Misconceptions Based on Race, 'Genetics', et. al.

Well, racially, there is no difference in genetics but there is in DNA combinations.

 

While the narrator makes a good point, the same could be said for the right wing. This idea that either side has some monopoly on human carnage and suffering can't be taken seriously. People have to remember that folks can switch sides at any time.

 

If you read the comments section of that video I addressed the author's distortion of Suzuki's words:

 

A matter of perception .....one tends to see what one wants to see especially so the devotees of political correctness the notorious marxist ideology that runs rampant across our society and deceives many...nothing new there....political correctness since its origins in cultural marxism has always been a big lie....and one that has created untold human suffering, the death of millions and is currently setting America up for a great fall.

Speaking of distortions note the commentator in the video stated that Rushton claimed White People were superior...an outrageous allegation(Rushton never claimed white people were superior) no doubt the commentator said that to rev up the hype and the hysteria that was so evident in this media orchestrated circus...it was quite evident that Rushton understood the pathetic nature of the orchestrated event and he seemed rather to enjoy seeing the stupidity of his opponents so clearly on display...aka the blacks and how they tried to advance their supposed 'victimhood' weeping crocodile tears that their children would be harmed by truthful investigations into the reality of genetics.

Some people simply cannot tolerate that other people may be smarter than they themselves are....instead going through life miserable and angry because they are not in the top tier of intellectual capability....always trying to be something they will never be....and the more time that goes by and as genetic research advances and provides more and more evidence that culture plays a minor role....btw which came first? Intelligence or culture. It is undeniable that intelligence determines or shapes the culture....societys with low i.q.'s have a less advanced culture aka the aborigines of Australia, the cannabilistic cultures in various backward societys, Africa etc.etc.etc. --- compared to a society with high i.q.'s such as the advanced European cultures.

Desperate people clutching at straws to try and disprove the obvious.....the biological basis of race....the differences in the various races etc. can delude themselves into fantasy by becoming obsessed with technical points which they do not understand but with which they easily coinfuse themselves and construct a false reality in their own mindsets thus once they achieve this fallacious nirvana conclude that everyone else is wrong...but genetic research continues to advance and offers the deluded nothing of substance to re-inforce their fantasies nor their politics of equalism.

Now excuse me whilst i switch to the playoffs....hmmmmm I wonder why most NFL players are black? Does that make them superior? Or just different? Or perhaps the NFL is waycist? Of course that would be the presumption if the majority of players were white.

http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=146692

 

It's not a matter of perception. LibertarianRealist clearly distorted the statements of Suzuki by trying to make it seem as if he believed in racial differences in intelligence but was being intellectually dishonest for the debate. Rushton did believe in the intellectual superiority of Whites over Blacks while conceding White inferiority to Asians. He didn't use the word superior but he didn't have to. That is the implication when you say one group has higher IQs than another. You're saying they are smarter or intellectually superior.

If you really believe in all of this garbage about race and intelligence why don't you address my 7 lines of evidence that debunk it?

 

I'm getting tired of reading your rants. You write an awful lot while not saying much of substance.

Respond to the 7 lines of evidence I provided showing that racial IQ gaps are 100% caused by environment. That answers all of your questions.

 

" I apologize in advance for the daunting length of this post. My sole excuse is that I should have made it still longer to cover the topic.

In dealing with any controversy, it’s usually healthiest to begin at the sticking point. On the question of the impact of biology on political ideology, it’s plain enough what that is: group differences in IQ in general, and the black-white gap in IQ in particular.

I believe the best evidence is that the black-white IQ gap is real, that IQ measures something basic about intelligence, and that the difference between the average IQ of blacks and the average IQ of whites is based in substantial part on genetic differences between the two groups."

https://liberalbiorealism.wordpress...-differences-in-iq-the-black-white-gap-in-iq/

 

Are you incapable of providing any original thought on this subject?

Again here are my 7 lines of evidence supporting the environmental model:

1. Studies showing ability tests that correlate up to 80% or 90% with IQ indicate that Black IQ is converging on White IQ.

2. Racial Admixture studies with 5 different types of designs indicate low correlation between high Black IQ and degree of White Ancestry.

3. Several Adoption Studies support an environmental model.

4. Intervention Programs show that Black IQ can be boosted.

5. Genome-wide Association Studies do not support the claim of racial differences in intelligence

6. Anthropological and Archaeological research does not support the racialist position

7. Population Genetics Research and Evolutionary Biology does not support the racialist position.

I also elaborated on points 5-7:

5. Genome-wide Association Studies do not support the claim of racial differences in intelligence

- Genome-wide Association Studies demonstrate that intelligence is highly polygenic. Genome-wide Association Studies as a method is highly problematic.
Even in the best of such studies such as those on height only about 11% of the variance can be explained by a reasonable number of loci (8-10). The remainder of the variance was explained by over 1000 loci. Studies of genome-wide association studies and intelligence associated variants in Europeans could not be replicated. Fst values for intelligence associated variants found in literature gave no indication of racial association.

Source: Race, Genomics and Intelligence: Slight Return by Joseph Graves

6. Anthropological and Archaeological research does not support the racialist position

- Anthropological research shows that human intelligence is an important trait with equal survival value. Traits of this nature do not show average differences between populations unlike traits of adaptive significance that differ depending on the environment. Human intelligence evolved with the slow emergence of linguistic behavior which is supported by biological data. The archaeological record shows that human survival strategies were the same during the Pleistocene Epoch indicating a commonality of general cognitive ability.

Sources:

1. An Anthropological Perspective on "Race" and Intelligence: The Non-Clinal Nature of Human Cognitive Capabilities Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 55, No. 2, 3 JAR Distinguished Lectures (Summer, 1999), pp. 245-264

2. Africanist Archaeology and Ancient IQ: Racial Science and Cultural Evolution in the Twenty-First Century World Archaeology, Vol. 38, No. 1, Race, Racism and Archaeology (Mar., 2006), pp. 72-92

7. Population Genetics Research and Evolutionary Biology does not support the racialist position.

- Research indicates that intelligence is a polygenic trait. As such for the hereditarian theory to be true there would have to be differences between geographic populations at thousands of loci for there to be genetic differences related to intelligence between races. Hereditarians have never been able to demonstrate mechanistically how such a phenomenon is even possible therefore their scenario is ridiculous. Population genetic theory predicts that traits controlled by many genes do not show a clinal distribution for the trait. Instead the genes controlling the trait are scattered within the population. The scientific literature also indicates that natural selection for intelligence is uniform throughout the world. Furthermore based on scientific knowledge of human evolution all human populations have a commonality in intelligence. The evidence for this is that humans descend primarily from one distinct evolutionary lineage and humans became anatomically and behaviorally modern in Africa. There is no evidence from an evolutionary standpoint for human intelligence evolving differently in different regions and the recent emergence of our species (based on evolutionary time scales) indicate that there was no time for such an event to occur.

Sources:

1. The Pseudoscience of Psychometry and The Bell Curve The Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 64, No. 3, Myths and Realities: African Americans and the Measurement of Human Abilities (Summer, 1995), pp. 277-294

2. What a tangled web he weaves: Race, reproductive strategies and Rushton’s life history theory Anthropological Theory Vol 2(2): 131–154 (2002)


You can either respond to these points or you can't.

 

Ah, man. I already liked one of your posts. The argument about natural selection is one that always struck me. There are regions of the world where pale skin is not advantageous, or where certain HLA types might not be advantageous. Consequently, we see regional variation in these. However, there is no region where intelligence is not advantageous.

The only groups where I would find this argument compelling would be for reproductively isolated ethnic groups that exist in small or previously bottlenecked communities. Perhaps in some Jewish or Amish populations, you could find some genetic deviation from the norm. Even then, cultural influence would probably wash out any genetic influence, and potentially account for the difference. What do you think of those cases?

I agree though, if you're talking about some difference between "black" or "white" or "asian" people, those terms each encompass way too much genetic diversity to make such statements.

 

'In his latest book, State of Emergency, Patrick J. Buchanan says ignoring the “great taboo” of race is “like not telling one’s doctor of a recurring pain that could kill you.” Mr. Buchanan was writing about immigration, but in the case of the racial gap in test scores, a better analogy is of a doctor unwilling to diagnose a disease for fear the truth will demoralize the patient. Journalists, commentators and politicians agonize over the gap, but the argument over causes never gets beyond racism, welfare, ghetto culture, and poverty.

Well, almost never. One of the few high-profile social scientists who discuss race and IQ is Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute. The Bell Curve, which he co-authored in 1994 with the late Richard Hernnstein, is by far the best-known book about heredity, intelligence, and race. While the left has relentlessly attacked the book, Mr. Murray has, compared to other scientific heretics, been relatively unscathed. He is still well respected by mainstream conservatives, and even by some liberals.'

For some years after The Bell Curve Mr. Murray wrote very little about race and intelligence. After the controversy over Lawrence Summers’s comments about women at Harvard, however, he returned to the subject in the September 2005 issue of Commentary in an article called “The Inequality Taboo.” It stimulated discussion on the Internet but was otherwise ignored. On Nov. 28, 2006, Mr. Murray publicly debated the prominent egalitarian James Flynn at the American Enterprise Institute, on the question “The Black-White IQ Gap: Is It Closing? Will It Ever Go Away?”
===============================================================================================================
The article below is reproduced from the website of Commentary magazine. It is a fully annotated version of the article that was published in the September 2005 issue of Commentary.
The Inequality Taboo
by Charles Murray

When the late Richard Herrnstein and I published The Bell Curve eleven years ago, the furor over its discussion of ethnic differences in IQ was so intense that most people who have not read the book still think it was about race. Since then, I have deliberately not published anything about group differences in IQ, mostly to give the real topic of The Bell Curve—the role of intelligence in reshaping America’s class structure—a chance to surface.

The Lawrence Summers affair last January made me rethink my silence. The president of Harvard University offered a few mild, speculative, off-the-record remarks about innate differences between men and women in their aptitude for high-level science and mathematics, and was treated by Harvard’s faculty as if he were a crank. The typical news story portrayed the idea of innate sex differences as a renegade position that reputable scholars rejected.

It was depressingly familiar. In the autumn of 1994, I had watched with dismay as The Bell Curve’s scientifically unremarkable statements about black IQ were successfully labeled as racist pseudoscience. At the opening of 2005, I watched as some scientifically unremarkable statements about male-female differences were successfully labeled as sexist pseudoscience.

The Orwellian disinformation about innate group differences is not wholly the media’s fault. Many academics who are familiar with the state of knowledge are afraid to go on the record. Talking publicly can dry up research funding for senior professors and can cost assistant professors their jobs. But while the public’s misconception is understandable, it is also getting in the way of clear thinking about American social policy.

Good social policy can be based on premises that have nothing to do with scientific truth. The premise that is supposed to undergird all of our social policy, the founders’ assertion of an unalienable right to liberty, is not a falsifiable hypothesis. But specific policies based on premises that conflict with scientific truths about human beings tend not to work. Often they do harm.

One such premise is that the distribution of innate abilities and propensities is the same across different groups. The statistical tests for uncovering job discrimination assume that men are not innately different from women, blacks from whites, older people from younger people, homosexuals from heterosexuals, Latinos from Anglos, in ways that can legitimately affect employment decisions. Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 assumes that women are no different from men in their attraction to sports. Affirmative action in all its forms assumes there are no innate differences between any of the groups it seeks to help and everyone else. The assumption of no innate differences among groups suffuses American social policy. That assumption is wrong.

When the outcomes that these policies are supposed to produce fail to occur, with one group falling short, the fault for the discrepancy has been assigned to society. It continues to be assumed that better programs, better regulations, or the right court decisions can make the differences go away. That assumption is also wrong.

Hence this essay. Most of the following discussion describes reasons for believing that some group differences are intractable. I shift from “innate” to “intractable” to acknowledge how complex is the interaction of genes, their expression in behavior, and the environment. “Intractable” means that, whatever the precise partitioning of causation may be (we seldom know), policy interventions can only tweak the difference at the margins.

I will focus on two sorts of differences: between men and women and between blacks and whites. Here are three crucial points to keep in mind as we go along:

1. The differences I discuss involve means and distributions. In all cases, the variation within groups is greater than the variation between groups. On psychological and cognitive dimensions, some members of both sexes and all races fall everywhere along the range. One implication of this is that genius does not come in one color or sex, and neither does any other human ability. Another is that a few minutes of conversation with individuals you meet will tell you much more about them than their group membership does.

2. Covering both sex differences and race differences in a single, non-technical article, I had to leave out much in the print edition of this article. This online version is fully annotated and includes extensive supplementary material.

3. The concepts of “inferiority” and “superiority” are inappropriate to group comparisons. On most specific human attributes, it is possible to specify a continuum running from “low” to “high,” but the results cannot be combined into a score running from “bad” to “good.” What is the best score on a continuum measuring aggressiveness? What is the relative importance of verbal skills versus, say, compassion? Of spatial skills versus industriousness? The aggregate excellences and shortcomings of human groups do not lend themselves to simple comparisons. That is why the members of just about every group can so easily conclude that they are God’s chosen people. All of us use the weighting system that favors our group’s strengths.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-inequality-taboo/

 

The Bell Curve Today

Here are ten points about The Bell Curve that remain important today.

1. How in the world did an 845-page book of social science statistics—including 94 quantitative graphs, 109 pages of notes, and a 58-page bibliography—sell more than 400,000 copies?

(Conversely, how in the world is this massive bestseller out of print today?)

The usual answer: “controversy.” But controversial books are more likely to be squelched than flourish, as the sad fate of the other outstanding IQ books of the Nineties showed.

For example, Dan Seligman’s 1992 A Question of Intelligence, which remains the best quick introduction to IQ, got a snippy two-paragraph review in the New York Times. (Here is Herrnstein’s review in the old, pre-purge National Review.)

Similarly, the two books both entitled The g Factor that were written in the later 1990s barely saw the light of day. Arthur Jensen‘s monumental summary of 30 years of research ended up at a mail order publishing house. (Here’s my review, which the post-purge National Review commissioned in 1998, but then turned down.)

Meanwhile, Chris Brand’s suavely philosophical The g Factor was actually yanked from store shelves by its publisher, John Wiley & Co., only a couple of weeks after its release following an indiscreet but irrelevant interview Brand gave a newspaper. (You can download Brand’s book here.)

But rereading The Bell Curve, it’s easy to see one reason it broke through: it’s a model of how a serious nonfiction book ought to look and read.

The ubiquitous charts are elegantly uncluttered, yet get the story across lucidly, using only black, white and shades of gray. Even the text looks more inviting than usual because a tiny extra amount of leading was inserted between the lines. And the prose style is vivid yet calm, direct yet judicious. As Murray commented shrewdly:

“The descriptions of The Bell Curve as an angry, racist polemic have led people in bookstores to pick it up to see what the fuss is about. The pages to which they turn are nothing like what they expect, their curiosity is piqued, and some of them buy it.”

2. The admirable moral character displayed by The Bell Curve authors.

Humble, endlessly curious, honest, and large-hearted…the contrast between them and their critics—so many of them pompous, vicious, slanderous, and small—is overwhelming.

3. The powerful content of The Bell Curve.

This falls into two categories. The first is a far-ranging survey of what had previously been discovered about cognitive testing, citing over 1,000 sources in a massive bibliography. The second was new: an analysis of the lives of a nationally-representative sample of about 12,000 young people a decade after the military had paid them in 1980 to take the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery [ASVAB]. Four of the ten subtests within the ASVAB comprise the IQ test that the military requires all applicants for enlistment to take—the Armed Forces Qualification Test.

The AFQT hadn’t been renormed against the civilian population since 1944, so in 1980 the military hired the academics who had set up the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY) the year before to give their enormous sample the AFQT.

When reinterviewed a decade later in 1990, the test-takers were now 25-33 years old. This allowed to Herrnstein and Murray to see how well their youthful IQs predicted their status as adults.

(Can’t accept the results Herrnstein and Murray got? Download their data from this page maintained by Prof. Eric Rasmusen of Indiana U. and crunch the numbers yourself.)

It’s constantly said in the Establishment Media that IQ and IQ tests have been “discredited.” But the institution that has studied IQ testing in the greatest detail over the last 87 years—the U.S. military—remains utterly devoted to the value of cognitive tests. The Department of Defense says “AFQT scores are the primary measure of recruit potential.”

Because the military spends billions to get high quality recruits, the average IQ of enlisted personnel is much higher than many civilians expect. About two thirds of enlisted men and women have IQs above the national average. Almost no recruits (1.1%) fall below the 30th percentile in IQ.

Did the violent denunciations of the book that was, after all, based on the military’s test cause it to, well, rethink its use of IQ testing?

Absolutely not.

4. Contrary to the detractors’ myth, relatively little of The Bell Curve concerns race.

The first 126 pages described “the emergence of a cognitive elite” via the higher education system. The heart of the book is the next 142 pages on “cognitive classes and social behavior,” which examines the impact of IQ on poverty, schooling, unemployment, family, crime, and so forth. Here, Herrnstein and Murray looked only at data drawn from non-Hispanic whites—to avoid confusing the effect of IQ with that of race.

Then, from p. 269 to p. 315, comes the much-denounced Chapter 13 on “Ethnic Differences in Cognitive Ability.” Murray and Herrnstein carefully step through the evidence, pro and con, and reach the following judicious conclusion:

“If the reader is now convinced that either the genetic or environmental explanation has won out to the exclusion of the other, we have not done a sufficiently good job of presenting one side or the other. It seems highly likely to us that both genes and the environment have something to do with racial differences. What might the mix be? We are resolutely agnostic on that issue; as far as we can determine, the evidence does not yet justify an estimate.”

That’s it—the conclusion to the chapter that launched a thousand screeds. Not surprisingly, it’s almost never quoted. Try looking for parts of it in Google. Herrnstein and Murray’s critics prefer to denounce straw persons.

5. Herrnstein and Murray were right, dammit.

My friend Gregory Cochran, the physicist turned evolutionary biologist, likes to ask about controversial ideas, “Well, if it were true, how would the world look different from what we see around us?” The short answer for The Bell Curve: the world portrayed in the book is the world we live in to within a rounding error.

6. The Bell Curve marked the climax of first-generation neoconservatism.

Today, of course, neoconservatism means messianic Invade-the-World-Invite-the-World immigration and foreign policies. But for its first three decades, beginning with the founding of The Public Interest journal in 1965 by Irving Kristol and Daniel Bell, neoconservatism meant intensely quantitative social science research that cast doubt on liberal pieties about race and ethnicity.

Landmarks in the evolution of this long-lost form of neoconservatism: the 1965 report by Daniel Patrick Moynihan raising the alarm that the illegitimacy rate among blacks had reached 22 percent (it’s now triple that); James Q. Wilson’s 1975 book Thinking About Crime, which introduced the commonsensical solution that finally quelled the long crime wave of 1961-1995. (Lock up more criminals for longer, because they can’t victimize the public when they’re in prison.)

Charles Murray was at the neoconservative Manhattan Institute when he became interested in researching IQ. The Manhattan Institute dropped him like a hot potato. But he was immediately picked by the neocon American Enterprise Institute.

The Bell Curve was the crowning achievement of 30 years of neoconservative analysis … and, as we’ll see below, its death blow.

7. The backlash to The Bell Curve was the most unhinged in recent intellectual history.

As Cochran says: “Nobody ever gets that really mad at somebody unless they are telling the truth.”

The hysteria began among the “neoliberals” at The New Republic. Neoliberals are, more or less, neoconservatives who continue to vote Democratic. Neoliberalism doesn’t much exist outside of journalism, but a neoliberal pundit can carve out an influential career starting at the Washington Monthly, moving up to The New Republic and Slate, and finally making some decent money at Newsweek and the Washington Post.

The New Republic’s then editor, Andrew Sullivan, invited Herrnstein and Murray to introduce The Bell Curve in an 11-page cover story entitled “Race and IQ“ in the October 31, 1994 issue. Sullivan’s staff, however, rebelled at the very thought that such a vile essay would desecrate the pages of their magazine.

Why this berserk response? My theory: Honest talk about IQ exposes some deeply personal inconsistencies among our most influential thinkers. The typical white intellectual claims he wants to censor discussion of IQ to shield black self-esteem, but his reactions reveal that he finds it a peril to his own. Secretly, he considers himself superior to ordinary white people for two contradictory reasons: a] he constantly proclaims belief in human equality, but they don’t; b] he has a high IQ, but they don’t.

To maintain peace, Sullivan printed 17 almost uniformly ill-informed replies. Only owner Martin Peretz’s was cautiously positive.

In National Review’s December 5, 1994 symposium on The Bell Curve, Dan Seligman lamented:

“A howling mob of liberal commentators not knowing what in hell they are talking about is a dispiriting spectacle, and media reaction to the Herrnstein—Murray book has been infinitely depressing. I cannot remember any other work of scholarship, in any field at all, that has been assailed so cavalierly by writers ignorant of the material and manifestly unconcerned about accurately representing its ideas.

“I used to think that Mickey Kaus was a smart and serious guy. But there he was in The New Republic, attacking the authors for resisting ‘a near-avalanche of evidence that the black-white difference in IQ is a function of environment rather than heredity.’ The avalanche cited by Kaus consists of studies he apparently learned about from The Bell Curve itself. Its authors judiciously lead readers through a wide range of studies, some consistent with a purely environmental explanation of racial IQ differences, some powerfully suggesting that environment alone cannot explain them all. Kaus points to several studies in the former group, dismissively mentions one in the latter group, and ignores the survey data cited by Herrnstein and Murray, which tell us that expert opinion is strongly tilted toward some genetic contribution to the gap.”

Not terribly long after, Peretz fired Sullivan—in part, reportedly, because TNR’s staff never forgave Sullivan for publishing Herrnstein and Murray.

The New Republic, and neoliberalism in general, has not recovered its intellectual heft. Neoliberalism degenerated into high-IQ snarkiness—fast brain-food for smart people with short attention spans, exemplified by the Michael Kinsley-edited Slate, where Mickey is now the star blogger.

8. The neocons’ slow distancing of themselves from The Bell Curve marked the death of neoconservatism as a serious intellectual movement.

Initially, neoconservatives rallied bravely to The Bell Curve’s defense. Ten years later, their comments are surprising to read.

James Q. Wilson defended the book staunchly. (Unusually, Wilson has never backtracked about the importance of IQ—he wanted me to write an article on it for The Public Interest in 2000, but Nathan Glazer vetoed my proposal. That became instead the five part VDARE.COM series called “How to Help the Left Half of the Bell Curve.”)

Murray’s AEI colleague Michael Ledeen also added (rightly): “Never has such a moderate book attracted such an immoderate response.” Another AEI colleague, Michael Novak, also praised it.

And Michael Barone even wrote in NR:

“Perhaps because I’m congenitally optimistic, I think The Bell Curve’s message is already widely understood, by the American people if not by the elite. Ordinary citizens know that some people are in significant ways more intelligent than others, that only a relative few are extremely bright or extremely dull, and that intelligence bunches up at the center. They know that intelligence is not randomly distributed among members of different identifiable racial and ethnic groups. These are lessons that are taught in everyday life, and you have to undergo a pretty sophisticated indoctrination and enlist in a tightly disciplined ideological army to believe otherwise.”

Commentary magazine, the neocon bible, printed Murray’s long reply to his book’s critics in the May 1995 issue, and his extensive response to letter writers in the August 1995 issue.

But then the neocons, perhaps worn down by the constant slinging about of the terrifying R-word, lost heart.

Barone has long since abandoned all mention of IQ. Seligman does continue to write for Commentary, but the magazine has grown so hostile to Murray that, when his intensely quantitative Human Accomplishment came out last year, it assigned the completely innumerate Terry Teachout to review it. He produced a predictably bad notice. (Here’s my review and here’s John Derbyshire’s.) And Commentary managing editor Gary Rosen panned Human Accomplishment in the Wall Street Journal.

After the Bell Curve wars, neoconservatism has become increasingly anti-quantitative and pro-ideological. On issues like university quotas, you no longer see quantitative research from neocons—just repeated affirmations of the principle of colorblindness.

Quantitative research quickly leads to the Bell Curve gap. And that’s now a no-go zone.

Today, Abigail and Stefan Thernstrom are the neocons’ designated authorities on racial differences in educational achievement. They frantically attempt to ignore the IQ elephant in the living room.

In neoconservatism’s post-Bell Curve atmosphere of anti-realism, enthusiasm mounted for utopian schemes to remodel the Middle East using the U.S. military as a hammer. The disastrous results are today visible to all.

9. What has Murray found on IQ since The Bell Curve?

I’m aware of two further studies Murray did on the NLSY database:

—An ingenious study of pairs of American siblings raised together in non-poor homes.

Murray described his findings in the Sunday Times of London in 1997:

“Each pair consists of one sibling with an IQ in the normal range of 90-110, a range that includes 50% of the population. I will call this group the normals. The second sibling in each pair had an IQ either higher than 110, putting him in the top quartile of intelligence (the brights) or lower than 90, putting him in the bottom quartile (the dulls). These constraints produced a sample of 710 pairs. How much difference did IQ make? Earned income is a good place to begin. In 1993, when we took our most recent look at them, members of the sample were aged 28-36. That year, the bright siblings earned almost double the average of the dull: £22,400 compared to £11,800. The normals were in the middle, averaging £16,800. “[IQ Will Put You In Your Place, Charles Murray, Sunday Times, UK, Day 25, 1997]

These earnings gaps are likely to widen with age, as the blue-collar workers’ bodies wear out and therefore their incomes stagnate or fall.

Within families, parents do a better job of equalizing children’s environments than any government less tyrannical than the Khmer Rouge could accomplish.

Yet, even with the same upbringing, IQ differences are both substantial and play a huge role in the kids’ prosperity as adults.

—Second, Murray’s 1999 attempt to see if the Flynn Effect—the multi-decade upward drift in raw IQ scores—was leading to a convergence of black and white IQs.

Murray was able to do this because, by the 1996 wave of NLSY interviews, over 6,000 children of the females in the sample had given birth to children who had been tested on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary IQ test.

Murray reported:

“In the two generations of the NLSY, no convergence has occurred. The BW [black-white] difference on a highly g-loaded cognitive test for the 1st generation of the NLSY, born from 1957—64, was 16.6 points, amounting to 1.24 SDs relative to the black and white distributions. For the 2nd generation, born primarily in the 1980s, the difference on a widely used test of verbal cognitive ability was 17.8 points, or 1.26 SDs. The estimated magnitude of the BW difference in the 2nd generation is robust, surviving a variety of hypotheses about possible sources of attenuation.”

So, despite the Flynn effect, the black-white IQ gap was almost exactly the same from the first generation to the next.

10. Dick Herrnstein was a great man and his death a great tragedy.

Herrnstein [click here for Peter Brimelow’s interview with him] died in September 1994, just before publication of The Bell Curve. Murray told this story in his obituary for National Review—which can also serve as the last word (for now) on The Bell Curve Wars:

“About four years ago, shortly after Dick and I had begun to collaborate on a new book about intelligence and social policy, we were talking over a late-evening Scotch at his home in Belmont, Mass. We had been musing about the warning shots the prospective book had already drawn and the heavy fire that was sure to come. The conversation began to depress me, and I said, ‘Why the hell are we doing this, anyway?’

“Dick recalled the day when, as a young man, he had been awarded tenure. It was his dream fulfilled—a place in the university he so loved, the chance to follow his research wherever it took him, economic security. For Dick, being a tenured professor at Harvard was not just the perfect job, but the perfect way to live his life.

“It was too good to be true; there had to be a catch. What’s my part of the bargain? he had asked himself.

“‘And I figured it out,’ he said, looking at me with that benign, gentle half-smile of his. ‘You have to tell the truth.’

“There was no self-congratulation in his voice, just an answer to my question.”

by Steve Sailer

 

I think in the case of populations like the Amish and Ashkenazi Jews where there is a high level of inbreeding you could end up with numerous deleterious genes that negatively effect the gene pool which would result in a number of hereditary diseases as is the case with Jews. Ashkenazi Jews also have a higher average IQ than other populations but I believe this is due to culture rather than genetics. However I do believe that selective breeding based on a good genetic program could result in a high IQ population. Let's say we wanted to make a population of geniuses (IQ of 140). If we controlled the breeding of this population by identifying high IQ individuals through psychometric tests, and insured that they had very high birth rates we could create a large population of very smart people. We could also control for athleticism, height, health and external appearance in addition to intelligence. Basically if we mated humans like dogs we could end up with a new breed of superhumans. This is what Suzuki was talking about.

[MENTION=58260]ElDiablo[/MENTION]

It seems that all you can do is copy text and rant. You have deliberately ignored my request to address my points indicating that you are unable to do so.

 

New Report Details Racial Gap Among US Children

David Crary, ABC News

In every region of America, white and Asian children are far better positioned for success than black, Latino and American Indian children, according to a new report appealing for urgent action to bridge this racial gap.

Titled “Race for Results,” the report is being released Tuesday by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, which for decades has worked to improve child well-being in the United States.

{snip} The new report tackles the topic head-on, with charts and ratings that convey dramatic racial discrepancies.

At the core of the report is a newly devised index based on 12 indicators measuring a child’s success from birth to adulthood. The indicators include reading and math proficiency, high school graduation data, teen birthrates, employment prospects, family income and education levels, and neighborhood poverty levels.

Using a single composite score with a scale of one to 1,000, Asian children have the highest index score at 776, followed by white children at 704.

“Scores for Latino (404), American-Indian (387) and African-American (345) children are distressingly lower, and this pattern holds true in nearly every state,” said the report.

Patrick McCarthy, the Casey Foundation’s president, said the findings are “a call to action that requires serious and sustained attention from the private, nonprofit, philanthropic and government sectors to create equitable opportunities for children of color.”

{snip}

For black children, the states with the lowest scores were in the South and upper Midwest–with Wisconsin at the bottom, followed closely by Mississippi and Michigan. The highest scores were in states with relatively small black populations–Hawaii, New Hampshire, Utah and Alaska.

Outcomes varied for different subgroups of Asian and Latino children. For example, in terms of family income levels, children of Southeast Asian descent–Burmese, Hmong, Laotian, Cambodian and Vietnamese–faced greater hurdles than children whose families came from India, Japan, the Philippines and China.

Among Latinos, children of Mexican and Central American descent faced the biggest barriers to success; those of Cuban and South American descent fared better in the index.

{snip}

Among its recommendations, the report urged concerted efforts to collect and analyze race-specific data on child well-being that could be used to develop programs capable of bridging the racial gap. It said special emphasis should be placed on expanding job opportunities as children in the disadvantaged groups enter adulthood.

“Regardless of our own racial background or socio-economic position, we are inextricably interconnected as a society,” the report concluded. “We must view all children in America as our own–and as key contributors to our nation’s future.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and so it goes..............political correctness will never allow the government to institute realistic school reforms to address this problem....what they will do is to pour more money into programs to try and make all children equal....which of course is a waste of financial resources.

What needs to be done is to train these disadvantaged (no fault of their own) children into skills with which they might be able to make a living.....aka shop classes.

 

no, we need to guaruntee them quality education

 

Those children with extremely low i.q.'s simply cannot absorb a academic type education...no matter how much they are helped.....what they do is get bored and disrupt classes....even intimidating and harassing the few black children that are capable of handling the material...accuse them of trying to be white, bully and in many cases physically assault them....that is the reality which the politically correct devotees will not recognize...hence no realilstic remedies for these low i.q. children will be made available.

http://www.livescience.com/15694-bullying-black-latino-grades.html

 

Bullying isn't unique to low IQ Black students. Whites with developmental problems bully people too. Some students with mental problems really need remedial classes and others need intervention programs to help them along at an early age. You seem to be saying that we should just accept that some people are stupid and put them in shop classes so they can get a low functioning job. I'm not arguing that everyone is born a genius but everyone who struggles isn't necessarily doing it because of genetic deficits.

And the real point is that group differences in IQ are not caused by genetic differences. There is nothing wrong with Blacks, Hispanics or women genetically. Environmental differences explain the gap.

 

'Doing research on race and IQ has become taboo in many places … A well-known black ‘social scientist’ urged me not to do any such research. His stated reason was that it would ‘dignify’ Professor Arthur Jensen’s thesis of a genetic basis for black-white differences in IQ scores. But my own suspicion was that he was afraid that the research would prove Jensen right.'

Are blacks genetically lower in intelligence and higher in psychopathy than whites?

http://prodos.thinkertothinker.com/...igence-and-higher-in-psychopathy-than-whites/

 

You mentioned it in context of lighter skinned Blacks. I didn't see the relevancy other than a red-herring.

But you don't have any evidence a) colorism exists or b) it positively affects lighter skinned Blacks.

Have they? What data do you have?

Have SAT/ACT, etc., narrowed in the last the 35 years?

I'm not making assumptions. I'm asking if you have, and saying if you haven't, that would speak volumes.

Have you researched whether the IQ/academic testing gap of Blacks and coloreds has narrowed with Whites?

I will give that a read.

 

What you asked is evidence of socialization effects on IQ. My mentioning of socialization in infancy was not a red herring I was simply providing you with the evidence for my point.

I provided you a full length article establishing that colorism exists and that it affects light-skinned Blacks in many ways.

The details are in this article in the first section:

HEREDITY, ENVIRONMENT, AND RACE DIFFERENCES IN IQ A Commentary on Rushton and Jensen (2005) Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2005, Vol. 11, No. 2, 302–310

No, you clearly assumed I hadn't before asking me if I have.

Your words:

I've looked in to it and I can't find any reliable data on the current status of Black and Colored test scores in South Africa.

My point that Colored children often go to better schools should not be overlooked in this discussion.

Sounds good.

By the way I never got a reply from that Harvard statistician. I could try others but I believe my point stands on that. The higher the correlation the greater the relationship between two attributes. That's why ElDiablo makes such a big deal about a correlation of 0.80 for the role of genetics in adult IQ rather than 0.50. Lower correlations between White ancestry and high Black IQ support an environmental explanation. The lower the better. It's basic math.

 

Environment clearly has the strongest effect during the early years, when children have the least influence over their environments. In adolescence and adulthood, as their own genes increasingly govern their choices of environments, people more closely reflect more purely genetic propensities.

This is clear from adoption studies. The IQs of adopted children have a reported 0.13 correlation with IQs of adoptive mothers but a correlation twice as great with biological mothers. By mid adolescence, the correlation with the adoptive mother has dropped close to zero while the correlation with the biological mother has increased slightly. Likewise, fraternal twins have more similar IQs when they are children — when their environments are established by their parents — than when they grow older and make their own choices. Identical twins, however, maintain their marked similarity of IQs throughout life, presumably because their identical genes push them to seek very similar environments even as adults.
Genes or environment?

Even small children establish their own environments to some degree. A bright, sunny child elicits different reactions from parents and strangers than does an ill-tempered one. Thus, even some of the effects on personality and intelligence that count as environmental are, to some degree, influenced by genes. As children grow older the parental environment increasingly becomes a reaction to the child’s genotype rather than an independent, external force.

Why is there so much resistance to genetic explanations for human difference, despite increasingly irrefutable evidence for it? One reason is a quasi-Marxist longing for human equality, what appears to be a genuine revulsion for the brute fact of unbridgeable gaps. Another seems to be a fear that genetic explanations would lead inevitably to forcible, eugenic measures.

The curious thing is that environmental explanations still leave what amount to unbridgeable gaps in achievement. Nor do they dispel the bogey of forcible government intervention that eugenicists, we are always warned, secretly desire. Massive transfers of wealth and decades of government intrusion have already failed to equalize achievement or even begin to narrow the black/white IQ gap. Even if the environmentalists were right, it would take unimaginable tyranny to equalize what even Communism failed to equalize. Much of the opposition to genetics comes from people who make a living in the uplift trade and who would be exposed as useless if the truth were known.

The social engineers are not even self-consistent. As The g Factor notes, if parental environment counts for so much, liberals should be in the business of controlling procreation just as ruthlessly as they think eugenicists would. If environment accounts for everything, why do liberals not forbid all baby-making and child-rearing in housing projects?

It a disgrace that psychology has neglected and downplayed the reality and heritability of intelligence, and much of the profession engages in outright malpractice.
Streaming or grouping of students by ability should begin immediately. .... squeamishness over inherent differences in ability fuels the current fashion for shoving everyone into the same classes, but this makes everyone suffer. Dim students hold the good ones back and good ones outstrip and humiliate the dim ones. There are perhaps a few talented teachers who can pitch the same lesson simultaneously to children of different abilities, but most cannot. There is no basis in the fear that bright children may not be “mature” enough to skip grades. Gifted children are happiest with friends of the same mental age, not chronological age.

 

ElDiablo, did you forget to post your source? Plagiarism is not a good look for you. You really need to stop acting as if you wrote these articles. I can tell when it's you and when you copy/paste from somewhere else. Your writing is simply not on that level. The article makes ridiculous arguments. The Black/White IQ gap has reduced in recent years and there is no credible evidence for the genetic hypothesis for its cause. We've been over this. You're not getting anywhere with these copy/pastes from racist websites. You could help your position by addressing my 7 lines of evidence supporting the environmental model but you're not capable of doing this.

 

He's actually using this thread as a promotional site for skeevy websites.

Unfortunately, I don't see him finishing his promotional stunt any time soon.

That said, thank you for having the patience to address and counter a lot of these ideas.

 

I don't care what your article on colorism in the US says, or what you claim it says - it doesn't say, rather, support what you asserted of colorism existing in schools and lighter skinned blacks benefitting from colorism.

This fits your pattern where your sources on which you make your claims are questionable and continue to use the same arguments without qualification.

The bottom line is you presented *no* evidence of colorism existing or affecting IQ.

I also never said a 0.20 correlation coefficient was high; I said it was low but showed white heritage correlated with increase in black IQ, and that is impossible to ascertain the cause for white heritage increasing black IQ from admixture studies.

 

Oh my bad....hehheh Either that or I was just checking to see if you are still reading my posts. I tossed you a bone awhilst back and you completely missed it.

Bottom Line neither side has the absolute scientific proof in regards to Environment vs. genetic....as of yet. But the more research that is done the closer the day will come when it will be absolutely clear that the genes are in charge. The black leadership has too great a fear of that ....if it is ever accepted by the powers that be...then perhaps they may actually institute a educational system that will benefit all those who currently gain nothing from attending a very expensive baby sitting service...paid for by the White Working Class.

I go with the genetic view because the ones doing that research are dedicated to the truth ....wherever it leads......those whose research you report have a big agenda and the pc devotees have demonstrated time and again they are more concerned about their agenda than the truth....for which they have little or no regard....just the nature of pc...being transformed here from a failed marxist nation which spent decades trying to make everyone equal....they failed....but the pc elements in America seem not to have noticed.........thus it is costing the taxpayers a fortune trying to make the equalism dream of political correctness come true here in America...but obviously it will never happen....though it is inflicting tremendous damage and will continue to do so....unless there is some kind of dramatic change in American Politics.