The IQ/Race Debate: Discussion with AstriaICOW

Reference List: 1) Considerations Relating to the Study of Group Differences in Intelligence (2007) http://pps.sagepub.com/content/2/2/194.abstract 2) Genome-wide association studies establish…

You may also like...

25 Responses

  1. gmccall22 says:

    Paul Thompson and an international team of researchers at the university of
    California, devised a new, large scale, genetic study. Genetic markers were
    identified that correlates with intelligence, but they only account for a
    paltry 1% of the variation in IQ.

    Both of you foolish women can have a paltry 1%. You both are foolish for
    even discussing old folklore, that have no basis in biology.

  2. andrew armour says:

    great discussion folks

  3. Zagg777 says:

    Apparently these ladies think that laughter is an appropriate intellectual
    response to someone’s article.

  4. Egalitarianjay02 says:

    Sofia Rune, are you familiar with Joseph Graves? He’s an evolutionary
    biologist who has critiqued Rushton’s work and maintains that there is no
    scientific basis to the claim of genetic differences related to
    intelligence between races.

    Here’s a quote from his book:

    In the end, the data that the psychometricians rely on to demonstrate
    racial difference in intelligence are simply the racial differences we
    already observe. William Shockley, for example, proposed that skin color
    was the metric by which we could measure intelligence. This despite no
    established physiological link between the loci that determine skin
    pigmentation and those that determine any aspect of mental functioning. Nor
    have the psychometricians been able to advance any credible evolutionary
    genetic mechanism to explain the origin of the consistent racial
    differences.

    We know that genetic differences among populations are created by the
    combined action of natural selection and genetic drift. The selection
    clines involved in producing human genetic variation differ independently
    from one another. There is no reason to suppose that these differences
    should have produced intellectual inferiority only in sub-Saharan Africans.
    Genetic drift cannot be invoked either, since drift events are random, and
    thus allelic variation related to intelligence that results from drift
    should also be scattered throughout human populations, as the case of the B
    allele illustrates.

    Thus to explain the consistency of inferior IQs in sub-Saharan Africans,
    one would have to suppose some form of natural selection that was operating
    only on these populations. J. Philippe Rushton attempts to accomplish this
    by utilizing an r- and K-selection scenario to explain the life history
    features of the three major races. Briefly, he argues that the human races
    fall on the r- and K-continuum. The theory of r- and K-selection was
    devised in the late 1970s to address why some species had short lives and
    reproduced slowly. Examples of organisms on different ends of the scale
    would be weeds which grow rapidly, but invest little in their bodily
    structures (r-selected) and trees, which grow slowly and invest large
    amounts in their structures (K-selected).

    According to Rushton’s view of the human races, Negroids are considered
    “weeds,” with high investments in reproduction, and thus less to invest in
    bodily structures such as brain mass, thereby having lower intelligence.
    Alternatively, Caucasoids and Asians are more “treelike,” with high
    investments in brain mass and thus greater intellect, and lower inputs to
    reproduction. I have examined his scenario and have argued that he fails.¹⁵
    This failure results from both an improper use of life history theory and a
    flawed analysis of the available data.

    The psychometric argument gets weaker when we examine the genetic
    variability within the human species, particularly the greater within-group
    than between-group variation. On solely genetic grounds one would expect
    these racial groups to be indistinguishable for a complex behavioral trait
    like intelligence. Indeed, even if intelligence were highly heritable, the
    establishment of differences in intellectual capacity among family groups
    within a supposed race would not mean that there would be differences among
    races. The argument for consistent genetic differentiation for IQ among
    races suffers from all of the points that I have raised. Each alone is a
    fatal error, and when taken together they invalidate the racist program of
    Shockley and his co-conspirators.

    Source: The Emperor’s New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at The
    Millennium chapter 10 The Race and IQ Fallacy p. 168-170

    This is an email of received from him:

    EgalitarianJay02: Do you have any studies that directly address Rushton’s
    claims of brain size differences between races?

    Graves: The evolutionary arguments are more important than any physical
    measurements because they address why and how any physical difference could
    exist. If Rushton cannot explain the mechanism that is responsible for any
    reputed difference, then his argument collapses like a house of cards. This
    is why his 1994 book was entitled Race, Evolution and Behavior: A Life
    History Perspective. Its goal was to explain using evolutionary theory (the
    only scientific means to explain human variation) why racial differences in
    intelligence exist. As I point out in my work, evolutionary science does
    not support this conclusion.

    As for supposed physical differences in head (or brain size). First, there
    has been no systematic measurement of cranial sizes for sufficient numbers
    of populations in humans. This is important because Africa and Asia are
    huge continents with many populations/ethnic groups. No physical
    measurement taken from 1 or a few populations could be expected to
    represent all Africans or Asians.

    Second, the relationship between “intelligence” and brain size/body ratio
    holds broadly over species level, but not within a species. So we can infer
    that Velicoraptor was more intelligent than T. Rex, but we cannot infer
    that any specific raptor was more intelligent than another due to
    differences in that ratio. In the same way we cannot infer that a larger
    brain gives more cognitive power in humans. Frederich Gauss, one of the
    greatest mathematicians of all time, had an incredibly small head and
    brain. Autopsy of his brain did reveal that his cerebral cortex had an
    incredibly high number of folds. But even if we could determine that there
    was a difference in cerebral cortex folding between Africans and Asians, we
    could not determine that that difference was due to genetic differences.

    The brain’s development (and hence that of the intellect) is profoundly
    influenced by environmental and developmental factors. Genetically
    identical groups of rats deprived of environmental stimuli were measured as
    less intelligent and had less cerebral folding than rats given
    environmental stimuli. In the modern world, there is no equivalence of
    social and physical environments between Africans/African Americans and
    Europeans/Euro- and Asian Americans. Therefore any intelligence difference
    one might measure (say in mean SAT scores, AFQT Tests etc.) cannot be shown
    to have anything to do with genetic differences between groups. There are
    far easier explanations for these differences, including social
    discrimination (stereotype threat), toxic environment, and malnutrition
    (which are all differentially visited upon African Americans). The
    heritability of intelligence (how much the trait is determined by genes or
    environment) has been estimated at around 0.50. This means that
    intelligence is about 50% genes and 50% environment. With this much
    environmental contribution, only experimental or observational designs that
    can equalize environment can give you any reasonable explanations. For the
    most part, this is impossible in racially stratified societies.

    I made all these points to Rushton directly in our 1997 debate at John Jay
    College of Criminal Justice. To say the least he really had no cogent
    response.

    Dr. Joseph L. Graves, Jr.
    Associate Dean for Research
    Professor of Biological Sciences
    Joint School of Nanosciences & Nanoengineering
    Suite 2200, Rm 104
    North Carolina A&T State University
    UNC Greensboro
    2901 E. Lee St.
    Greensboro, NC 27401

  5. OriginalMindTrick says:

    Very reasonable and fair discussion. It’s really important to cut through
    the political dogmatism of both extreme sides of this and see the truth in
    all it’s glory. I’m sure you pissed of both sides here.

  6. Marvin Williams says:

    Putting this one in discussion. I’m still not fully sure about this one.

    Personally, I’m more of a fan of looking at differences in ethnicity
    instead of race. I consider my race to be human. Might be splitting hairs,
    but . . . I don’t know.

    Lots of articles here. Lots of “data.” I think it’s a larger discussion
    that is much larger than this little (hour long) video.

  7. Sofia Rune says:

    Too bad she can’t seem to present any actual evidence and is stuck speaking
    in bumper stickers. No wonder people like you have a hard time
    understanding intelligence. There is no such thing as “self evident” in the
    world of science.

  8. Sofia Rune says:

    Soooo do you believe what you’re saying or are you just being a troll? I
    didn’t notice that guys comments until today.

  9. DEFACTO9 says:

    NO! James Watson is not a Geneticist you jackass.. he is a Structural
    chemist who used X-ray Crystalography to elucidate the structure of
    DNA…only!. Some say he stole the insights and inferences from a WOMAN. He
    then as a chemist, not a geneticist. made racist comment he could not
    defend with science. HE WAS THEREFORE SACKED by Cold Harbour. lol He
    essentially admitted his bigotry, so are you now saying his bigotry is
    scientific?

  10. Cal Naughton Jr says:

    Get over it Negro, you are a burden on society.

  11. Sofia Rune says:

    I have never ever at any point said that everyone is the same. It’s a nice
    strawman you default to though. What I’m wondering is why does it seem that
    river systems have more to do with ancient civilization than skin colour
    does. It’s an interesting pattern.

  12. GiggleHz says:

    meh, your jumping the assumption shark, i am not saying that because they
    run faster they are dumber, thats silly. i was using it as an example and a
    pretty obvious one too i think, of how there are obvious differences from
    one group of people to another, again ON AVERAGE. i am not saying that all
    blacks are dumb or violent, but i dont think its too hard to see how maybe
    different behavioral/personality traits would be more beneficial in a given
    area and therefore more likely to be passed on

  13. cant1be1original says:

    At the 34:00 mark “We don’t know that the disparity is that” You just
    finished saying that “that” “a very strong evidence heritable I.Q.”
    Contradiction. The only argument i heard you make was that I.Q. is not
    intelligence. Fine, but to some degree it does measure some kind of
    cognitive ability. Whatever you wish to call that ability is fine, but your
    admitting there is a difference between people and that genes play a
    factor. Sounded like an hour of semantics.

  14. blackdreamhunk2 says:

    white man tells truth black egypt watch?v=WJzVX_OHnOE&feature=related

  15. GiggleHz says:

    they are not truly extinct….a bit of them lives on i suppose in
    eurasians.

  16. GrunnLeggende Logikk says:

    The important thing is to EMBRACE RACIAL DIVERSITY. It doesn’t matter that
    Asians have higher average IQs than whites and that whites have higher
    average IQs than blacks. We must accept the differences of each race. Who
    cares if Blacks commit violent crimes at rate over forty times higher than
    whites and ninety times higher than Asians. We are who we are. Would you
    kill a wolf just because it killed your child? NO! It was just being a
    wolf! LOVE the wolf, bring it in to live in your home.

  17. Cal Naughton Jr says:

    “can Indians and Japanese be in the same category?” No, East and South
    Asian considered different in the studies.

  18. Sofia Rune says:

    Have you even read the paper by Greene that you’re referencing? We don’t
    know what specific parts of the Neanderthal genome ended up being conserved
    after the admixture events out of Africa. There is no evidence that alleles
    for higher intelligence were donated. What next? Are you going to trot out
    the boring old ASPM and MCPH1 bullshit? You guys are crazy predictable.

  19. Sofia Rune says:

    Rushton doesn’t really place East Asians much further above whites. He
    isn’t presenting an equal spectrum with whites perfectly in the middle. As
    for Rushton’s motives, whatever they are they are far from honest. He makes
    things up, he distorts data, he uses insanely biased sources… Talking to
    you I don’t think you’re a racist. I think you’ve heard some arguments that
    may superficially seem convincing but aren’t when you have specialized
    knowledge of the subject and access to literature.

  20. Zelusetradix says:

    Because our ancestors evolved to face adverse natural conditions rather
    than the intellectual and abstract reasoning problems posed by IQ tests.
    They had little use for skills specific to solving stuff like progressive
    matrices and there’s no evidence whatsoever linking the kind of
    intelligence measured by IQ tests to survival in the wild. What I mean is
    that IQ, as understood today, was of little relevance to our evolution,
    unless our ancestors had lived in a Zelda dungeon.

  21. zmondot321 says:

    The research and science on IQ has been consistent for over 100 years. I
    cannot fathom why there is still debate about this crap. Humans are
    stupid. A very small percentage of all populations and/or races created the
    modern society with philosophy and science. The top 5% created this world.

  22. blackdreamhunk2 says:

    St Maurice watch?v=75OSO3DB1bU&feature=channel_video_title

  23. Shaolin Drain says:

    judaism is the religion and these so called modern azkanazi jews are the
    people. True hebrews are very rare and hard to say who they are unless you
    compare their genome with others in the region of middle east.

  24. GiggleHz says:

    there are a number of sources that observe a brain size difference and if
    racism is really my driving motive or even rushtons, why on earth would we
    concede that yes east asians have a bit bigger brain and yes they are a bit
    smarter on average. If u are truly a person that values science then
    honesty should be the only motive.

  25. Sofia Rune says:

    Really? I have lots of literature discussing the utility (and sometimes
    lack of utility) of racial identification in medicine among other things.
    Anyone who actually bothers looking into the literature quickly realises
    it’s far from taboo to discuss the concept of race especially in light of
    molecular genetics. Of course, you didn’t do that did you? You likely just
    hear about stupid cases from maybe the 80s at the latest and have decided
    that must be how reality is.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>