I see a lot of people talking about how there’s not such thing as certain behavior for different races and how we basically, without saying these words, are “blank slates”. People recognize physical differences between races, but not behavioral and cognitive ones? If you say to someone that peoples descended from West Africa have a certain gene, which 70 percent of them have, that give them fast twitch muscle fibers, which fire quickly but tire faster which allows them to win the 100 meter dash and reign over it in the Olympics, no one will call you a racist. A white man has won the World’s Strongest man every year from present day since 1974. Whites and Asians have slow twitch muscle fibers which allow them to be better in strength sports than African descended peoples. Here are the differences between the 2.
Type I fibers are different than type IIb fibers for many reasons. You can think of them as opposites. Type I is for long endurance activities while type IIb is for short fast bursts. Type I fibers are highly oxidative and are not likely to hypertrophy as much. Type IIb fibers are highly gycolytic and tend to hypertrophy more than type I fibers. Type I fibers are also known as red fibers due to their abundant supply of blood. Type IIb fibers have little blood causing them to be white in appearance. source
With that being said, why do people accept physical differences, such as those listed above, and not cognitive and behavioral differences? Why do people believe that “we are all the same” and that we are “blank slates” that are to be molded by our environment when that’s simply not true?
We get lied to from a very early age that we are all the same and that the differences between us only come down to environment, meaning the environment you’re raised in and grow up in, and not talking about the real reason, which is the type of environment that your ancestors evolved in for tens of thousands of years. They deny it because it goes against their liberal narrative of egalitarianism, which is basically a religion to the left. But, if that’s the case, then why do they push forward literal racist programs, such as Affirmative Action, if we are all the same and malleable to our environments? Why not put blacks and other “misfortuned” groups into high SES homes where they can get the correct environment they need to be successful and get high IQ, so they can be successful as IQ is one of the best descriptors for success and outcomes in life? It’s been tried already. It didn’t work.
In 1976, a study was conducted called the Minnesota Transracial Adoption study where they took children of different races who were adopted into different families and tested their IQs at age 7 and again at age 17. A follow-up study was published in 1992. What was found, was that IQs of transracially adopted children didn’t differ at all from children raised by their biological parents in the same area.
According to Dr. David Duke in his book My Awakening: A Path to Racial Understanding, he says that the authors waited about 4 years to publish these findings. They were most likely scared of the backlash they were going to get when they released these findings, which, to be frank, is ridiculous. Why should we walk on egg shells when we have a good study that shows these differences? As said in the study, blacks raised in white families hardly did any better than blacks raised in black families. If the differences supposedly were environmental in the way they say it is, how come blacks raised in rich white families didn’t reach the IQ of whites if “IQ is malleable by the immediate environment”? Because the differences are genetic.
The heritability of IQ is between .75 (as said by the APA) and .90. I like to say .85. So if the heritability is that high, then only a few points of the B-W IQ gap can be explained by environment, with the lion’s share being attributed to genetics.
People may try to point to lead lowering IQ, well, for that to be the case they would have to test the IQ of all racial groups and then test the levels of lead in each subject, which have not been done yet. That throws that out the window.
People may also tout other studies, such as the Eyferth study, which supposedly says a “100 percent environmental cause” for the B-W IQ gap, which is preposterous. First, the mothers were white, which according to the MTRA, white women and black fathers have generally higher IQ children. This is attributed to prenatal factors. One of the single best predictors of IQ is the mother’s IQ. The soldiers in the study were also pre-screened for IQ, which is another flaw in the study. Three percent of white applicants failed compared to 30 percent of black applicants. They also didn’t retest the children again at age adulthood, as did the MTAS.
Another one people like to use is the Tizard study which studies young black, white and mixed-race children in a nursery setting. They were given tests to determine cognitive abilities. The white and black children both had IQs at 102.6 and 106.3 respectively. They also did not test again at adulthood.
Another is the Moore study, which tested 23 black adopted children and 23 black children adopted by middle-class black families. Their findings indicated that blacks adopted to black families scored at 104 compared to the blacks adopted by white families who scored at 117. People may point to this and say “Well, they didn’t differ in their environment and not their genes, so therefore the B-W IQ gap is 100 percent environmental.” Ridiculous. As with the other 2 studies, they were not tested again at adulthood. To say that any of these 3 studies mentioned above prove a 100 percent environmental cause is intellectually dishonest.
Egalitarians love pointing to these studies saying that blacks grow up in bad neighborhoods and don’t get the same things that whites growing up in poor neighborhoods do. Again, ridiculous. It’s just pure wishful thinking by egalitarians to point to these studies to say that there the gap is 100 percent environmental. As I said earlier, it technically is, but not in the way egalitarians think it is. They think we stopped evolving at the neck and that everyone is the same both cognitively and behaviorally which is ridiculous.
There is also what’s known as the “Flynn Effect” (should be the Lynn-Flynn Effect) in which IQ gains have consistently occurred over the decades egalitarians use this data to say that IQ tests test something not genetic in nature
Let’s say Flynn is right. The average black now is as intelligent as the average white in 1945. That’s supposed to show that the race difference in IQ is environmentally caused because there hasn’t been that much genetic change in the white population and the IQ has allegedly gone up 15 points. So, you can have a 15 point difference created by just an environmental change, no one knows why. Some think better nutrition or malnourished brain, etc. That’s also a fallacy. Just because a change in one group over time is due to an environmental change, doesn’t mean, or even make it probable, that a difference between 2 groups at the same time is due to an environmental change. The Flynn Effect make’s that highly unlikely and here’s why.
The Flynn Effect, assuming it’s real, has been acting completely uniformly in every population. Any country you ask, the rate of increase is 3 per decade. That means it’s an environmental factor that affects whites and blacks the same way as well as the whole world. And as a result of this uniform environmental factor, you have a difference in IQ that’s being preserved. That would suggest that the response on the parts of blacks and whites is due to some non-environment factors, a genetic factor, which is making the difference in IQ remain constant as the Flynn Effect goes into effect.
What makes it even more unlikely, in the last 60 years, their environments have become very similar since segregation. These differences don’t exist now, they go to the same schools by court order, same TV shows, same movies, basically same environment for both, and yet, that increasing similarity in the environment, the Flynn Effect, the IQ gap has remained intact. Which means whatever counts for the gap is genetic and not environmental. The more and more similar the environment, the less and less of the difference can be due to the environment and the more and more it must be due to genes. So this 15 point gap surviving these changes in the environment, seems more and more likely to be genetic in origin.
So because this ‘Effect’ is the same across all populations and the gap didn’t close, that means it’s genetic. If the gap persisted even when IQs were rising 3 points per year, the B-W gap has still persisted, proving that it’s genetic.
That is why the Flynn Effect is irrelevant. This “Effect”, has been a slight upward trend in IQ, around 3 points per decade, which, in my opinion, has to do with the advent of better nutrition and an industrialized society. The rise in IQ started around 1880, almost perfectly coinciding with the industrial revolution in America. Along with a more industrialized society, it’s possible to give most citizens in the country good enough nutrition to where they are not iodine deficient (adding iodine to our salt boosted Americans IQs), as well as being deficient in zinc, iron, protein and certain B vitamins which the effects of not getting enough leads to the brain not growing to its full potential, which in turn leads to a lower IQ.
It’s also worth noting that the Flynn Effect is, mostly just better nutrition. Rushton also stated that the Flynn Effect wasn’t on the g factor.
In conclusion, the “blank slate” hypothesis is complete rubbish. We need the truth to come out and come out soon as it has serious implications on policy and the direction that our country is headed due to programs like affirmative action and the like. They need to be ended now.