like black people, particularly black youths, because they are quite arrogant and stupid, sadistic type. And (young mixed race too) are largely responsible for Brazil’s situation as a third world country.
Nothing is 100% cultural. Culture is a way or another the product of our biology, there is no escape. If not near-100% biological or genetic, will be 50, 20, 10% organic, but still will be. Culture depends on real living beings to manifest. There is no negotiation. There is no separation.
The name we give to personality, culture, habit, all this has a genetic basis that interacts with the environment. This ”things” are literally things, personality is a physiological complex traits like weight, culture is a produt of biology-environment interaction and so on…
Not all black people are this or that. The fact that your friend be adopted by a French couple and think like a modern western, does not necessarily mean it’s just cultural, because he is a person, a being organic, they decided to think this or that, according to their predispositions.
The weather factor is very likely to have had a significant impact on increasing intelligence of the Eurasian people in the begin.
In a tropical climate and many naturally available food, there are choices. Now, in an environment where the weather changes abruptly, the choices are reduced considerably.
Starting from the idea of Africa theory, those who were more adventurous, more curious, more intelligent perhaps, were also more likely to be more cautious.
”The whole r-k theory makes no sense, every peasant society needs farm hands and is obsessed with fecundity. do you really think that the Chinese had a constant historical 1.66 child per woman (under-replacement of generations) and that it its 1.3 billion population is now down from 4 billions some thousands years ago ? That makes no sense and data shows that in the 1950βs before the one-child policy, Chinaβs fertility rate was 6 children per woman, higher than India, in Subsaharan proportion. Now it is clear that this one-child policy has favored nurturing, greater ressource allocation on one child, the Chinese kid-emperor is a well known phenomenon. But it has also created a dramatic gender-imbalence by the fact of parents killing their girls to have one boy that will be there in their old days.”
Of course not, please. Super lower fertility is a ”anomalous” modernity thing.
But, fecundity is not the main piece of this theory (i refute partially the idea of ”strategic” reproduction) but the the levels of sexual impulsivity.
I have two adopted cousins, mixed race mulattos and with relative lower iqs. One of them, have same age than me and already have 3 kids. He’s poor. Why he don’t think in family planning** He is a R-”strategist”*** Nope, he is just dumber compared with human behavior standard ”have kids when you have resources enough to care them better”.
On average, black people are more sexually impulsive than whites which are more sexually impulsive than east asians.
Humans have on average a malthusian mind.
It’s almost midnight here, I come back to you later in my tomorrow.
Ok.
I conclude at the first that you need to be ”little” psychopath to be a pioneer, based on what already happen in many regions (conquest of west in USA, invasion of Americas, Africa, Asia and Oceania by ”europeans”) etc.
High functioning psychopaths are very clever to understand the social subjectivities and ”win”.
I think (again, remember, humility to say what i’m not sure) ”nature” is naturally psychopathic in many features. Generally, people who have potential to be a leader tend to be more psychopathic (or psychotic) than those who are more prone to be a follower.
Oh hang on, I will share a comment that I’ve made on Unz just for you to think a little bit meanwhile. No offence
Evolution, natural selection and transracial gene flow (+ a few words about Nigeria)
Many hereditarians seem confused about the idea that races canβt be descended from distinct ancestor and that there is nothing like a black Eve, an Asian Eve and an European Eve. Their common claim is that we have been living separately for so many years that we know form different subspecies with particular and morphological and behavioral traits.
First of all, as I said in my precedent comment, natural selection happens when an unfit individual is forbidden to reproduce while an advantaged one is given more chances to reproduce. The main factor that plays here is mortality. Mortality was very high in prehistorical times, life expectancy was around 30 and reaching the age of puberty was a privilege. What mattered then was not intelligence but resistance to environemental forces: white children in the tropics would die from sunburn at higher rate and be filtered from selection, black ones would be seriously weakened by D vitamin deficiency and those who developped a mutation for lighter skin would live longer and have at first βmixed raceβ children whose advantage would after generations of higher mortality of the darkest ones end up to select the whitest ones.
Now, as you can expect from hunter gatherers, our ancestors where nomads, they they started to wander across Africa some 200 000 years ago and a small tribe of them left the continent to spread across the world replacing archaic men starting from about 60 000 years ago. Some claim that admixture happened but the Africans took over as a whole. Even smaller fractions of the exilees went back to the motherland in different waves that went to spread across Africa blending with the autochtonous as you can see from the haplogroups of the Y chromosome transmitted from father to son (map: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/World_Map_of_Y-DNA_Haplogroups.png ) .
But these great migrations are only a small fraction of the population movements that have happened on a smaller geographical scale. Hunter gatherers often die at a significant distance from where their grandparents were born and in their wanderings, they encounter other groups. Most often, and thatβs human nature, encounter with a foreigner is hostile. Defeated men get killed and their women (if they are found) become like sex-prisoners and gene flow occures between different populations. Every time one such interaction happens there can be intra-racial transmission of genetic markers with no selective value coming a very distant place and originating from an other race, only natural obstacle can limit or stop this flow.
If by miracle a different race ends up in a significantly environement than that for which it has adapted (genetically and culturally) the chance that its traits persist are very low because 1) higher mortality will cause natural selection 2) the environment is unknown and one can be tempted by a fruit that is actually poisonous, another can be a little bit too careless or curious when encountering a snake 3) other hunter gatherers who know the terrain have an advantage over the intruders and will kill them or procreate and dilute their traits by admixture and racial recover uniformity over generations.
The global distribution of the Y chromosome haplotypes is greatly transracial but correlates significantly with language families and sometimes with genetic disorders caused by other genes but originating from a particular population. For instance, Western European R1b indicates that the Spaniard, the French and people from the British Isles have a strong Iberian-Celtic ancestral base and have been superficially romanized or germanized. But R1b is also prevalent in the Lake Chad region in Africa where it coincides with Chadic speakers (related to Arabic, East African and North African languages) and shows traces of a migration from the middle East via the Nile Valley and people being pushed south by desertification after Saharaβs wet phase was over.
Y chromosome haplotypes are the most culturally informative genetic markers that exist and they sometimes reach a 100% frequency in a given ethnicity. I can almost say that we speak this genetic mutations every day if we are from a non acculturated group. Unfortunately for the hereditarians, our intelligence is probably not carried by this gene because 1) it is only found in boys whereas girls follow approximately the same IQ patterns according to your data and 2) the Y chromosome is actually the smallest and genetically the poorest of all.
Now, I really need to debunk your totally nonsense assertions about IQ based social stratification in history.
After the transition to agriculture, men had more control over their environement and were somewhat less affected by natural selection. They lived longer, had better nutrition and were less susceptible to die from cold or heat because of improvments in their general standards of living. Longer life expectancy means longer time to accumulate knowledge and pass it to generations, and stability, food security led to less survival-focused communities that could put more effort into cultural and technical developpement. Yet, what mattered then was still not a great intelligence but as many offsprings as possible to use as farm hands. Agricultural societies tend to have an obsession for fecundity, fecundity of the soil, fecundity of women and nothing ever prevented rural dummies to reproduce at faster rate than more intellectually trained urbanites. The peasantry never had any need to raise children to become geniuses, especially when those at the top of the social ladder were not the most intelligent but the strongest.
In the first forms of state organization, the elites emerged from the warrior castes and nobility has almost always been synonymous with the military. The lord offers security to the peasant in exchange for his subordination and a share of his harvest. The only type of government that would approximate your supposed IQcracy was theocracy but it came later and never was long lasting nor independant from the military, it only focused more on psychological control to subordinate the masses.
In fact, it was not uncommon that unsophisticated barabarians took over brilliant but somewhat decadant civilizations by the simple fact of their destructive force to become the ruling elite. See the Macedonians over the Greeks, the Franks over the Gallo-Romans, the Manchu over the Chinese, the Arabs over the Byzantine, the Funj of Sennar over the Nubiansβ¦ But these barbarians were often able to recognize the superiority of the conquered and assimilated in their culture except when they came with a prophetic messageβ¦
For the most of pre-industrial era, the socio-evolutive pattern was more βcopulate as much as you can and never forget that might makes rightβ. And now in the developped world, new social pressures have changed our reproductive strategies but who can seriously believe that people fall in love with their partnerβs IQ ? Some may fall in love with money or power and they often come to regret their decision. As whole and over their lifetime,k the jock, the thug and the cheerleader get more sex than the geek and the bookworm who rather have to keep their right hand safe. If we follow the rules of natural selection or social biology, we must conclude that the Japanese are in the twilight of their evolutionary destiny. The Chinese are even worse since they follow this path by design with their one-child policy that makes them the first people organizing its self destructionβ¦
I also noticed your sudden intererst about the Igbo people and I find you extremely creative in making new unfounded theories about a black african average IQ niche.Well, I really think you need some historical insight about Nigeria.
The reason why the Igbo enjoy a better socio-economic position in Nigeria is because of their historical commercial affinities with the British as their main provider of slaves in the Gulf of Guinea. It explains why so many African Americans have a great degree of Igbo ancestry. Further west, still in Nigeria, the Yorubas were the trading partners of the Portuguese and then the Brazilians. So for the British the Igbos were seen as allies while the Yorubas had dangerous affinities with a foreign colonial power. Further north, the Fulani-Hausa had a well established state: the Sokoto Caliphate. This muslim northerners had understood protectorate as protectorate and not as colony or province so they held on tight to their traditional state and even today, they are much less permeable to western influence. Boko Haram originates from their lands and grossly means βwestern education is sinfullβ in Hausa.
So the friendly Igbos were given a role of middlemen supplementing the colonial administration in the economic exploitation of Nigeria and clearly enjoyed an Igbo privilege in addition to living in the oil-rich region of Nigeria. And the main reason why Nigeria is such a mess is that it is a patchwork of subnationalities and that every discourse about national fraternity in this country is just completely hypocrite. Nigeria is not a nation and is never going to achieve a leadership comitted to equal economic developement for its people. the only person who had a low IQ was the one that defined Nigeriaβs borders and decided to make it a country.
If we except the very provincially minded Northern Nigerians and other muslims of the Sahel, middle class West Africans have an achievement thurst similar to the Indians and the Chinese. Their lower visibility overseas is due to 1) amalgamation with other blacks 2) absolute numbers: the Chinese and the Indians are more than 1.2 billions each while West Africa has only 0.4 billion inhabitants (40-50% of them under the age of 15) on an area that is roughly equal to the United States. The high achieving West Africans in the west are as representative of their home country population as the Indians. West Africa and India are at very similar levels of economic and social developpement, they just greatly differ in dimension and West Africa mainly consists in Nigeria + 20 neocolonial microstates. And just for your information, the middle class in Africa is not the top 1%, they reprensent a significant minority of the urban population and those who live modestly but decently are the majority. This continent is not a refugee camp.
Still pardon my french, I promise that I will reboost my English if I become an habitual commenter on this site.
Last word: you guys are fascinating, are you aware that your theories are religious in principle ?
You are trying to make sense of things that you donβt even bother understanding correctly and create a whole mythology where genes are your gods, IQ the holly spirit, the Pioneer Fund your Holy Seat, its grantees your prophetes, hereditarian bloggers the exegetist priests, feeble minded recidivist commenters are your parishioners, inherent racial hierarchy is your dogma, the theory of cold climate adaptive intellectual advantage is your version of creation and scientific accuracy is your version of heresy.
Moderator can edit that last part.
”Then to have an idea of what were the conditions in the ice Age, we can compare to the arctic tundra and taΓ―ga of today. I said that I found extreme drought (Arizona, Sahara, Australian Outback, Sahelβ¦) more problematic because water is THE thing that you canβt live without for more than a few days. in the arctic, you just need to find some combustible and smelt ice to get water. What do you do in the desert or semi-arid steppe ? I donβt know, the camel does, some cactus do, but I personnally canβt figure out. Check at the worldwide consequences of the ice age and you will see that Africa had lost almost all ow its forests and turned into deserts and arid steppes.”
You’re already awake **
Well, I think unlikely that all African forests have been sprayed by the consequences of glaciations. However, I do not mean that Africans have always been so but that have become so for some reason and my guess is just based on the idea that in less harsh environments such as tropical climate, people will face fewer immediate dangers in their daily lives, that does not mean it would be like an Eden. Remember what I said in the first comment-response.
I also think from the standard of migratory movements, in which the more intelligent tend to migrate to other regions when their land has no more advantages.
”Oh hang on, I will share a comment that Iβve made on Unz just for you to think a little bit meanwhile. No offence
Evolution, natural selection and transracial gene flow (+ a few words about Nigeria)
Many hereditarians seem confused about the idea that races canβt be descended from distinct ancestor and that there is nothing like a black Eve, an Asian Eve and an European Eve. Their common claim is that we have been living separately for so many years that we know form different subspecies with particular and morphological and behavioral traits.
First of all, as I said in my precedent comment, natural selection happens when an unfit individual is forbidden to reproduce while an advantaged one is given more chances to reproduce. The main factor that plays here is mortality. Mortality was very high in prehistorical times, life expectancy was around 30 and reaching the age of puberty was a privilege. What mattered then was not intelligence but resistance to environemental forces: white children in the tropics would die from sunburn at higher rate and be filtered from selection, black ones would be seriously weakened by D vitamin deficiency and those who developped a mutation for lighter skin would live longer and have at first βmixed raceβ children whose advantage would after generations of higher mortality of the darkest ones end up to select the whitest ones.”
Yes, i know.
We have to think that ight skin (read, compared to sub-Saharan Africans) seems to have evolved later. There is a study which shows that Africans have archaic introjection. I do not believe in archaic ”introjection ”.
We also have to put ourselves in the shoes and in the minds of ancient humans and wonder how they thought. Do they already had a complex ability to think ” the sun of the tropics no good for my skin ” **
The ancient humans were more animals in their minds than us, a little more.
People migrate for two reasons
– to get away from a very bad situation in their countries, that is, to escape the danger,
-because they are curious.
Or by both.
Guy,
so far I have not seen anything other that could contradict what most here say, ”know” and believe.
I will summarize, you wrote a lot, showed their knowledge on the subject, spoke almost no different from what most here is talking and finally, generalized everyone here as religious hereditary.
All that does, their own free will, is based on something concrete, literal, called biology, end. We can make choices (based on our predispositions), which I call the ‘instincts in slow motion’ ‘.
It is evident or seems clear that was not only well
” Humans migrated to temperate regions and become more intelligent ” …
As I said, human beings were already very smart and I do not believe it was in very cold climates to ” become ” more complex but in temperate areas. And notice that this theory is one of the least racist because the most racist is that the black is the ‘missing link’ ‘between humans and primates.
I live daily with black people, mestizo, white and I know that the ‘genetic’ or biology has a very strong role in their behavior but I also know that REAL ENVIRONMENTAL factors can have a major impact on how people interact and develop socially.
No more, no one told my cousin adopted to have children early and take a bad standard of living, economically insecure.
I’ve said before …
Fertility is not a trace, is a result of a predisposition. So you can have a person with low sexual impulsivity with 4 children and a person with high sexual impulsivity with 4 abortions or at least use condoms in their sexual adventures.
Since when the first Arabs arrived in Africa and perhaps from the Roman Empire, that the remarks about Africans have been, on average, based on the same findings of redneck using the Confederate flag as a shirt over their behavior.
Older human beings no have maps. To explore new lands in the pre historic period, you would need to be very corageous and likely, very smart.
I couldn’t find sleep (thing about our discussion that I take seriously) so I decided to summarize my argumentary and add some new points in a more digestble format π
1- I tried to show you that height, proven to be highly heritable was still environmentally influenced and that countries with different racial groups overlapped without any hierarchy.
2- I said that unless we can prove that intelligence has been under natural selection, it should follow the same patterns as height.
3- I said that the first doubts we can express about the evolutionary theory deals with the fact that races overlap in IQ test scores while visible traits do not.
4- I tried to demonstrate that neither natural selection or reproductive strategies could have favored intelligence related traits either at hunter-gatherer, agriculturalist and industrial stage of social development.
5- I said that if natural selection for intelligence was function of the toughness of a given environment, my view was that tropical environments were more complex to deal with (see, we went on the Moon but there are still tribes in the Amazonian rainforest that have never seen a white man, so their life is kind of extraterestrial) than temperate or even arctic climates.
6- I told you of what I knew about Africa, Europe and East Asia, about their climate and their history. I found that Africa had the worst environmental disadvantages and that its development reflected its specific environment but was still honourable when compared to places like precolonial Australia, North America, North Asia, and South America out of the Andes. Then I said that Europe and East Asia had much better environments but Europe greatly outperformed East Asia in efficiency, creativity, innovation (everything in fact)…
7- I evoked gene flow showing that the idea that races came from distinct ancestors and had never had genetic exchange during over history was false and that the most culturally informative markers were located on the Y chromosome and had transracial distributions.
8- I told you that it was unlikely for these markers to be responsible for group differences because it would only affect boys and that the Y chromosome is genetically so poor that it is dubious that it does anything but determining male sex.
9-I shew you that the history of the Igbos in colonial Nigeria was the root of their current socioeconomic advantage and that you had no reasons thinking they are a genetic niche of normal intelligence Africans. Yes I know that some lower class people in the Niger delta area live off artisanal clandestine oil refineries but you had no reasons to believe that they do it with an IQ far from the 70 mean that you claim for the black race. in fact to be consistent with your theory, they refine oil with their own techniques with an IQ of 50-55 since they are among the poorest. Deal with it…
10-Then I told you that Africa was not what you think and that overseas West Africans were as representative of their homeland as overseas Indians, they came from regions with similar levels of developpement and that India and China were more aknwoledged because of their massive demographics and political unity while west Africa has 20 countries and its population is only 1/3 that of India and that almost half of it is under 15.
11-None of the behaviors that are claimed to black in the US are observable among in West Africans at home or overseas neither have they led to the formation of common stereotypes in France. It is greatly due to the fact that we have a great diversity of black cultures and that much of the attention is centered on the Arabs. What I can say about black Americans is that they were never in a position to develop a strong culture of optimism, effort, accountability, dignity and stability or self control. Contradicting that would be dishonest and oblivious of their history as a group.
12-In the case of your adopted cousin, I don’t know if he had the same social network than the average white kid from the same social background or if he was influenced by black peers. Also you must recognize that adoption may be troubling especially when it is interracial in a highly race conscious society.
13-But you know what, I won’t make excuses about one thing, they can’t improve the level of their community if they have kids when they are not really grown up and financially secure themselves. Kids raising kids can’t lead to something positive. This attitudes do not exist in West Africa where marriage, patriarchy and strong family ties are held in very high respect. So this is a dysfunctionnality of their own people and they must change that if they want advancement. Did your cousin receive negative reactions about that or everyone around found it normal and perfectly acceptableΒ ?
14- the Out of Africa migration was not decided by a small curious group of migrants. Prehistoric men never knew they were in Africa, not even Christopher Colombus knew he would discover America. Africa is not a city. Lagos, Nigeria is closer to Paris than to Johannesburg, South Africa, moving inside of a continent is the same thing than going outside when you don’t know where you are going anyway.
15- None of these migrations was done in a sigle lifetime and if novelty had given an intergenerational genetic intelligence bonus, then the most gifted would have been the indigenous of Argentina and there is very very very little evidence to support it…
16- since novelty is quite likely to kill someone who is too curious to be careful about dangerous things, natural selection will favor prudence instead. Both of this traits, according to national stereotypes, are found in the white race, the French are financially prudent while the British are financially adventurous…
17- About the level of accumulated knowledge of hunter-gatherers, I red in a serious magazine a couple years ago that some remote tribes of oceania still made no association between sex and reproduction. So I think it was very low mainly because life was dedicated to survival, it was short and people just didn’t have time to engage in very basic questionnings about life and even less time to teach their children other things but hunting and collecting food.
18-Ancient humans were like today’s very primitive tribes and were not animals, I think that they can’t have developped some of our abstract concepts like the Amazonian tribe that has no word for « timeΒ Β». It does not mean that they are not able to understand it if they are taught but it is just that they have no need to define this abstract concept in their lifstyle. But maybe, I don’t know, they may ask « whenΒ ?Β» sometimes and someone responds « tonightΒ Β». Yet they have no need do describe the whole notion of temporality as a single thing. This kind of thinking is highly IQ related and they would score poorly on a test. They would need some time to assimilate that notion in their system even after generations. Not because of their genes but because of their lifestyle that is relevant in an environment where this kind of abstraction is not critical for survival. But they are maybe familiar with the concept of « spaceΒ Β» and many tropical things for which English language has no word. I really think that building a good and diverse vocabulary and using it every day, as well as learning one foreign language or more really gives many cognition tools. I’m sure that African Americans could raise their IQ scores by simply speaking proper english everyday.
Seriously, don’t you think that number 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 in particular are on a higher intellectual and philosophical scale than every pseudocalculations of IQsΒ or classifications of races ?
Digestible or less-monotonous.
”1- I tried to show you that height, proven to be highly heritable was still environmentally influenced and that countries with different racial groups overlapped without any hierarchy.”
You try to show** I did not see it. Yes, i know, when certain ”phenotype” is not under strong selective pressure, it will be more influenced by environmental circumnstances but also by own inner-individual and diverse genetic predisposition.
”2- I said that unless we can prove that intelligence has been under natural selection, it should follow the same patterns as height.”
First define ”intelligence”, please. Intelligence by iq standard seem to be under natural selection in some regions where some types of smarter people are good to earn money and to give a better environment to their descendants. Impulsive and less long-term oriented people, on average, have lower income. In the near past, poor people died in higher percentage than rich people.
Yes, i think the same also for personality (collective culture model) because both are complex phenotypes.
I conclude about selection for intelligence that the smart types who are conformist, future or long-term oriented and technically talented are under natural, cultural and sexual selection than those, for example, who are more idealistic, intelectually inclined, etc…
”3- I said that the first doubts we can express about the evolutionary theory deals with the fact that races overlap in IQ test scores while visible traits do not.”
Visible traits, i don’t understand. You could explain** Well, this supposed discrepancy that you find don’t prove their point. ”Visible traits” and iq tests scores among human races can live together. Seems a false contradiction.
”4- I tried to demonstrate that neither natural selection or reproductive strategies could have favored intelligence related traits either at hunter-gatherer, agriculturalist and industrial stage of social development.”
Just prove it. All non-human animals are smart, cognitively smart (humans are only ones who are intellectually smart too). Intelligence, translated to the natural world as ”capacity to survive”, is under selective pressure in all species, what change is why the selective cognitive enphasis and humans beings are not just diverse but very individually complex.
”5- I said that if natural selection for intelligence was function of the toughness of a given environment, my view was that tropical environments were more complex to deal with (see, we went on the Moon but there are still tribes in the Amazonian rainforest that have never seen a white man, so their life is kind of extraterestrial) than temperate or even arctic climates.”
I’ll have to make a personal nature questions to try to understand what are the true intentions because there seems no to be just about science and rationality. You already made to understand that his friendship with African men has an impact in the way you understand this.
Again, arctic and other cold areas are so difficult to live ”al naturel” that there are few human tribes than in tropical lands. This ”virgin” tribes (which are not raped by modern man) don’t prove your point, sorry.
”6- I told you of what I knew about Africa, Europe and East Asia, about their climate and their history. I found that Africa had the worst environmental disadvantages and that its development reflected its specific environment but was still honourable when compared to places like precolonial Australia, North America, North Asia, and South America out of the Andes. Then I said that Europe and East Asia had much better environments but Europe greatly outperformed East Asia in efficiency, creativity, innovation (everything in fact)⦔
Africa is a big country, mass of land. Just speculation like my own. But we, the ”religious” hereditarians, have a connected, logic, convergent theory with some piece missing. Your theory, in my not so humble opinion, no have convergent logic. The problem about you or Mugabe is that you do not create a logical system of thoughts to show their theories. You guys just throw a lot of pieces of ideas and thoughts without cohesive link between one and the other.
”7- I evoked gene flow showing that the idea that races came from distinct ancestors and had never had genetic exchange during over history was false and that the most culturally informative markers were located on the Y chromosome and had transracial distributions.”
Nothing new in the saloon. Proto-human races are all hybrids.
”9-I shew you that the history of the Igbos in colonial Nigeria was the root of their current socioeconomic advantage and that you had no reasons thinking they are a genetic niche of normal intelligence Africans. Yes I know that some lower class people in the Niger delta area live off artisanal clandestine oil refineries but you had no reasons to believe that they do it with an IQ far from the 70 mean that you claim for the black race. in fact to be consistent with your theory, they refine oil with their own techniques with an IQ of 50-55 since they are among the poorest. Deal with it⦔
Many leftists arrive in the enchanted kingdom of HBD, with a parachute and does not understand that our understanding of the matter did not end in a point of concordance and convenience in relation to many aspects. I, for some time, had already changed my thinking irrationally climbed into hate for something more sophisticated and naturally accept the idea that populations are very variable internally, in all aspects. I live in a country where the average IQ is 87. Even in the poorest region of the country, there are cognitive excellence niches, especially from a contextual perspective, location.
Nothing more. I like to know human beings and their behaviour idiosyncrasies.
”10-Then I told you that Africa was not what you think and that overseas West Africans were as representative of their homeland as overseas Indians, they came from regions with similar levels of developpement and that India and China were more aknwoledged because of their massive demographics and political unity while west Africa has 20 countries and its population is only 1/3 that of India and that almost half of it is under 15.”
I know very well how are ”africans” because i live in the country with the largest african-descendent population out of Africa. You’re saying that Igbos would like representatives of the African **
Look, neither the Chinese immigrants or Indian immigrants who go to Western countries, are representatives of their respective nations.
”11-None of the behaviors that are claimed to black in the US are observable among in West Africans at home or overseas neither have they led to the formation of common stereotypes in France. It is greatly due to the fact that we have a great diversity of black cultures and that much of the attention is centered on the Arabs. What I can say about black Americans is that they were never in a position to develop a strong culture of optimism, effort, accountability, dignity and stability or self control. Contradicting that would be dishonest and oblivious of their history as a group.”
There is no one preventing african-Americans can develop a better culture. Nothing. They just do not.
The same is true in Africa. Much of the serious social problems that plague Africa are their own fault, is a very bad to say really. Colonialism is not hereditary and were African elites who helped enslave their subjects.
You are positively generalizing the African population as if they all were the same thing, good people who were injured by evil white.
”12-In the case of your adopted cousin, I donβt know if he had the same social network than the average white kid from the same social background or if he was influenced by black peers. Also you must recognize that adoption may be troubling especially when it is interracial in a highly race conscious society.”
He attended the same public school in inner city, I studied. If he was influenced by his friends, so it was weak enough to do the wrong thing and enter their own cycle of poverty. But I know that did not happen, it’s just stupid enough not to plan their life.
”13-But you know what, I wonβt make excuses about one thing, they canβt improve the level of their community if they have kids when they are not really grown up and financially secure themselves. Kids raising kids canβt lead to something positive. This attitudes do not exist in West Africa where marriage, patriarchy and strong family ties are held in very high respect. So this is a dysfunctionnality of their own people and they must change that if they want advancement. Did your cousin receive negative reactions about that or everyone around found it normal and perfectly acceptable ?”
No, we are very polite with him and my cousin, who also did wrong, she had three children of three different men and nowadays has a financially insecure life. You have no consciousness of it.
I answer the rest later, I’m busy, sorry.
But we, the βreligiousβ hereditarians, have a connected, logic, convergent theory with some piece missing
Anyone can make up a simple myth that seems true and parsimonious as long as they ignore enough “anomalies.”
This is a little bit off topic but it seems that currently, the big thing in mainstream research about intelligence is working memory. neurologists and psychologists see it as the closest thing to brain power and it appears to be trainable. It shows greater correlates than IQ with acheivement variables.
I’m quite convinced by the importance of working memory but I just wonder if it is just about the load of information that you are able to handle or if it also includes your ability to use it correctly. Anyway I think that one day your pseudodiscipline will be forced to investigate this concept.
The trainability of working memory is no surprise to me because the brain is known to be extremely plastic and adapting to the use you make of it. It is said that a good working memory can help you learn effortlessly.
This why I can’t believe about your determinist theories. And I still believe that anyone who wants to be “intelligent” or “wise” can acheive it regardless of any individual characteristic, except genetic disorder or severe brain injury.
Those who are naturally inclined to be smart, inherited complex intelligence, don’t need to have ”treinamento” ( training?).
You accuse us to be a religious but when you treat human beings as completely superior than other animals, at divine level, then you are being creationist. ”Enormous” plasticity of human brain is a sofisticated way to say ”humans have souls, animals no have”.
Humankind is special?? No doubt, but not in a divine way.
All theories are deterministic, don’t accuse just my theories to be like that. This tatic is old-fashioned and monotonous ( i like this word, yep).
Human brain no have enormous plasticity, of course is higher than any other animal but not in a divine level.
Many trained people don’t improve their intelligence just by training.
Compare induced-psychosis and real ( constant) psychosis. Now compare ”education” or training and real intelligence. Memorization is a one part of intelligence, very important but much more complex and influenced by other cognitive traits. I’m familiar with education area. I believe all people have some development ( cognitively specific) potential ( elasticity) but this potential will vary considerably among human beings, among populations and most people won’t greater development potentiality.
Are you from Brazil or the USA ?
do you even understand heritabiltiy? if something isn’t heritable its useless, but working memory seems to be highly heritable and differs by race because g factor is differs by race.
I do understand heritability much better than you understand causality.
if something isnβt heritable its useless ?
The appendix is 100% heritable and 100% useless
Language is genetically 0% heritable and 100% usefull
Working memory may have an heritable basis but it is trainable so it is not fixed so it is not naturally selected.
Skin color and ability to tan is untrainable, fixed and naturally selected.
Need I say more ?
Kajiliv, the number of eyes you have probably has a heritability of zero. Are they useless too? Heritability != “genetically determined.”
Brazil.
Anti-hereditarian,
you already read Charles Darwin??
Languages are not genetic but the development potential to learn languages is genetically predisposed.
Their examples don’t prove nothing about your theory, sorry again.
People would need develop self knowledge, understand himself, to try to understand the other.
I’m very self-aware and i can to say for you that everything i do in my life was made by myself with any environmental pressure. I react and not environment that react, environment is not a living being, i’m the lord of my will, of course, i could control completely my behaviour but human beings are hybrids between instinctive father and self-awareness mother. I born like that.
People mistake environmental ( i.e, ”epigenetic” or biological-environmental) factors with lower self-conscious control, capacity to self knowledge, understand yourself, analyse events, phenomena which are happen around you and your own reactions.
Teach self knowledge, real and practical, to the people and not desilusions.
Everything i feel, i perceive, was originally created by myself, my mind. Environment is the Place where i’m.
“First define βintelligenceβ, please. Intelligence by iq standard seem to be under natural selection in some regions where some types of smarter people are good to earn money and to give a better environment to their descendants. Impulsive and less long-term oriented people, on average, have lower income. In the near past, poor people died in higher percentage than rich people.”
To me intelligence is one’s ability to overcome obstacles in order to attain a particular objective.
In my opinion, passing a test (IQ test, school examination or else) depends not only on your innate or acquired basic ability but also in the interest you have in it. This is why you can make so many correlations between IQ and personality traits like impulsivity for instance. Impulsive people will not score well on an IQ test because it is boring and they will get upset when it gets difficult, It doesn’t mean that they could not do well if they found a way to relax and focus. On the contrary, your height is not a measure of your ability to be tall, it is a measure of palpable matter.
And a trait like impulsivity has a lot to do with one’s upbringing and upbringing has a lot to do with culture either social or ethnic. For instance, African Americans are said to have a tendency to be disruptive at school while in Africa you often have 60 kids in one classroom and everybody is focused. So in a single race, you have multiple attitudes, even in a family actually, even between twins. Then yes I know that natural predispositions exist for certain traits especially when it comes from hormones.
But the higher testosterone rates you claim for blacks are not proven.
Then the goals you set are influenced by a lot of things, confidence, faith in one promise, past experiences, other’s attitudes…
“I conclude about selection for intelligence that the smart types who are conformist, future or long-term oriented and technically talented are under natural, cultural and sexual selection than those, for example, who are more idealistic, intelectually inclined, etc⦔
Yet the IQ gap favor liberals over conservatives. And it is understandable. A liberal person goes behind apparences and does not rely on common sense or simplistic theories. You are the geocentrist, I am the heliocentrist.
“Visible traits, i donβt understand. You could explain** Well, this supposed discrepancy that you find donβt prove their point. βVisible traitsβ and iq tests scores among human races can live together. Seems a false contradiction.”
You know what visible traits are, you see an individual’s race but you don’t see their intelligence or their actual genetic makeup. In fact you can never see intelligence, it is a judgment not a fact you judge according to your own subjectivity and intelligence can’t be rationalized or translated in numbers, it is like beauty.
“Just prove it. All non-human animals are smart, cognitively smart (humans are only ones who are intellectually smart too). Intelligence, translated to the natural world as βcapacity to surviveβ, is under selective pressure in all species, what change is why the selective cognitive enphasis and humans beings are not just diverse but very individually complex.”
Can you rephrase this ?
“Again, arctic and other cold areas are so difficult to live βal naturelβ that there are few human tribes than in tropical lands. This βvirginβ tribes (which are not raped by modern man) donβt prove your point, sorry.”
First I forgot to say that warming was much easier than cooling “au naturel”. Tropical latitidues, especially equatorial have very low population densities too and are malaria infested. No wonder why SΓ£o Paulo was almost built in one day (this is an exageration, I now) while the Nordeste was found less suitable for developpement without slave labor while the Italians were never forced to rush to SΓ£o Paulo.
“Africa is a big country, mass of land. Just speculation like my own. But we, the βreligiousβ hereditarians, have a connected, logic, convergent theory with some piece missing. Your theory, in my not so humble opinion, no have convergent logic. The problem about you or Mugabe is that you do not create a logical system of thoughts to show their theories. You guys just throw a lot of pieces of ideas and thoughts without cohesive link between one and the other.”
Africa is a continent, a mass of mostly intetropical land. I don’t have a theory, I have arguments against your theory and the only think I take for sure is that there is no factual genetic evidence for racial differences in intelligence. What you only do is making links based on false, misguided, unproven and debatable arguments within an ideological framework that takes the inequality of races as an irrefutable fact that needs to be demonstrated. this is not science.
Science is actually 99% questions, 1% answers and those answers are always debatable. Religion is 100% irrefutables answers.
“I know very well how are βafricansβ because i live in the country with the largest african-descendent population out of Africa. Youβre saying that Igbos would like representatives of the African **
Look, neither the Chinese immigrants or Indian immigrants who go to Western countries, are representatives of their respective nations.”
In Brazil, your “Africans” are only 50% African in ancestry when they call themselves black, even less when they call themselves brown. Your “Africans” speak Portuguese and are descended from slaves.
In the USA, your “Africans” are only 80% African in ancestry when they call themselves black, 40% when they call themselves mixed-race. they speak english and are descended from slaves
In Africa (Subsaharan), Africans are 100% African in recent ancestry (not talking about prehistoric gene flow), they rarely call themselves Black, they belong to 2000+ ethnic groups and speak as many languages, they belong to a wide range of social and professional categories. The Igbos are a group of 30-40 million of individuals, they are genetically typical west africans.
“You are positively generalizing the African population as if they all were the same thing, good people who were injured by evil white.”
You are negatively generalizing the African population as if they all were the same thing, bad people who were injured by their nature.
“He attended the same public school in inner city, I studied. If he was influenced by his friends, so it was weak enough to do the wrong thing and enter their own cycle of poverty. But I know that did not happen, itβs just stupid enough not to plan their life.”
Subjective judgment
What did the parents do ? The reason why we set ages for majority is because we generally consider that under a certain age, individuals are not fully enlightened and need a more experienced one, preferably two, to guide their judgment and supervize their lives.
“No, we are very polite with him and my cousin, who also did wrong, she had three children of three different men and nowadays has a financially insecure life. You have no consciousness of it.”
“Qui ne dit mot consent”. Silence is approval.
”To me intelligence is oneβs ability to overcome obstacles in order to attain a particular objective.
In my opinion, passing a test (IQ test, school examination or else) depends not only on your innate or acquired basic ability but also in the interest you have in it. This is why you can make so many correlations between IQ and personality traits like impulsivity for instance. Impulsive people will not score well on an IQ test because it is boring and they will get upset when it gets difficult, It doesnβt mean that they could not do well if they found a way to relax and focus. On the contrary, your height is not a measure of your ability to be tall, it is a measure of palpable matter.”
Again, overgeneralization… Yes, for some group of impulsive people, iq tests may be boring in certain specific situations… but it doesn’t mean that this rule will be applicable for all impulsive people.
Psychological evaluation is important to separate the cases where environmental circumstances have a impact from the cases where people are just less (technically) smart.
”And a trait like impulsivity has a lot to do with oneβs upbringing and upbringing has a lot to do with culture either social or ethnic. For instance, African Americans are said to have a tendency to be disruptive at school while in Africa you often have 60 kids in one classroom and everybody is focused. So in a single race, you have multiple attitudes, even in a family actually, even between twins. Then yes I know that natural predispositions exist for certain traits especially when it comes from hormones.
But the higher testosterone rates you claim for blacks are not proven.
Then the goals you set are influenced by a lot of things, confidence, faith in one promise, past experiences, otherβs attitudes⦔
Well, i and many people, linked the average black male behavior with higher testosterone, but i think the individual chronological distribution of testosterone may can explain why younger male blacks tend to be so problematic.
if you have a prove that majority of african children are focused and orderly, we will can talk about, but i think you no have this prove. I like to be intuitive and be moved by my anedoctal observations but always taking the knowledge that individuals are demographically encapsulate by populations and individual cases maybe can’t explain all.
”Yet the IQ gap favor liberals over conservatives. And it is understandable. A liberal person goes behind apparences and does not rely on common sense or simplistic theories. You are the geocentrist, I am the heliocentrist.”
I know many leftist people here, i have a self-called ”social warrior anti-racist” brother, and i can infer with certain security that most leftist people i know, are very ignorant and stupid. They are just verbally intelligent, above average, in a university level, just it. They are innapt to understand and manipulate abstractions, most of time they are manipulated by their mind-left-masters. Leftist is not better than conservative, just a differently confuse.
”Can you rephrase this ?”
Selective enphasis. Intelligence is quasi-synonymous to survivability in human nature, the difference is that humans have brain more independent from body, i think, while in animals body is their mind, to survive.
”Africa is a continent, a mass of mostly intetropical land. I donβt have a theory, I have arguments against your theory and the only think I take for sure is that there is no factual genetic evidence for racial differences in intelligence. What you only do is making links based on false, misguided, unproven and debatable arguments within an ideological framework that takes the inequality of races as an irrefutable fact that needs to be demonstrated. this is not science.
Science is actually 99% questions, 1% answers and those answers are always debatable. Religion is 100% irrefutables answers.”
”I have arguments against your theory and the only think I take for sure is that there is no factual genetic evidence for racial differences in intelligence.”
Swanky number two (aaaja paciencia).
Now, reality is a ideology, abstract prison is a reality.
Nope, even ”science” is not 100% perfect, nor 99%…
”In Brazil, your βAfricansβ are only 50% African in ancestry when they call themselves black, even less when they call themselves brown. Your βAfricansβ speak Portuguese and are descended from slaves.
In the USA, your βAfricansβ are only 80% African in ancestry when they call themselves black, 40% when they call themselves mixed-race. they speak english and are descended from slaves
In Africa (Subsaharan), Africans are 100% African in recent ancestry (not talking about prehistoric gene flow), they rarely call themselves Black, they belong to 2000+ ethnic groups and speak as many languages, they belong to a wide range of social and professional categories. The Igbos are a group of 30-40 million of individuals, they are genetically typical west africans.”
My leftist brother is not just stupid or ignorant, but arrogant too. He have mental problems.
You are reducing something little more complex at lowest common divisor as usual.
I don’t know about Igbo people to infer something more confident but starting by their ”arguments” and motivations, i really doubt that what you are posting here is near to be close to reality.
And i’m not a conservative. To debate with leftist you need to know who he or she is, what is your personal motivations.
Many leftist have higher income, in part because system favoring those who are aligned with modern globalist mentality.
”You are negatively generalizing the African population as if they all were the same thing, bad people who were injured by their nature.”
Nope, prove it, but i think you can’t do it. You are clearly suggesting that ”the average african” is smart as european or east asian.
”Subjective judgment
What did the parents do ? The reason why we set ages for majority is because we generally consider that under a certain age, individuals are not fully enlightened and need a more experienced one, preferably two, to guide their judgment and supervize their lives.”
Define subjective, you are judging this situation as if you were extremely prepared to do this task. People in same environment, react different. It’s mean that this individual differences have a inner origin and not exterior or environmental origin.
Blacks on average mature earlier than whites and east asians but it happen because they have less brain to be developed. Gifted people mature slowly and assymmetrically than non-gifted people (on average and with more intensity) but they are more mentally mature, on average, than non-gifted people. They have more brain to be developed, mature.
My cousin simply wasn’t able to make simple analogies between have kids and earn money to care them. This observation is simple and he wasn’t able to do independently, take their own conclusions.
”Silence is approval.”
Nope, because people on average tend to think that other people are rational and can make rational and smart deductions, the ‘smart free will’.
The problem about the idea of free will is that people think free will need to be smart to be free, but not.
You’re just making stuff up.
In fact there is no definition of intelligence, and Jensen et al simply lied about having an “operationalized” definition of it.
Nope, prove it, but i think you canβt do it. You are clearly suggesting that βthe average africanβ is smart as european or east asian.
Modern SSA scores the same as white Victorians; modern SSA is worse than 1900 west.
During WWI, northern blacks had higher IQs than southern whites.
Native Americans and the Chinese are “mongoloids,” yet Native Americans approximate blacks in IQ and criminality, while the Chinese are held up as an example of a model minority; the difference? Their cultural and environmental history.
tl;dr, there’s plenty of evidence.
there is no factual genetic evidence for racial differences in intelligence
Exactly.
From misstating r/k selection theory to making vague statements about huge continental landmasses (and statements about modern conditions rather than evolutionary conditions, at that), the “theory” put forward by HBDers isn’t coherent to begin with.
Theories must stand on their own, not with reference to “well you don’t have any theory.”
I won’t lost my time with you Swanky, you are a lost case like most of leftist peuple.
Everything you are ”talking” here is right. Is happy???
π
Won’t? More like you can’t.
Every time I ask you to produce anything to back yourself up, you just refer to your own personal suppositions.
”Selective enphasis. Intelligence is quasi-synonymous to survivability in human nature..”
correcting, not human nature, but simply ”nature”.
Swanky,
personal perspectives is better than shared sofisticated psychosis.
People like you deserve suffer by own your skin their dangerous and stupid desilusions. It is fair to be made. leftist is a high functioning psychotic while conservative is a primitive human being. No more. Both are old fashioned humans.
If it’s such a delusion, you should be able to readily produce evidence beyond your own suppositions.
The fact that you can’t says it all. The fact that the simple facts I recounted can only be answered with long, ad hoc explanations says it all.
I give up on this conversation and I let the hereditarians conclude that I’m defeated.
This conversation will lead nowhere simply because we have different perceptions about the reality and have a different if not divergent conception of what makes sense and what does not.
But the most important difference between the hereditarians and I is that I’m ready to change my mind whenever a gene is found to give each individuals in a race the same IQ (or with a verry narrow range of variation). The hereditarians on the contrary feel that they don’t need any direct proof to claim a fact irrefutable. That’s two conceptions of logic and they can never lead to any for of agreement.
The hereditarians on the contrary feel that they donβt need any direct proof to claim a fact irrefutable.
Indeed!
what I find funny is that when they talk about “mainstream science”, they consequently place themsleves in the category of “alternative science” that mainstream scientists call pseudoscience. And they are not aware of it. Funny.
That was my last contribution.
Agree partially with you, indeed, there are two opposite perspectives but ”hereditarians” are much more logical than non-hereditarians, no doubt about it.
There are two perspectives but there are just one way to understand reality. Starting by hierarchical logic ( some ideas are more logic than others) and holistic thinking.
You are taking your point of views as idea-mother to explain human behavioural differences but seems clear to me that you, despise their specific knowledge, no have a good taste to find and follow really important point of views OR in this case, facts.
Intelligence is like height. Some people are homogeneously taller or shorter. Why?? Because selective enphasis. Same happen with intelligence.
intelligence is diverse, contextual and ( individually) complex.
But diversity, contextuality and complexity can live together with hierarchy. Look, i’m not a white supremacist, on average, whites are very stupid. You are white is not??
humanity intelligence is overrated by humans at divine-creationist level.
we no have any guilty by events happened in the past. Just happen and we are the inconvenient products. On average, subsaharians are less smarter than whites and east asians but the world is moved by will to improve, conservate and survive. You live in the future afro-islamic country, virtually undemocratic republique. A globalist-masonry dictatorship where ordinary french people de souche no have choice and voice.
Sorry, but i’m very good to perceive reality and to understand things starting by those which are literal, concrete, logically convergent. I’m not good to memorise perfectly historical stuff like you but what you aren’t good, i’m.
You are lost in your ”facts world”. I’m secure in my ”theories, speculations world”.
even you have a logically convergent of beliefs system i may avoid this kind of comment, but not, sorry if i’m being rude.
I know I shouldn’t answer but I will explain my mindset.
Starting at the level of individuals, I try not to judge people, I rather try to understand their circumpstancies and when I can’t do it I put it on my own ignorance and not on their nature. When it comes to groups of millions of unique individuals identified by arbitrary labels, I can even less allow myself to judge or pretend that I know enough about them (wether individually or as a group) to make hateful comments or elaborating theories on their inherent inferiority.
You know, when I read you I’m tempted to make very low estimates of your IQ. But I try to make excuses for you behind my computer. For instance, I presume that you are young (probably a teen) and I’m 23 so I have more maturity, I presume that you have issues with interpersonal relations because you talk about biology, theories, numbers but you never seem to see people as human beings with feelings shaped by their life experiences. It just seems that your reality is a papershit or a computer screen but you are not very at ease with people, real life. So I think that you might be really good at solving math problems but it is obvious that you have sociopathic tendencies and that you must not be a particulary pleasant person to meet.
No offence.
Yes, i’m narcisistic and macchiavelian but just because i have great awareness about it. Most part of the time i avoid use it against people.
If you don’t judge people, but circumstance … You are not good to understand them.
You don’t judge people, just circumstances, then how i can be a psychopath????
I wrote sociopath. Someone that has difficult social interactions and that is not easy to approach.
Sociopathy is not a judgment, you gave me enough signs for me to draw that type of conclusion even though I made you excuses. But you admit to it yourself when talking about the way you perceive yourself and deal with people.
I hope ”my iq” to be very lower at subsaharian level. Really!! i hate mentally handicapped iqtards, i love real intelligence.
Mein iq ( because my Black ancestry) is lower but at least i won’t live in civil war, clash civilization’s, en Parri… π
Of course not, i repeat, extremely dishonest and desilusional people deserve to be psychiatricaly treated. Because you say ”i don’t judge people, just circunstances, but i said that you are sociopath ( me, anonymous guy who you never known in your live). If is not a judgment”. ”I can manipulate the meaning of words and actions, because i can do it, you don’t”. Please.
Your psychological approach is very vague, biased and based on nothing. Even ”i’m” a sociopath i’m not those who are pushing a mass imigration and ”multiculturalism” and exposing ordinary de souche people ( native working class) a lot of real dangers. I’m a sociopath but just those who act badly which are real bad guys or are very incredibly stupid.
multiculturalism is just a different name for ( capitalistic) globalization.
“Γ Paris”.
I don’t live there anyway. Much as you can’t fathom that living in France is not living in the most famous city, you can’t fathom that people are not like the most famous perceptions about them (stereotypes).
You do not live in the real world, Parri, Saint Lucien du Rien, Wien, Munchen… Nope, you live in a idealized nonexistent world.
Stereotypes … but i can be labeled from you. π
… ” because i’m not good to socialize, i treat people as numbers” …
”i estimate that your iq is lower”
π
You’re funny!!
Here I am again, I just can’t really let it go…
“In the 1972 study “The Apportionment of Human Diversity”,Β Richard LewontinΒ performed aΒ fixation indexΒ (FST) statistical analysis using 17 markers, including blood group proteins, from individuals across classically defined “races” (Caucasian, African, Mongoloid, South Asian Aborigines, Amerinds, Oceanians, and, Australian Aborigines). He found that the majority of the total genetic variation between humans (i.e., of the 0.1% of DNA that varies between individuals), 85.4%, is found within populations, 8.3% of the variation is found between populations within a “race”, and only 6.3% was found to account for the racial classification. Numerous later studies have confirmed his findings.[5]”
So without anymore information about the genetics of intelligence, we have to assume that 85.4% of the genetically based variation in intelligence is found within populations, 8.3% is found between populations within a race and 6.3% is between races. This hypothese is perfectly credible if we replace intelligence by height. If we accept that environment (lifestyle, socioeconomic factors, feelings…) has some effect on intelligence, the genetic component linked to race is even less: 3,15% if we are in the half genes / half environment camp.
But what you do believe is that 100% of the genetic variation in intelligence (and other personality traits) between humans is linked to race in the same way that 100% of the genetic variation in skin color is linked to race, this is the reason why every european has the same IQ and it is always higher than the IQ shared by all Africans.
You base this belief on the fact that North Eurasians needed the ability to earn a college degree more than 20 000 years later to survive in the ice age while Africans only needed kindergarten level skills to survive in the parralel tropical drought. And of course, evolution has selected people based on their ability to cause ecological damage resulting from a lifestyle that is completely disconnected from nature.
So it also means that the Flynn effect is an acceleration of evolution comparable to the well known trend for the recent generations of blacks to become lighter-skinned, or to the fact that that their eyes turn blue once they are adopted in a white family. That makes sense…
By the way, about the selfishness of Africans, I have googled a couple of things for you.
https://www.google.fr/search?q=cooperativism+in+africa&oq=cooperativism+in+africa&aqs=chrome..69i57.9916j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=collectivism+in+african+culture
https://www.google.fr/search?q=cooperativism+in+africa&oq=cooperativism+in+africa&aqs=chrome..69i57.9916j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=collectivism+in+nigeria
https://www.google.fr/search?q=cooperativism+in+africa&oq=cooperativism+in+africa&aqs=chrome..69i57.9916j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=family+in+nigeria
https://www.google.fr/search?q=extended+family+nigeria&oq=extended+family+nigeria+&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l3.7502j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=extended+family+africa
https://www.google.fr/search?q=extended+family+nigeria&oq=extended+family+nigeria+&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l3.7502j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=marriage+in+africa
International homicide statisticsΒ :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
What would our regretted Jean Philippe Rushton respond to thisΒ ?
I share some more if you want know how Nigerian teens are out of control. Beware: scarry things in the results.
https://www.google.fr/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=school+behavior+nigeria
especially: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bn/2014/705835/
have you ever read JayMan “anti-hereditarian”???
read this to begin with: https://jaymans.wordpress.com/jaymans-race-inheritance-and-iq-f-a-q-f-r-b/#noIQ
then go and read Greg Cochran, a genius who’s way ahead of you
So when you can’t answer you redirect people to your prophetes isn’t it ?
i would say to you read it and see the ways inwhich your antiracist equalitarian dogma is wrong
Your calculation is wrong because a systematic literature review gave the following IQs
79 in a 1998 sample of 225 South African psychology students (caution: study performed by Rushton)
90 in a 2000 sample of 198 South African engeneering students (caution: study performed by Rushton)
78 in a 2000 sample of 70 South African psychology students (caution: study performed by Rushton)
74 in a 1996 sample of 30 impoverished South African university students
96 in a 1995 sample of 147 disadvantaged South African university students
weighted average of the samples: 85,65
unweighted average of the samples: 83,4
We could still refine the estimate by finding what is the share of soft sciences and hard science in South Africaβs student population. Especially when psychology courses are notorious for being literal cognitive trashes attracting mainly lazy dreamer students.
Use these figures for South Africa and not black Africa as a whole because South Africa is special in this continent with its sky-high HIV prevalency, crime rate and single parent households and AIDS orphans all of that making its environment unrepresentative of places like West Africa which are thousands miles away both geographically and culturally.
Probably the most relevant studies are:
79 in a 1998 sample of 225 South African psychology students
78 in a 2000 sample of 70 South African psychology students
These average out to 79, just as my article claimed. Engineering students are probably not representative of university students. (they represent the best and brightest university students).
Neither are the undernourished, though virtually everyone in the region is undernourished in the broader sense.
The sample that scored 96 and is defined as disadvantaged is disadvanteged for unknown reasons. it is a 1996 sample, only two years after apartheid we can safely assume that virtually 100% of black South Africans were disadvantaged in one way or another.
I believe there are many more engineering students than psychology students in South Africa’s universities if South Africa has minimal cultural affinities with West Africa where students are mostly distributed in a few fields:
-Administration
-Business
-Law
-Medicine
-Engineering
Understand the context of a developing nation:
-Students give a lot of importance to how prestigious is their major, psychology is at the lowest rank.
-Students chose majors that give them the most opportunities at home or for emigration, psychology in a country where more than half the population lives on 2$ a day is just a highway to unemployment and very few families would accept to support a student that makes such an unwise choice.
If you look at your own past and imagine and try to figure out what kind of post secondary education chose someone who graduated from your high school with average grades, you realize that those who may have chosen psychology are below this average.
I forgot an important aspect of tertiary education in the third world: corruption.
Psychology is typically the kind of major chosen by students who literally bought their college admission…
I found some data on the percentage of university grads in sub-Saharan Africa by field. See Table 3 of this document:
http://www.oecd.org/site/devyewa/Pocket%20Edition%20AEO2012-EN.pdf
Education,
humanities
and arts 26%
Social
sciences,
business and law 44%
Science 12% (3% ICT)
Engineering,
manufacturing
and construction 4%
Agriculture 2%
Health and
welfare 5%
Services 0%
Other 7%
if I understand correctly, it looks like, at most, only 16% of sub-Saharan university graduates get a degree in a STEM field (Science, engineering)
So I think about 84% of the students would resemble psychology majors (average IQ 79) while the remaining 16% would be math and science types. In 2006, Richard Lynn cited three studies (mostly by Rushton) showing math and science majors in sub-Sahara averaged IQ 100, 93, and 99, so 97 is probably a good estimate for this group.
So if 84% of sub-Saharan university students average IQ 79, and 16% average IQ 97, then the weighted average should be:
0.84(79) + 0.16(97) = 82
So my estimate was probably three points too low.
Business and law are not to be put together with humanities but with STEM.
Business and law are not to be put together with humanities but with STEM.
You might be right. Social science, business and law, were all lumped into one category that claimed 44% of the degrees. Because this category includes both easy (social science) and harder (business, law) majors, let’s assume this category is a hybrid between high IQ majors (IQ 97) and low IQ majors (IQ 79), and assign it an average IQ of 88.
So now we have three categories:
STEM majors: IQ 97, (16% of degree holders)
Social science. business and law: IQ 88 (44% of degree holders)
Other majors: IQ 79 (40% of degree holders)
So the weighted average would now be 0.16(97) + 0.44(88) + 0.4(79) = 86
So I think IQ 86 is the maximum estimate for sub-Saharan university students under any reasonable assumptions. My estimate of 79 is increasingly looking too low.
But the bad news is university students are likely about 18 points higher than the average sub-Saharan,
But the good news is, because of lack of education, the average sub-Saharan is scoring well below his real intelligence, and because of poor nutrition, even their real intelligence is well below their genetic ability. This is good news only in the sense that it suggests a lot of room for improvement.
Another thing that must be taken into consideration is that most Business, Administration and STEM Subsaharan students study abroad. They are not counted in their nation’s statistics whereas that they are representatives of a share of the population. So I would put the mean IQ of the Univeristy enrolled (either at home or abroad) somewhere in the mid to high 90s.
Business and law are not to be put together with humanities but with STEM.
I did some more research and it seems that if the U.S. is any indication, business majors are dumber than social science and humanities majors.
So I think I was right the first time, to just treat them like African psychology majors (IQ 79). Thus I return to my previous estimate of 82 for all sub-Saharan university students.
Another thing that must be taken into consideration is that most Business, Administration and STEM Subsaharan students study abroad.
Seems speculative
I have another off topic question to raise here:
I’m looking at the statistics of infant mortality in the world and I find an interesting relationship between a country’s rank and on the IQ list and its rank for infant mortality. It kind of implies an initial advantage or disadvantage for cognitive well being, not of those children who die but those who survive. They probably have had complicated prenatal brain development and be exposed to adverse health outcomes in early childhood, at an age when their health status can’t reasonably be explained by their wisdom or lack thereof.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate
Just see, Black Americans with an infant mortality rate of 12/1000 are more than twice as likely to die in infancy or to potentially start in life with a significant disadvantage in childhood health than average Americans do with an infant mortality rate of 5,6/1000.
This very high infant mortality rate of black American infants is really striking: theyare in a similar range to Brazil, Syria or Caribbean countries including Jamaica. Most shockingly, they do worst than Barbados, Botswana, Grenada, Saint Kitts and Nevis, China, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, and Bermuda where the Black-white IQ is closed and which ranks third in the world behind Monaco and Japan.
Prenatal and early childhood health and development status is obviously not the sole factor influencing group differences in intellectual well being and I don’t know how to calculate correlation coefficients but I would expect it to show or moderately high relationship between infant mortality and and IQ. Especially when we acknowledge that the decades of the Flynn effect have seen shrinking infant mortality rates but that in the US, blacks have maintained an rate that was always about twice the average.
So, is it worth investigation ?
Yes I think it’s definitely worth investigating. Indeed of all the non-genetic explanations for the black-white IQ gap in the United States, I have thought that low birth weight of black babies is the most promising.
Rushton however speculated that this was not an environmental effect, but an evolved genetic trait…however that might not be the whole story.
In my personal opinion, prenatal factors do not explain a significant part of the black-white IQ gap because in the Minnesota transracial adoption study, the mulatto kids had IQs half way between the blacks and the whites.
If prenatal factors were dragging down black IQ, the mulatto kids would have scored much closer to whites since they were born to white mothers and thus had a white prenatal environment
But that’s only one study.
Except that white mothers who abandon the children they had with black fathers probably have IQs somewhat below the white mean. So the mixed race IQ that appears halfway between blacks and whites is a statistical illusion, most likely.
Rushton’s speculation is fantasy because African countries tend to have preterm birth rates and low birth weight rates that are often under black Americans. One biological aspect that may influence this very early inequality is vitamin D deficiency that affects blacks in subtropical areas more than white because of dark skin. This deficiency has been shown to cause bad pregnancy outcomes. But D vitamin deficiency may only explain a part.
Another factor influencing this difference between US blacks and US whites but also US blacks and African blacks is possibilly stress (that has been shown to complicate pregnancy. Contrary to African and White pregnant women, US blacks mothers tend to be young single mothers living a stressful life in stressful neighborhoods in a stressful society.
Black American women also tend to be more obese, to suffer diabetes, to smoke and to have other health and lifestyle characteristics that put their future children at initial disadvantage.
Here are some explanations. Otherwise, international rankings of infant mortality greatly mirror the IQ rankings (Subsaharan Africa and South Asia at the bottom), Latin America, the Middle east and South-East Asia in the middle, Europe, ANZ, North America and East Asia at the top.
It seems like countries with a infant mortality rate that is less than 10/1000 have mean IQs in a 95-105 range. those between 20/1000 and 10/1000 have IQs in a 85-95 range. When infant mortality is over 20/1000, IQs barely make it in the 80s.
I know you will have some objections because you base yourself on pioneer fund estimates and will say the relationship becomes lousy above the 30/1000 threshold. But don’t forget about the reality of IQ which an ordinal reality, not an absolute one and a rank is not a measure of actual performance but distance from a standard. And also, the correlation is not exact because other factors are at play.
Except that white mothers who abandon the children they had with black fathers probably have IQs somewhat below the white mean. So the mixed race IQ that appears halfway between blacks and whites is a statistical illusion, most likely.
But the mixed race kids scored in between whites and blacks who were also “abandoned” by their biological mothers. The study compared adopted kids in all three groups.
“But the mixed race kids scored in between whites and blacks who were also βabandonedβ by their biological mothers. The study compared adopted kids in all three groups.”
If you read the Wikipedia page for the study, you see that 66 of the 68 biracial black/white children were of white mothers
“Loehlin (2000) reiterates the confounding problems of the study and notes that both genetic and environmental interpretations are possible. He further offers another possible explanation of the results, namely unequal prenatal factors: “[O]ne possibility lies in the prenatal environment provided by Black and White biological mothers. The Black-Black group, of course, all had Black mothers. In the Black-White group, virtually all of the birth mothers were White (66 of 68). Willerman and his colleagues found that in interracial couples it made a difference whether the mother was Black or White: The children obtained higher IQs if she was White. They suspected that this difference was due to postnatal environment, but it could, of course, have been in the prenatal one.”[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study
And according to a study R. nisbett referenced in a response to Rushton and Jensen, biracial children of white mothers and black fathers have higher iqs than biracial children of white fathers and black mothers.
“If the BlackβWhite IQ gap is largely hereditary, then children having one
Black and one White parent should have the same IQ on average, regardless of
which parent is Black. …. In fact, it emerges that children of White mothers
and Black fathers have IQs 9 points higher than children with Black mothers and
White fathers (Willerman, Naylor, & Myrianthopoulos, 1974).”
Here’s a link to the actual study
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01066706
Now however, the results can be interpreted in two ways.
1. White mothers have better “white” genes for intelligence and it takes precedent over that of the black fathers because biological mother iq determines child iq
or
2. White women during pregnancy have favorable environmental conditions that improve the quality of thier prenatal environment than black women
Also, I have no idea why Rushton omits the results for the mixed Asian children. At 7 and 17, they showed lower scores than the black-white biracial children. An HBD hypothesis would predict that they would score between whites and Asians in iq.
Mash boy
“If you read the Wikipedia page for the study, you see that 66 of the 68 biracial black/white children were of white mothers”
And? The fact that the biracial children with white mothers had IQs in between blacks and whites is one point for the hereditarian hypothesis.
It IS a prenatal environment difference, blacks have worse prenatal environments. I don’t need to read Wikipedia as I’ve read the actual study and its interpretations. The hereditarian hypothesis makes the most sense.
“And according to a study R. nisbett referenced in a response to Rushton and Jensen, biracial children of white mothers and black fathers have higher iqs than biracial children of white fathers and black mothers.”
Nisbett is hilariously wrong. The Minnesota study directly refutes him here.
I also refuted Nisbett.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/01/21/refuting-richard-nisbett/
Both of your two points are correct.
“Also, I have no idea why Rushton omits the results for the mixed Asian children. At 7 and 17, they showed lower scores than the black-white biracial children. An HBD hypothesis would predict that they would score between whites and Asians in iq.”
It’s not that they were omitted. They didn’t test them at age 17 iirc, correct me if I’m wrong.
Also, “Asians” doesn’t mean just East Asians, so you know.
Also, βAsiansβ doesnβt mean just East Asians, so you know.
Also, the Asian sample included Native Americans.
Maybe, because black women tend to have higher testosterone than white women, and, black women who marry white men tend to have even higher testosterone than predilect black women (to the black men), with lower testosterone, who tend to marry black men…
A desproportional % of black men who marry white women tend to have ‘healthy’ testosterone levels as well white women.
or we have a lot of different combinations and some ”advantageous” combinations are more common among black man x white woman than black woman x white man.
Other possibility is that white men who marry out of their group tend to have higher mutational load because if they were more attractive to their own opposite-sex group they married in and not out, on avg of course.
people who are more prone to marry out maybe are more prone to carried that genetic polimorphism that is more correlated with ”nomadic behavior”…
Adhd variant*
And adhd tend to correlate with anti social behavior and lower cognitive scores.
ADD and ADHD are garbage.
“And? The fact that the biracial children with white mothers had IQs in between blacks and whites is one point for the hereditarian hypothesis.”
Not really, it can be interpreted two different ways.
“It IS a prenatal environment difference, blacks have worse prenatal environments.”
But can you prove it’s due to genetic differences? In order to infer genetic causality for a trait between two phenotypes, you would have to rear the organisms in the same environment.
” The hereditarian hypothesis makes the most sense.”
That’s just your opinion, like I said, it can have multiple interpretations.
“Nisbett is hilariously wrong. The Minnesota study directly refutes him here.”
How? most of the biracial (black/white) children were of white mothers. If the IQ is controlled by prenatal conditions, it does not matter whether the kids are adopted into a favorable or “white” environment. It would do no good, and one would not be able to assert genetic causality.
“I also refuted Nisbett.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/01/21/refuting-richard-nisbett/”
That’s not really important, I only used him as a reference for the reference of the biracial (black/white) children IQ.
“Both of your two points are correct.”
Then why do you just accept the HBD position is correct instead of accepting that the study was inconclusive in terms of either HBD or egalitarianism.
“Itβs not that they were omitted. They didnβt test them at age 17 iirc, correct me if Iβm wrong.”
Yes they did test them at age 17. It’s on the wikipedia page. Age 7- 101, Age 17 -96
“Also, βAsiansβ doesnβt mean just East Asians, so you know.”
I know that, but Native Americans are genetically closest to East Asians. Why aren’t their “superior” mongoloid genes being expressed in a favorable environment. They did not report sever adjustment problems and older age adoption, and several adoption families like the black and black/white biracial children.
“Not really, it can be interpreted two different ways.”
Go on.
“But can you prove itβs due to genetic differences? In order to infer genetic causality for a trait between two phenotypes, you would have to rear the organisms in the same environment.”
The Minnesota Study proved this.
“Thatβs just your opinion, like I said, it can have multiple interpretations.”
Go on.
“How? most of the biracial (black/white) children were of white mothers. If the IQ is controlled by prenatal conditions, it does not matter whether the kids are adopted into a favorable or βwhiteβ environment. It would do no good, and one would not be able to assert genetic causality.”
The fact that prenatal environment is so paramount SHOWS a genetic causality. White mothers have a better prenatal environment than black mothers.
“Then why do you just accept the HBD position is correct instead of accepting that the study was inconclusive in terms of either HBD or egalitarianism.”
How was it inconclusive? It shows there is a genetic cause. Since WF/BM babes have higher IQs than BF/WM babes, this proves it.
“Yes they did test them at age 17. Itβs on the wikipedia page. Age 7- 101, Age 17 -96”
It wasn’t just East Asians. ‘Asians’ means from the whole Asian continent. If it were just East Asians then they would have scored higher.
“I know that, but Native Americans are genetically closest to East Asians. Why arenβt their βsuperiorβ mongoloid genes being expressed in a favorable environment. They did not report sever adjustment problems and older age adoption, and several adoption families like the black and black/white biracial children.”
Native Americans are genetically distinct from all populations due to being genetically isolated and having no gene flow from other ethnies/races.
What other adoption families? Go on.
I also don’t believe in superiority of any organisms.
“Maybe, because black women tend to have higher testosterone than white women, and, black women who marry white men tend to have even higher testosterone than predilect black women (to the black men), with lower testosterone, who tend to marry black men⦔
What does testosterone have to do with intelligence and prenatal environments.
I also think it’s important to note that according to a meta analysis, Asian Men have higher levels of testosterone than all groups.
“And adhd tend to correlate with anti social behavior and lower cognitive scores.”
Where is your evidence for this?
Also this site shows, similar prevalence of adhd in black and whites. In the first stat, the differences are negligible and in the second, there is not difference.
http://www.adhdawarenessmonth.org/wp-content/uploads/ADHD-in-the-US-Population-FINAL-English13.pdf
Little samples, use of total testosterone instead active?? I really don’t know. I’m not expert on it. What i know is what may eyes are perceving and I apply my perception in my crystallized knowledge. If testosterone make man “more” man, aggressive, outgoing and sexually addicted so east Asian man seems have the lower active or circular testosterone and black man the highest.
I live in the country where most people include me have African blood and at least half of them have at least half of African blood. African descendents even women fit perfectly with the “testosterone’ behavioral correlates”.
Recent studies using large samples found those correlations with ADHD. African descendents adolescents in the school tend to be hyperactive, lack of attention and sensation seekers.
Also over diagnosis usually make this % of ADHD inconsistent.
Pingback: Race, genes and intelligence | Random thoughts