Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic [W:957]

For the last 50 years every nation on earth has been seeing a large scale migration of people from and to every continent, much like the americas has been experiencing since Columbus first landed and where racial harmony has yet to be realized.

The world, like the US, has become a melting pot__To effectively deal with the unique problems related to the coming together of a racially diverse/multicultural planet, we must abandon Political Correctness and replace it with science.

Scientific research suggests that genetics is responsible for many racial characteristics including intelligence, a propensity to crime, addiction and aggression, social interaction, health and medical issues and possibly even political orientation.

It's time we stop blaming the genetic barriers and inadequacies of those who are struggling to compete in the 21st century on slavery, oppression, inequality and white racism and begin approaching these problems on a rational scientific level.

Published on April 26, 2005 at 5:29 PM
Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic

A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic.[/B]

The lead article in the June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy and Law, a journal of the American Psychological Association, examined 10 categories of research evidence from around the world to contrast "a hereditarian model (50% genetic-50% cultural) and a culture-only model (0% genetic-100% cultural)."

Click to expand...

Dr. J. Philippe Rushton
Race, Evolution, and Behavior

J. P. Rushton's book Race, Evolution, and Behavior collected and analyzed many of the data sets on race differences in brain size and intelligence and personality and temperament first noted by Darwin, Galton, and other 19th century visionaries. Using evidence from psychology, anthropology, sociology and other scientific disciplines, Race, Evolution, and Behavior shows there are at least three biological races (subspecies) of man - Orientals (i.e., Mongoloids or Asians), Blacks (i.e., Negroids or Africans), and Whites (i.e., Caucasoids or Europeans).
--------------------
Why the attempt to trash or suppress this book? Because there is no stronger taboo today than talking about race. In many cases, just being accused of "racism" can get you fired. Some vocal groups in academia and the media simply forbid an open discussion of race. It is difficult to disagree with Charles Murray's (1996, p. 575) conclusion in his analysis of the aftermath to The Bell Curve controversy, that in regard to heritable variation and race, science has "become self-censored and riddled with taboos -- in a word, corrupt."

Click to expand...

Dr. J. Philippe Rushton
Altruism, Evolutionary Psychology and Ethnic Variations
Social Science Centre 7436
Biographical Sketch:
The University of Western Ontario

Click to expand...

Give my regards to Dr. Watson and, later, to Dr. Shockley.

The quote you linked has nothing to do with the comments in your OP. In fact, your OP doesn't make much sense at all. What exactly do you want science to do about race relations?

In interesting article which explains why size alone isn't enough to ascertain intelligence. Oh, and the last few sentences indicate that brains can grow larger through learning (oh lookie there, is that a path to increased intelligence??? but then it isn't all genetic, right?):

Discovery Health "Brain Size and Intelligence"

Further, assuming that education hasn't had an effect on a 3-year old because they haven't reached school age is ridiculous. Children begin interpreting data the minute they're born, and that's when learning begins. A child needs to be encouraged from birth (and developed in a safe, healthy manner during gestation) or very important connections and brain developments will not occur. The adoption study doesn't really prove anything, either, because gestation and what happens during gestation can severe impact a child's neurological development.

I hesitate to endorse any science that so closely follows the "Hitler/Sanger" model of racial classification.

Some parrots can actually talk, as in 'using symbols' vocally - not just mimicking.

Empirica said:

For the last 50 years every nation on earth has been seeing a large scale migration of people from and to every continent, much like the americas has been experiencing since Columbus first landed and where racial harmony has yet to be realized.

The world, like the US, has become a melting pot__To effectively deal with the unique problems related to the coming together of a racially diverse/multicultural planet, we must abandon Political Correctness and replace it with science.

Scientific research suggests that genetics is responsible for many racial characteristics including intelligence, a propensity to crime, addiction and aggression, social interaction, health and medical issues and possibly even political orientation.

It's time we stop blaming the genetic barriers and inadequacies of those who are struggling to compete in the 21st century on slavery, oppression, inequality and white racism and begin approaching these problems on a rational scientific level.

Published on April 26, 2005 at 5:29 PM
Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic

Click to expand...

Yup. know/agree with the article. Posted it twice here.
Others in the strings below as well. Feel free to use them.

It's true but an extremely unpopular idea.
Note what happened in the strings below.
You've opend the gates of hell on just about THEE most sensitive issue to the PC.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/scien...c-crisis-human-genetics-3.html#post1058726549

and

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...nd-physical-competence-14.html#post1059799904

Empirica said:

For the last 50 years every nation on earth has been seeing a large scale migration of people from and to every continent, much like the americas has been experiencing since Columbus first landed and where racial harmony has yet to be realized.

The world, like the US, has become a melting pot__To effectively deal with the unique problems related to the coming together of a racially diverse/multicultural planet, we must abandon Political Correctness and replace it with science.

Scientific research suggests that genetics is responsible for many racial characteristics including intelligence, a propensity to crime, addiction and aggression, social interaction, health and medical issues and possibly even political orientation.

It's time we stop blaming the genetic barriers and inadequacies of those who are struggling to compete in the 21st century on slavery, oppression, inequality and white racism and begin approaching these problems on a rational scientific level.

Click to expand...

I agree. Of course, we shouldn't treat colored people as inferiors. But we need to stop believing these lies about all races being equal and the myth that race is just a social construct. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Empirica said:

For the last 50 years every nation on earth has been seeing a large scale migration of people from and to every continent, much like the americas has been experiencing since Columbus first landed and where racial harmony has yet to be realized.

The world, like the US, has become a melting pot__To effectively deal with the unique problems related to the coming together of a racially diverse/multicultural planet, we must abandon Political Correctness and replace it with science.

Scientific research suggests that genetics is responsible for many racial characteristics including intelligence, a propensity to crime, addiction and aggression, social interaction, health and medical issues and possibly even political orientation.

It's time we stop blaming the genetic barriers and inadequacies of those who are struggling to compete in the 21st century on slavery, oppression, inequality and white racism and begin approaching these problems on a rational scientific level.

Click to expand...

And how exactly do you propose that we approach these problems on a rational scientific level?

Graffias said:

I agree. Of course, we shouldn't treat colored people as inferiors. But we need to stop believing these lies about all races being equal and the myth that race is just a social construct. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Click to expand...

Or we could treat people as the individuals they are without regards to their race.

IIRC, I read a while back that studies suppose that 58% of intelligence is genetic.

I also heard about studies that suggest blacks are per average 10 IQ points less intelligent than whites, and east Asians are 5 IQ points more intelligent than whites.

But the same studies said that basing racist discrimination on these findings doesn't make sense, as genetic and intelligence varies much more within the populations of the respective race, than the races vary compared to each other.

Or, in other words: Even when blacks are per *average* 10 IQ points less intelligent than whites, there are still quite a few blacks who are more intelligent than most whites and vice versa. Any attempt at generalizing races instead of taking the individual into account would miss the point.

samsmart said:

Or we could treat people as the individuals they are without regards to their race.

Click to expand...

That is exactly what I do.... given the chance to get to know the individual as an individual.

But we'd be foolish to deny that we don't look at people as "member of X group" when we don't know them. Categorization is a survival trait in all humans. The more someone is "like me", the more quickly I feel comfortable and empathetic towards them. You're the same way... all humans are, by nature and instinct. Instinct tells us to beware the stranger.... what's the first thing we notice about a stranger? Appearance. Is race part of appearance? Usually yes.

These instincts go back to tribal days, when contact with those not of your tribe was extremely perilous, and they are not easily overcome. They also have some value.

If you're in a dangerous area and need help, and the two people on hand are a middle-aged man in a suit and tie, and a 20yo dressed "gangsta rapper" style, who are you going to approach? You're going to make a snap judgement based on appearances.... and the smart money says a well-dressed man of middle years is less likely to assault or mistreat you than a 20yo dressed in a style that glorifies thug-ism.

Right?

So does this directly relate to race? Not entirely, no. I'm white, more or less. If the young thug were white and the older guy in the suit was black, I'd still approach the older suit for help.

But what if there were two middle-aged men in suits, one white and one black? On an instinctive level I'm more likely to gravitate to the white guy, because he looks like me, therefore he feels like less of a total stranger.

If I were black it would probably be the reverse.

Yet... there was an interesting article a few years back about black cab drivers refusing to pick up black males under 35 after midnight. They said it was too dangerous, and expressed their belief that picking up whites was safer.

This was based on a concern that males of their own race, especially males under 35, were more likely to perpetrate a crime on them. That was the perception of black cab drivers in the study.

Obviously they aren't racist. What are they then?

Being real.

For whatever reason blacks do seem to commit a lot more crime, especially various forms of theft and robbery. White males are more likely to be serial killers or embezzlers, but serial killers are quite rare and embezzlers are generally nonviolent. How much of black crime is due to poverty and cultural issues is something that can be debated sure... but IF it is true that avg intelligence is lower then that could explain the poverty to some degree too, since intellect and academic achievements have a lot to do with income.

So what DO we do with this information? Well, most will reject it with little thought, due to the taboo. Others will reject it because it reflects poorly on those they consider "their own kind". Others will wonder and speculate but keep silent from fear of being branded with the scarlet R.

We're on the verge of the early days of human genetic engineering... we're going to see it start soon, and there will be genetic experiments in boosting human attributes at some point. Could genetic engineering be the answer to giving everyone "equal opportunity" in reality, instead of just in name?

It might be worth some discussion..... IF we can get over our collective fear of talking about the subject.

:shrug:

Goshin said:

That is exactly what I do.... given the chance to get to know the individual as an individual.

But we'd be foolish to deny that we don't look at people as "member of X group" when we don't know them. Categorization is a survival trait in all humans. The more someone is "like me", the more quickly I feel comfortable and empathetic towards them. You're the same way... all humans are, by nature and instinct. Instinct tells us to beware the stranger.... what's the first thing we notice about a stranger? Appearance. Is race part of appearance? Usually yes.

These instincts go back to tribal days, when contact with those not of your tribe was extremely perilous, and they are not easily overcome. They also have some value.

If you're in a dangerous area and need help, and the two people on hand are a middle-aged man in a suit and tie, and a 20yo dressed "gangsta rapper" style, who are you going to approach? You're going to make a snap judgement based on appearances.... and the smart money says a well-dressed man of middle years is less likely to assault or mistreat you than a 20yo dressed in a style that glorifies thug-ism.

Right?

So does this directly relate to race? Not entirely, no. I'm white, more or less. If the young thug were white and the older guy in the suit was black, I'd still approach the older suit for help.

But what if there were two middle-aged men in suits, one white and one black? On an instinctive level I'm more likely to gravitate to the white guy, because he looks like me, therefore he feels like less of a total stranger.

If I were black it would probably be the reverse.

Yet... there was an interesting article a few years back about black cab drivers refusing to pick up black males under 35 after midnight. They said it was too dangerous, and expressed their belief that picking up whites was safer.

This was based on a concern that males of their own race, especially males under 35, were more likely to perpetrate a crime on them. That was the perception of black cab drivers in the study.

Obviously they aren't racist. What are they then?

Being real.

For whatever reason blacks do seem to commit a lot more crime, especially various forms of theft and robbery. White males are more likely to be serial killers or embezzlers, but serial killers are quite rare and embezzlers are generally nonviolent. How much of black crime is due to poverty and cultural issues is something that can be debated sure... but IF it is true that avg intelligence is lower then that could explain the poverty to some degree too, since intellect and academic achievements have a lot to do with income.

So what DO we do with this information? Well, most will reject it with little thought, due to the taboo. Others will reject it because it reflects poorly on those they consider "their own kind". Others will wonder and speculate but keep silent from fear of being branded with the scarlet R.

We're on the verge of the early days of human genetic engineering... we're going to see it start soon, and there will be genetic experiments in boosting human attributes at some point. Could genetic engineering be the answer to giving everyone "equal opportunity" in reality, instead of just in name?

It might be worth some discussion..... IF we can get over our collective fear of talking about the subject.

:shrug:

Click to expand...

If you needed help, would you go to a well-dressed black man or a white guy in gangsta gear? Because there are plenty of both out in the world nowadays.

How much of all this is cultural in that people of the same race tend to have the same culture because they instinctual flock together and how much of this is racial in that it is inherently genetic?

And even if it's true that, on average, those of African heritage have less of an IQ than Caucasians or Asians why and how should that affect those of African heritage who individually have a higher IQ than the average of Caucasians and Asians?

It's important to look into those distinctions when talking about this subject.

X Factor said:

The quote you linked has nothing to do with the comments in your OP. In fact, your OP doesn't make much sense at all. What exactly do you want science to do about race relations?

Click to expand...

The fact that you can't make the scientific connection is a good indication that this discussion is beyond your comprehension.

But one thing that may be simple enough for you to grasp is that minority issues have thus far been avoided and misdiagnosed due to PC guidelines and taboos.

samsmart said:

If you needed help, would you go to a well-dressed black man or a white guy in gangsta gear? Because there are plenty of both out in the world nowadays.

Click to expand...

Sure. Never said it wasn't so. I think I already answered that question anyway, did I not?

Goshin said:

.....If the young thug were white and the older guy in the suit was black, I'd still approach the older suit for help....

Click to expand...

How much of all this is cultural in that people of the same race tend to have the same culture because they instinctual flock together and how much of this is racial in that it is inherently genetic?

And even if it's true that, on average, those of African heritage have less of an IQ than Caucasians or Asians why and how should that affect those of African heritage who individually have a higher IQ than the average of Caucasians and Asians?

It's important to look into those distinctions when talking about this subject.

Click to expand...

Bud, I'm no sociologist. I suspect some of the differences we see are genetic, while others are cultural or a result of poverty.

As I said, I consider and treat individuals AS individuals whenever I get the chance.... but to ignore that some groups TEND to exhibit certain traits, and to stifle that discussion because we fear the Scarlet R, does everyone a disservice in my opinion.

That's probably all I will say for now, since, I must confess, I too fear that Scarlet R and don't want to be branded with it.


We now return to SAFER activities, like talking about how Republicans and Southerners are genetically inclined to be idiots. :lamo :roll:

I believe red states have lower mean IQs than blue states. The data is from the mid 2000s though. Perhaps they're putting things in the water to help now.

Goshin said:

Sure. Never said it wasn't so. I think I already answered that question anyway, did I not?







Bud, I'm no sociologist. I suspect some of the differences we see are genetic, while others are cultural or a result of poverty.

As I said, I consider and treat individuals AS individuals whenever I get the chance.... but to ignore that some groups TEND to exhibit certain traits, and to stifle that discussion because we fear the Scarlet R, does everyone a disservice in my opinion.

That's probably all I will say for now, since, I must confess, I too fear that Scarlet R and don't want to be branded with it.


We now return to SAFER activities, like talking about how Republicans and Southerners are genetically inclined to be idiots. :lamo :roll:

Click to expand...

No, to be fair, I don't think you're racist at all. I live in the South too, so I know all the rules as far as pragmatic race relations go, which is pretty much how you related them.

But this forum is about politics - which comes from the policies that governments should legislate on behalf of the govern.

So when such studies are brought up in regards to politics I just like to point out these things, exactly, and ask how people want to use them in making government policies.

It is utter BULL**** to pretend that IQ tests are capable of measuring genetic intelligence. Average test scores have been continually increasing ever since IQ tests were invented, which should be impossible as human genetics haven't changed at all. Nothing pisses me off more than seeing genetics co-opted to justify racist crap based on **** science. We have been down this road before and people still keep buying it.

A few reasons why I dismiss this study and his related articles and publishings.

#1) He looked often to early 'anthropologists' who used a progressive-lineal approach to catagorizing cultures on a 'natural progressive' timeline of sorts - if you're 'primitive' you're early in the line of natural evolution. If you're 'advanced' then that means you're further along - and all cultures / races / peoples simply need to 'speed along their natural progression' - this has been dismissed in more ways than one.

#2) They use IQ tests to 'test the intelligence of all these people here': the more we learn about human mental abilities in general the less and less accurate people consider IQ test results to mean - It's innacurate for extreme ends of the spectrum and it's limitedin what it's actually testing: it is NOT an accurate test of everyone's actual mental capacity.

#3) Unignorable cultural idfferences in regard to IQ testing in general. If you have, say, a cultural divide (contrast black vernacular english VS 'standard' english) If someone is well versed in standard or acedemic language they'll find taking most tests a little easier - but if someone is NOT well versed in the same standard / academic language they'll find it harder purely for semantics. Thus: test questions - how they're worded - and how they're implimented and presented will mean quite a bit and affect the test scores significantly: such a test is flawed in the way that it tests 'cognitive' and 'reading' abilities- not necessarily your *actual* knowledge. It relies heavily on the idea that you know what all the words mean - and you apply the same meaning to those words taht the author of the test applied.

#4) IQ tests also do not span across mutliple means of knowledge: psychologists today recogize at least 7 different categories of intelligence, not just *one* general intelligence.

#5) Intelligence forms in stages - it's learned through family upbringing, education at school, what you read, how you perceive the world around you and how you interact with it, diet, health, your tactile involvement with life - and so on . . . your intelligence capabilities aren't fully known when you're 3 - or 6 - or 16 - or even 60. It's constantly growing and changing.

If you want to measure intelligence more accurately you can't just give a standardized written test and expect that to sum your brain-abilities up tightly and neatly. You must devise multiple tests to determine and see these different intelligences, how one is able to learn and gain new knowledge, how they apply that knowledge in multiple situations, and so forth. Intelligence is complex - so there is no one quick simple means of defining how "smart" someone is.

I've read a lot of studies on this subject - intelligene and race, intelligence and brain size - so on, so forth . . . and none of them really hammer down on things in extreme blunt detail: you cannot look to IQ scores and brain waves to determine one's ability to LEARN more than what they already know and apply that in life at some point.

Rushton's a quack iirc

mbig said:

Yup. know/agree with the article. Posted it twice here.
Others in the strings below as well. Feel free to use them.

It's true but an extremely unpopular idea.
Note what happened in the strings below.
You've opend the gates of hell on just about THEE most sensitive issue to the PC.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/scien...c-crisis-human-genetics-3.html#post1058726549

and

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...nd-physical-competence-14.html#post1059799904

Click to expand...

My apologies mbig__I didn't intend to steal your thunder.

Hopefully, the blind will see and the deaf will hear this time around.

The question is, What possible function could this data fulfill other than to satisfy personal curiosity or prejudice?

Hare said:

The question is, What possible function could this data fulfill other than to satisfy personal curiosity or prejudice?

Click to expand...

Probably no more use than any other compliation of data about groups of people....


Uh, no, wait....whut?

well I for one don't think there's anything wrong with *discussing* the potential differences - but usually when studies are done they're innacurate to say the least and don't see things in a balanced or even reasonable manor. . . and often involve outdated views on humanity, genetics and intelligence in general.

Simon W. Moon said:

Rushton's a quack iirc

Click to expand...

Might be. There's a lot of stuff in the Wiki article about critcism of his work.


J. Philippe Rushton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Maybe he is a quack.... but given how the subject matter makes most people react with a knee-jerk inclination to whirl around and scream "SHUT UP!!! Racist! Hater! Shut up shut up SHUT UP, LALALALA LA I'M NOT LISTENING..." at anyone who brings up anything like this, it's hard to know whether the criticism is legit or just everyone jumping on the "don't brand me with the Scarlet R" bandwagon. :shrug:

Aunt Spiker said:

well I for one don't think there's anything wrong with *discussing* the potential differences - but usually when studies are done they're innacurate to say the least and don't see things in a balanced or even reasonable manor. . . and often involve outdated views on humanity, genetics and intelligence in general.

Click to expand...

What if things actually aren't balanced and even? What if we are NOT all created equal?

I mean, I'm not presently flipping out about the assertion that Asians are, on average, smarter than whites. Frankly that isn't a shock, more like a "Hm. I've suspected that for a while now..."
Now if someone then used this to argue that Asians should rule every country in the world, I would have a problem with that.

I have a friend who is smarter than me. Sometimes I struggle to keep up with his explanations of technical matters, and I often find myself mentally a step behind him. This could be a blow to my ego if I let it, since I'm accustomed to being (at least) one of the smartest people in most rooms.... but I figured out some while back that intellect is not remotely the sum total of a person's worth as a human being. I am who I am and he is who he is, but it would be foolish of me not to acknowlege his higher intellect since it is obvious. However, being a genius makes you superior in only ONE way, not in ALL ways. I am, for instance, better at figuring out what is going on in someone's head than he is.... that is, I have a higher "empathy quotient" or EQ.

Let's face it, the proof is in front of our eyes.... we are NOT all equal, we are NOT all the same. I've known people who seemed to be born with an inordinate array of talents and gifts.... tall, good looking, healthy, athletically gifted, highly intelligent, academically top-drawer, socially adept, the silver tongue and the gift of gab all rolled up into one person.... such people exist, here and there, and BOY do they make me feel like an under-achiever!

But, that's reality.

Now, in this case we're discussing certain differences that MIGHT exist between certain GROUPINGS of people that were orginally regional (ie Europe, Africa, Asia) and are referred to as "race" now.... but that term "race" carries unforunate connotations and baggage and evokes rapid and overwhelming emotional response in many. If we called them "regional genotypes" instead would it make it any better?

IQ measures certain cognitive functions based on standards and practices common to established Western Civilization. Western Civilization was established by Europeans, primarily. No shock that those of European stock do better at it, then, right? Hm, waitaminute.... even Asians from Asia do better on that darn IQ test than Caucasian Europeans! What's up with that?

Yet Europe had oceangoing ships and cannon and guns when Asia was still in the Middle Ages technologically.... how did that happen? Cultural preferences... Asia continued to favor stability and order over the chaos of rapid progress, while the Rennaisance in Europe kicked convention on its ass and pushed the Fast Forward button on science and technology. So which culture was really superior? The more intelligent Asians or the more technological Europeans?

In sum, they were simply different.... but it turned out that no matter how much more learning and wisdom the Confucian Magistrate might have, a war fleet of European ships armed with cannon were hard to argue with, pragmaticaly speaking.

I suppose my long rambling point here is that simply talking about how there may be real differences between regional genotypes isn't in and of itself something to freak out about, or necessarily assume that we're hoisting one genotype up as HOMO SUPERIOR and pushing others down as HOMO SLACKERUS.

IF this isn't mere quackery and junk science... and this Rushton guy is far from the first to look into this sort of thing.... then perhaps understanding our differences may give us clues about how to get along with each other better, rather than being yet another wedge to drive us apart. That's going to depend on our reaction to it.... but if we just reject a notion instantly without thinking about it, becuase it isn't PC or popular, we certainly won't know whether it might be of some positive use.

Perhaps it might turn out that a majority of African American children would learn better in an environment tailored to the specific strengths, weaknesses, learning styles and cultural assumptions common to the majority of their "Race"? If we don't look into that question we may never know if the answer could have helped people.

I'm just sayin'....