The denial of human nature is extremely prevalent, most noticeably in our institutions of higher learning. To most academics, the fact that there could be population differences that are genetic in nature is troubling for many people. However, denying genetic/biological causes for racial differences is 1) intellectually dishonest; 2) will lead to negative health outcomes for populations due to the assumption that all human populations are the same; and 3) the ‘lie of equality’ will not allow all human populations to reach their ‘potential’ to be as good as they can be due to the fact that implicit assumption that all human populations are the same. Anti-hereditarians fully deny any and all genetic explanations for human differences, believing that human brain evolution somehow halted around 50-100 kya. Numerous studies show that race is a biological reality; it doesn’t matter what we call the clusters as those are the social constructs. The contention is that ‘all brains are the same color’ (Nisbett, 2007; for comment see my article Refuting Richard Nisbett), and that evolution in differing parts of the world for the past 50,000 years was not enough for any meaningful population differences between people. But to accept that means you must accept the fact that the brain is the only organ that is immune to natural selection. Does that make any sense? I will show that these differences do exist and should be studied, as free of any bias as possible, with every possible hypothesis being looked at and not discarded.
Evolution is true. It’s not ‘only a theory’ (as some anti-evolutionists contend). Anti-evolutionists do not understand the definition of the word ‘theory’. Richard Dawkins (2009) wrote that a theory is a scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena. This is in stark contrast to the layperson’s definition of the word theory, which means ‘just a guess’. Evolution is a fact. What biologists argue with each other about is the mechanisms behind evolution, for any quote-mining Creationists out there.
We know that evolution is a fact and it is the only game in town (Dawkins, 2009) to explain the wide diversity and variation we see on our planet. However, numerous scholars deny the effect of evolution on human behavior (most residing in the social sciences, but other prominent biologists have denied (or implied there were no differences between us and our ancestors) the effect of human evolution on behavior and cognition; Gould 1981, 1996, for a review of Gould 1996, see my article Complexity, Walls, 0.400 Hitting and Evolutionary “Progress” and Stephen Jay Gould and Anti-Hereditarianism; Mayr 1963; see Cochran and Harpending 2009). A prominent neuroscientist, who I have written about here, Herculano-Houzel, implied that Neanderthals and Antecessor may have been just as intelligent as we are due to a neuronal count in a similar range to ours (Herculano-Houzel 2013). This raises an interesting question (which I have tackled here and will return to in the future): did our recent hominin ancestors at least have the capacity for similar intellect to ours (Villa and Roebroeks, 2014; Herculano-Houzel and Kaas, 2011)? It is interesting that neuronal scaling rules hold for our extinct ancestors, and this question is most definitely worth looking into.
Whatever the case may be in regards to recent human evolution and our extinct hominin ancestors, human evolution has increased in the past 10,000 years (Cochran and Harpending, 2009; Wade, 2014). This is due to the dispersal of Anatomical Modern Humans (AMH) OoA around 70 kya; and with this geographical isolation, populations began to diverge with no interbreeding with each other. However, this is noticed most in ‘Native’ Americans, who show no gene flow with other populations due to being genetically isolated (Villena et al, 2000). Who’s to say that evolution stops at the neck, and no further evolution occurs on the brain? Is the brain itself exempt from the laws of natural selection? We know that there is no/hardly any gene flow between populations before the advent of modern-day technology and vehicles; we know that humans differ on morphological and anatomical traits, why are genetic differences out of the question, especially when genetic differences may explain, in part, some of the variation between populations?
We know that evolution is true, without a reasonable doubt. So why, do some researchers contend, is the human brain exempt from such selective pressures?
A theoretical article by Winegard, Winegard, and Boutwell (2017) was just released on January 17th. In the article, they argue that social scientists should integrate HBD into their models. Social scientists do not integrate genetics into their models, and the longer one studies social sciences, the more likely it is they will deny human nature, regardless of political leaning (Perry and Mace, 2010). This poses a problem. By completely ignoring a huge variable (possible genetic differences), this has the potential to harm people’s health, as race is a very informative marker when discussing diseases acquisition as well as whether certain drugs will work on two individuals of different races (Risch et al, 2002; Tang et al, 2005; Wade, 2014). People who deny the usefulness of race, even in a medical context, endanger the lives of individuals from different races/ethnies since they assume that all humans are the same inside, despite ‘superficial differences’ between populations.
The notion that all human populations—genetic isolation and evolution in differing ecosystems/climates/geographic locales be damned—is preposterous to anyone who has a true understanding of evolution. Why should man’s brain be the only organ on earth exempt from the forces of natural selection? Why do egalitarians assume that all humans are the same and have the same psychological faculties compared to other humans, despite the fact that rapid evolution has occurred within the human species within the last 10,000 years?
To see some of the most obvious ways to see natural selection in action in human populations, one should look to the Inuits (Fumagalli, 2015; Daanen and Lichtenbelt, 2016; NIH, 2015; Cardona et al, 2014; Tishkoff, 2015; Ford, McDowell, and Pierce, 2015; Galloway, Young, and Bjerregaard, 2012; Harper, 2015). Global warming is troubling to some researchers, with many researchers suggesting that global warming will have negative effects on the health and food security of the Inuit (Ford et al, 2014, 2016; Ford, 2012, 2009; Wesche, 2010; Furgal and Seguin, 2006; McClymont and Myers, 2012; Petrasek et al, 2015; Rosol, Powell-Hellyer, and Chan, 2016; Petrasek, 2014; WHO, 2003). I could go on and on citing journal articles for both claims, but you get the point already. The main point is this: we know the Inuit have evolved for their climate, and a (possible) climate change would then have a negative effect on their quality of life due to their adaptations to the cold weather climate. However, egalitarians still contend, with these examples and numerous others I could cite, that any and all differences within and between human populations can be explained by socio-cultural factors and not any genetic ones.
One of the best examples of genetic isolation in a geographic locale that is the complete opposite from the environment of evolutionary adaptedness (EEA; Kanazawa, 2004), the African savanna in which we evolved in. I did entertain the idea of the Savanna hypothesis, and while I do believe that it could explain a lot of the variance in IQ between countries (Kanazawa, 2007), his hypothesis doesn’t make sense with what we know about human evolution over the past 10,000 years.
The most obvious differences we can see between populations is differences in skin color. Skin color does not signify race, per se, but it is a good indicator. Skin color is an adaptation to UV radiation (Jablonski and Chaplin, 2010, 2000; Juzenienne et al, 2009; Jeong and Rienzo, 2015; Hancock, et al, 2010; Kita and Fraser, 2016; Scheinfeldt and Tishkoff, 2013), and is therefor and adaptation based on climate. Dark skin is a protectant from skin cancer (Brenner and Hearing, 2008; D’Orazio et al, 2010; Bradford, 2009). Skin cancer is a possible selective force in black pigmentation of the skin in early hominin evolution (Greaves, 2014). With these adaptations in skin color between genetically and geographically isolated populations, are changes in the brain, however small, really out of the question?
A better population to bring up in regards to geographic isolation having an effect on human evolution is the Tibetans. For instance, Tibetans have higher total lung capacities in comparison to the Han Chinese (Droma et al, 1991). There are even differences in lung capacity between Tibetans and Han Chinese who live at the same altitude (Yangzong et al, 2013), with the same thing noticed for peoples living in the Andean mountains (Beall, 2007). Tibetans evolved in a higher elevation than the Han Chinese who lived closer to sea level, so it makes sense that they would be selected for the ability to take deeper inhales They also have a larger chest circumference and greater capacity than the Han Chinese who live at lower altitudes (Gilbert-Kawai et al, 2014).
Admittedly, the acceptance of the usefulness of race in regards to human differences is a touchy subject. So much so, that social scientists do not take genetics into account in their models. However, researchers in the relevant fields accept the usefulness of race (Risch et al, 2002; Tang et al, 2005; Wade, 2014; Sesardic, 2010), so the fact that social scientists do not is to be ignored. Race is a social construct, yes. But no matter what we call these clusters, clines, demes, races, ethnies—whatever name you want to use to describe them—this does not change the fact that race is a useful category in biomedical research. Race is an issue when talking about bone marrow transplants, so by treating all populations as the same with no variation between them, people are pretty much saying that differences between people in a biomedical context do not exist, with there being other explanatory factors behind population differences, in this case, bone marrow transplants. Ignoring heritable human variation will lead to disparate health outcomes for all human populations with the assumption that all humans are the same. Is that what we want? Is that what race-deniers want?
So there are anatomical and physiological differences between human populations (Wagner and Hayward, 2000), with black Americans having a different morphology and lower fat-free body mass on average in comparison to white Americans. This, then, is one of the variables that dictates racial differences in sports, along with muscle fiber explaining a large portion of the variance, in my opinion. No one denies that blacks and whites differ at elite levels in baseball, football, swimming and jumping, and bodybuilding and strength sports. Though, accepting the fact that these morphological and anatomical differences between the races come down to evolution, one would then have to accept the fact that different races/ethnies differ in the brain, thusly destroying their egalitarian fantasy in their head of all genetically isolated human populations being the same in the brain. Wade (2014) writes on page 106:
“… brain genes do not lie in some special category exempt from natural selection. They are as much under evolutionary pressure as any other category of gene”
This is a hard pill to swallow for race-deniers, especially those who emphatically deny any type of selection pressure on the human brain within the past 10,000 to 100,000 years.
Winegard, Winegard, and Boutwell (2017) write:
Consider an analogy that might make this clear while simultaneously illuminating the explanatory importance of population differences. Most cars are designed from the same basic blueprint and consist of similar parts—an internal combustion engine, a gas tank, a chassis, tires, bearings, spark plugs, et cetera. Cars as distinct as a Honda Civic and a Subaru Outback are built from the same basic blueprint and comprised of the same parts; so, in this sense, there is a “universal car nature” (Newton 1999). However, precise, correlated changes in these parts can dramatically change the characteristics of a car.
Humans, like cars, are built from the same basic body plan. They all have livers, lungs, kidneys, brains, arms, and legs. And these structures are built from the same basic building blocks, tissues, which are built of proteins, which are built of amino acids, et cetera. However, small changes in the structures of these building blocks can lead to important and scientifically meaningful differences in function.
Put in this context, yes, there is a ‘universal human nature’, but the application of that human nature will differ depending on what a population has to do to survive in that climate/ecosystem. And, over time, populations will diverge away from each other, both physically and mentally. The authors also argue that societal differences between Eurasians (Europeans and East Asian) can be explained partly by genetic differences. Indeed, the races do differ on the Big Five Personality traits, with heritable components explaining 40 to 60 percent of the variation (Power and Pluess, 2015). So some of the cultural differences between European and East Asians must come down to some biological variation.
One of the easiest ways to see the effects of cultural/environmental selective pressures in humans is to look at Ashkenazi Jews (Cochran et al, 2006). Due to Ashkenazi Jews being barred from numerous occupations, they were confined to a few cognitively demanding occupations. Over time, only the Jews that could handle these occupations would prosper, further selecting for higher intelligence due to the cognitive demands of the jobs they were able to acquire. Thus, Ashkenazi Jews who could handle the few occupations they were allowed to do would breed more and pass on variants for higher intelligence to their offspring, whereas those Jews who couldn’t handle the cognitive demands of the occupation were selected out of the gene pool. This is one situation in which natural selection worked swiftly, and is why Ashkenazi Jews are so overrepresented in the fields of academia today—along with nepotism.
Winegard, Winegard, and Boutwell (2017) lay out six basic principles for a new Darwinian paradigm, as follows:
- Variation is the grist for the mill of natural selection and is ubiquitous within and among human populations.
- Evolution by natural selection has not stopped acting on human traits and has significantly shaped at least some human traits in the past 50,000 years.
- Current hunter-gatherer groups might be slightly different from other modern human populations because of culture and evolution by natural selection acting to influence the relative presence, or absence, of trait-relevant alleles in those groups. Therefore, using extant hunter-gatherers as a template for a panhuman nature is problematic.
- It is probably more accurate to say that, while much of human nature is universal, there may have been selective tuning on various aspects of human nature as our species left Africa and settled various regions of the planet (Frost 2011).
- The human brain is subject to selective forces in the same way that other organ systems are. Natural selection does not discriminate between genes for the body and genes for the brain (Wade 2014).
- The concept of a Pleistocene-based environment of evolutionary adaptedness (EEA) is likely unhelpful (Zuk 2013). Individual traits should be explored phylogenetically and historically. Some human traits were sculpted in the Pleistocene (or before) and have remained substantially unaltered; some, however, have been further shaped in the past 10,000 years, and some probably quite recently (Clark 2007). It remains imperative to describe what selection pressures might have been actively shaping human nature moving forward from the Pleistocene epoch, and how those ecological pressures might have differed for different human populations.
No stone should be left unturned when attempting to explain population differences between geographically isolated peoples, and these six principles are a great start, which all social scientists should introduce into their models.
As I brought up earlier, Kanazawa’s (2004b) hypothesis doesn’t make sense in regards to what we know about the evolution of human psychology. Thus, any type of proposed evolutionary mismatch in regards to our societies do not make much sense. However, one mismatch that does need to be looked into is the negative mismatch we have with our modern-day Western diets. Agriculture was both a gift and a negative event in human history. Yes, without the advent of agriculture 10,000 years ago we would not have the societies we have today. However, on the other hand, we have higher rates of disease compared to our hunter-gatherer ancestors. This is one evolutionary mismatch that cannot and should not go ignored as it has devastating effects on our populations that consume a Western diet—which we did not evolve to eat.
Winegart, Winegart, and Boutwell (2017) then discuss how their new Darwinian paradigm could be used by researchers: 1) look for differences among human populations; 2) after population differences are found, causal analyses should be approached neutrally; 3) researchers should consider a broad range of data to consider whether or not the trait or traits in question are heritable; and 4) researchers should test the posited biological cause more indepth. Without understanding—and using—biological differences between human populations, the quality of life for some populations will be diminished, all for the false notion of ‘equality’ between human races.
There are huge barriers in place to studying human differences, however. Hayden (2013) documents differing taboos in genetics, with intelligence having a high taboo rating. Of course, we HBDers know that intelligence is a highly heritable trait, largely genetic in nature, and so studying these differences between human populations may lead to some uncomfortable truths for some people. On the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, Ceci and Williams (2009) said that “the scientific truth must be pursued” and that researchers must study race and IQ, much to the chagrin of anti-hereditarians (Horgan, 2013). He does write something very troubling in regards to this research, and free speech in our country as a whole:
Some readers may wonder what I mean by “ban,” so let me spell it out. I envision a federal prohibition against speech or publications supporting racial theories of intelligence. All papers, books and other documents advocating such theories will be burned, deleted or otherwise destroyed. Those who continue espousing such theories either publicly or privately (as determined by monitoring of email, phone calls or other communications) will be detained indefinitely in Guantanamo until or unless a secret tribunal overseen by me says they have expressed sufficient remorse and can be released.
Whether he’s joking or not, that’s besides the point. The point is, is that these topics are extremely sensitive to the lay public, and with these articles being printed in popular publications, the reader will get an extremely biased look into the debate and their mind will already be made up for them. This is the definition of intellectual dishonesty, attempting to sway a lay-readers’ opinion on a subject they are ignorant of with an appeal to emotion. Shouldn’t all things be studied scientifically, without any ideological biases?
Speaking about the ethics of putting this information out to the general public, Winegard, Winegard, and Boutwell (2017) write:
If researchers do not responsibly study and discuss population differences, then they leave an abyss that is likely to be filled by the most extreme and hateful writings on population differences. So, although it is understandable to have concerns about the dangers of speaking and writing frankly about potential population differences, it is also important to understand the likely dangers of not doing so. It is not possible to hide the reality of human variation from the world, not possible to propagate a noble lie about human equality, and the attempt to do so leaves a vacancy for extremists to fill.
This is my favorite quote in the whole paper. It is NOT possible to hide the reality of HBD from the world; anyone with eyes can see that humans do differ. Attempting to continue the feel-good liberal lie of human equality will lead to devastating effects in all countries/populations due to the implicit assumption that all human groups are the same in their cognitive and mental faculties.
The denial of genetic human differences, could, as brought up earlier in this article, lead to negative effects in regards to health outcomes between populations. Black Americans have higher rates of hypertension than white Americans (Fuchs, 2011; Ferdinand, 2007; Ortega, Sedki, and Nayer, 2015; Nesbitt, 2009; Wright et al, 2005). To overlook possible genetic differences as a causal factor in regards to racial differences will mean the deaths of many people since people truly believe that people are the same and that all differences come down to the environment. This, however, is not true and believing so is extremely dangerous to the health of all populations in the world.
Epigenetic signatures of ethnicity may be biomarkers for shared cultural experiences. Seventy-six percent of the genetic alteration between Mexicans and Puerto Ricans in this study was due to DNA methylation—which is an epigenetic mechanism used by cells to control gene expression. Therefore, 24 percent of the effect is due to an unknown factor, probably regarding environmental, social, and cultural differences between the two ethnies (Galanter et al, 2017). This is but one of many effects that culture can have on the genome, leading to differences between two populations, and is good evidence for the contention that the different races/ethnies evolved different psychological mechanisms due to genetic isolation in different environments.
We must now ask the question: what if the hereditarian hypothesis is true (Gottfredson, 2005)? If the hereditarian hypothesis is true, Gottfredson argues, special consideration should be given to those found to have a lower IQ, with better training and schooling that specifically target those individuals at risk to be less able due to their lower intelligence. This is one way the hereditarian hypothesis can help race relations in the country: people will (hopefully) accept intrinsic differences between the races. What Gottfredson argues in her paper will hopefully then pacify anti-hereditarians, as less able people of all races/ethnicities will still get the extra help they need in regards to finding work and getting schooling/training/jobs that accommodate their intelligence.
People accept genetic causes for racial differences in sports, yet emphatically deny that human races/ethnies differ in the brain. The denial of human nature—racially and ethnically—is the next hurdle for us to jump over. Once we accept that these differences in populations can, in part, be explained by genetic factors, we can then look to other avenues to see how and why these differences exist between populations occur and if anything can be done to ameliorate them. However, ironically, anti-hereditarians do not realize that their policies and philosophy is actively hindering their goals, and by accepting biological causes—if only to see them researched and held against other explanations—will lead to further inequality, while they scratch their heads without realizing that the cause is the one variable that they have discarded: genetics. Still, however, I see this won’t happen in the future and the same non-answers will be given in response to findings on how the human races differ psychologically (Gottfredson, 2012). The races do differ in biologically meaningful ways, and denying or disregarding the truth will not make these differences disappear. Social scientists must take these differences into account in their models, and seriously entertain them like any other hypothesis, or else they will never fully understand human nature.
excellent summation. recent research (albeit with a small N) indicates 84% of genes affect the brain in some way – more than any other organ – arguably our most important organ, & just as influenced by heredity (or more!) than any other.
what used to be obvious for thousands of years has been buried by left wing social “scientists.” the anti-hereditarian view runs deep in other fields – politics, social studies, history, etc. (i’d love to read a history book that didn’t argue for arcane environmental effects creating the personality/intellect of the adult protagonist). Most fields need to wake up & acknowledge heredity & the breeder’s equation!
& yep, like cars, evolution just tinkers with what’s already there, & can’t create a more efficient creature de novo. I think it was Francois Jacob (1977) who said “evolution is a tinkerer, not an engineer!”
PS – what also drives me nuts about genetics/behavior discussions with anthropologists is “behaviorally modern humans” – hell, not all humans on the earth right now are “behaviorally modern” – at any time in human history there was a lot of variability in intellect/behavior – e.g., 40,000 years ago, some Neandertals may indeed have been very smart – but not ALL were – somehow the crucial idea of VARIABILITY gets lost – when that’s the one thing vital to evolution at all times! sorry for the rant:)
Thanks. Do you have the reference?
It’s literally impossible for the brain to not have undergone evolutionary change when faced with different environmental pressures. If this truly is the case, then whoever denies the fact that the brain has changed rapidly in the past 10,000 years must show what factors cause the brain to be exempt from selection. Most would say culture, but culture itself is a selection pressure. Human culture is Lamarckian. Human culture gets passed down generation after generation. Therefore, after a period of time, the different selection pressures made by Man (culture) in differing environments SHOULD HAVE led to brain differences between genetically isolated humans.
We did ‘get it’ 100 years ago, but our knowledge today is far and away superior to what was known back then. Every environment, every society, selects for something.
The Social ‘Sciences’ are a joke. The environment does matter, don’t get me wrong. But genetics trumps environment. Evolution in differing ancestral environments is the cause for racial/ethnic differences. Social scientists don’t even take genetics into account in their models! So they will fail to explain human behavior.
Exactly. A lot of people imply (some without knowing) that evolution has a direction—that it’s somehow teleological. It isn’t. Selection will occur based on how that environment is, and if an environment permanently changes then selection will occur.
I’m not even talking about cosmic accidents. They have to be the biggest selectors of all—and it has nothing to do with evolution. These are random events and organisms who die off during these events only die off due to accidents. That has nothing to do with evolution itself. Every organism you see around you today is the result of a cosmic accident 65 mya, and again 550 mya with the survival of Pikaia Gracilens—our ancestor from the Burgess Shale. Mass extinctions are one of the biggest drivers of evolution, and survival during a mass extinction is strongly predicated by chance.
What is your definition for ‘behaviorally modern’? For my definition of ‘modern’, I think of things like cooking and mashing food to make it softer to eat. This behavior began around 1.5 mya with Homo erectus. Once erectus took control of fire and began cooking, this allowed the brain to expand in size and neuronal count, allowing for higher levels of intelligence. That skill got passed down, which was one of the first signs of cultural transference and acquisition. You could also say that it began slightly before then with the advent of tool-making. But the use of fire is, in my opinion, the first ‘behaviorally modern’ thing we did, which occurred around 1.5 mya.
Though Robert Klein says it occurred around 50 kya with the advent of symbology. The cooking example makes more sense, even though we weren’t cognitively modern at the time.
I believe they were pretty intelligent, but obviously hampered by their environment. I think they had the potential to be as intelligent as us, due to how many neurons they had. But we were just ‘more fit’ than they were. Though some researchers argue that the cold killed them off.
Read this paper:
Neandertal Demise: An Archaeological Analysis of the Modern Human Superiority Complex
Hi, thanks for your response – you’re definitely preaching to the choir 🙂 I agree 100% – & am one of the few PhD social “scientists” who gets it (most of psych is an ideology, not a science – the only good replicatable science-y part is ability measurement & behavioral genetics – & that’s kept hidden). it’s especially egregious in education – where the 1 thing that really matters is IQ, & the 1 thing not allowed to be spoken is… IQ.
I’m guessing within group variance 40k years ago on intelligence would be lower, b/c the ceiling was probably lower & b/c severely retarded would not survive much! But there were more between group differences back then (different races were even more different from each other). The latter part I get from John Hawks – the former part I’m just armchair guessing.
amen: “evolution doesn’t mean progress” – that was one of the few good things SJ Gould drilled into me:)
my quibble with “behaviorally modern” is simply not all of them were – some were retarded, same as now! & early on, when “behaviorally modernity” was beginning, it would pop up in 1 or 2% of the population (like a fire trying to start), but still has never gone to “fixation” because some percentage of a population is retarded-intellectually disabled. b/c variability!
I’ll get started reading the article you listed – thanks!
here’s where that 84% figure comes from:
Hawrylycz et al (about 70 authors!) An anatomically comprehensive atlas of the adult human brain transcriptome. Nature, 2012; 489 (7416): 391 DOI: 10.1038/nature11405
Full article at: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7416/full/nature11405.html
“…these data show that 84% of all genes are expressed somewhere in the human brain and in patterns that are substantially similar from one brain to the next.”
Allen Institute for Brain Science. “Human brains share a consistent genetic blueprint and possess enormous biochemical complexity.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 19 September 2012.
Exactly. It’s the huge elephant in the room. The elephant we’re not allowed to speak of.
It makes intuitive sense. Yes the less intelligent would have died, which is obvious, and why selection for higher intelligence occurred (one reason, anyway).
I love Gould’s books and articles. Aside from his denial of hereditarianism, I really enjoy reading his books and he’s an outstanding writer. I’m going to slog through The Structure of Evolutionary Theory eventually—over 1400 pages all on evolution. Can’t wait.
Agreed. Though you seem to be speaking of behavioral modernity in regrds to group behavior. I contend it happened around 2 mya, not 50 kya, symbology be damned.
Thanks for the paper. Will search Sci-Hub later for the full text.
Interesting. But it’s bad news for HBD.
84% of the genes are expressed somewhere in the brain.
How many have polymorphisms ?
How many of these polymorphisms vary significantly from race to race to race ?
No idea. I haven’t taken a look at the paper yet. Will return to this this afternoon after I have.
And what is the effect size of the polymorphisms that vary from population to population ?
Here is the paper. I will be able to discuss this evening:
An anatomically comprehensive atlas of the adult human brain transcriptome
Just to show you research isn’t blind to investigating links between population genetics and some aspects of mental abilities, I can cite the research on genetics and language which is summarized on the link below:
The problems with intelligence is that it’s not well defined, IQ isn’t intelligence. So finding genes for something that we can’t define is difficult. But there are acknowledged population differences in genetic risk for mental conditions: Parkinson’s disease is associated with genes that have a high frequency among Jews and middle easterners whereas this gene is almost non existent in blacks and east Asians although they can develop the condition too.
Lol, I’ve understood nothing in this article (I’m at work so I don’t have the time to read it fully). Here is a translation for us mortals:
The results of this study show that, despite the myriad personalities and cognitive talents seen across the human population, our brains are more similar to one another than different. Individual human brains share the same basic molecular blueprint, and deeper analysis of this shared architecture reveals several further findings:”
As for Gottfredsson, her statement is dishonest:
1- We don’t need HBD to help people in need. And people in need aren’t only those who have low IQ. Individuals all across the bell curve may face hardships in their lives.
2- HBD can’t designate who’s in need of support and who isn’t.
3- HBD’s main intent is not to promote tax financed self-improvement programs. HBDers’ main claim is that some people are intrinsically inferior and unredeemable, that nothing can improve life outcomes and IQ.
4- Being labelled as inferior is the last thing lower class people need.
5- Research on individual differences doesn’t need a racial outlook.
6- HBD has no direct evidence of its claims.
7- HBD scholars are not specialist in genetics and neuroscience.
8- HBD scholars are ideologues.
Thanks for the link. Did you see the phylogenetic tree on the evolution of Melanesian languages? Which language is ‘more evolved’? =^)
I agree with you. This is why, with GWAS, we sort people by IQ, and look for relevant alleles with significant effects. A few candidate genes have been found, however.
There is more genetic diversity within races than between them, but that doesn’t disprove the existence of race. I don’t deny we are extremely similar. However, those small genetic differences (along with differences in gene expression) lead to different phenotypes. This will cause differences in the brain as well.
That really doesn’t directly refute her logic on HBD’s importance as opposed to expanding the realms that HBD can help.
If we are to include obvious ethnic variance in diseases it certainly could, and effectively can with low iq individuals in a similar pattern.
Jensen and Gottfredson suggest alternative assistance, as well as acknowledging their differences. If the hereditarian hypothesis is true, it’d be easier to identify at-risk individuals to better educate them.
Further, Jensen spent his whole career saying that Headstart and similar programs don’t work—and what do you know? He was right.
Let’s take race out of the equation for a second: do you believe that all people have the same natural ability and that SES and other environmental factors hamper it?
I do not deny the negative effects of those variables. However, all people are not ‘equal’, so why would you expect people to have equal ability? Do you deny individual differences as well?
You know I don’t use the words ‘superior’ and ‘inferior’ when speaking about biology, why bring the term up? Yes, they are in terms of those traits. But identifying at-risk individuals is paramount; why ignore one variable that may mean a lot?
Racial differences are certainly not the only factors included in HBD, yet in the context of America and Western Immigration as a whole, they are certainly relevant.
There is no genetic identification of intelligence, you’re right there. But we do have such on behavior and Jensen works for example certainly studied the phenotypical behavior of IQ on various measures in comparison that support a genetic hypothesis.
The culture-only hypothesis cannot explain all of these differences.
Appeal to authority.
Anyone is an ideologue when it comes to their field, and most definitely in their research area of interest. Modern social sciences have the same exact biases and ideologues; you will not find bias-free anything anywhere. All things are ‘tainted’ with human biases. Everyone has biases; it’s imperative that we do our best to minimize them.
“Did you see the phylogenetic tree on the evolution of Melanesian languages? Which language is ‘more evolved’? =^)”
Lol, no I didn’t.
” This is why, with GWAS, we sort people by IQ, and look for relevant alleles with significant effects. A few candidate genes have been found, however.”
It wasn’t IQ but years of education that was found to be associated with 70 something genes of very small effect each. None of these genes were associated with specific brain areas, the sample was large but 100% European and the polygenic scores of various races didn’t validate HBD anyway.
“This will cause differences in the brain as well.”
Indeed, and some of these differences have been identified with patterns that do not match HBD.
“That really doesn’t directly refute her logic on HBD’s importance as opposed to expanding the realms that HBD can help.”
Some people have behavioral or learning difficulties, we all know that and already act accordingly. What can HBD do that is not being done already ?
“If we are to include obvious ethnic variance in diseases it certainly could, and effectively can with low iq individuals in a similar pattern.”
Patients are already screened for some diseases based on ethnicity. The majority of newborns in Paris are screened for sickle cell anemia, mediteranneans and Asians are screened for thalassemia, Ashkenazim are screened for Ashkenazim diseases… Future parents always receive genetic advice based on familial and ethnic factors.
If we want to diagnose low IQ, we just need to have mandatory IQ tests but it would be very sad to have our opportunities in life decided by silly puzzles. And what happens to those normal and high IQ people who fail their lives ? We leave them alone because a stupid test has decided that they are able to get by on their own ?
“If the hereditarian hypothesis is true, it’d be easier to identify at-risk individuals to better educate them.”
If some individuals are intrinsically at risk for failure, a genetic test will be all we need to target them. What more can HBD do ? And it is naive to believe that no one on the political spectrum is gonna oppose assistance and support genocidal policies instead.
“do you believe that all people have the same natural ability and that SES and other environmental factors hamper it?”
I don’t know, I’m not a scientist. All I know is that there are ways to lessen the IQ-life outcomes correlation, that many dumb people are rich and many smart people are poor. any level of IQ determinism is not a fatality in societies that are truly committed to social equality. Europe and Canada for instance do much better than the US. Blacks here are much better off and much much much less criminal. And race relations, as far as blacks are concerned are sustainable, there is a problem with Arabs and muslims though.
“But we do have such on behavior and Jensen works for example certainly studied the phenotypical behavior of IQ on various measures in comparison that support a genetic hypothesis.”
Source ? Replication ? Further research ?
“Appeal to authority.”
Well it’s not unreasonable if we are to legally decide people’s place in society based on genetic ability.
“All things are ‘tainted’ with human biases.”
The neurogenetics papers I linked to below look unbiased to me…
Correct, excuse my error. The most recent paper that came out last year found genes that were associated with intelligence were also associated with intracranial volume.
We will have some concrete answers within the next five years pointing to which way this debate will end up I believe.
Correct. But ‘find the genes’ is meaningless; just because we can’t find them doesn’t mean they do not exist.
And with the acceptance of the HH, people will know why blacks underachieve in comparison to whites (assuming the HH is true).
I agree with you. But more often than not, one with higher IQ will be more successful. However, I believe there is a cut-off at around 120, maybe slightly higher, which then intelligence becomes a burden due to the non-ability to understand people around you and being eccentric. It’s not the fact that ‘this test says that, so this happens’, it’s just a predictor of success, not anything definitive.
I oppose genocidal policies based on scientific research. I am in favor of eugenics—selective breeding, not killing anyone though. It just explains human diversity and variation. That’s it. It’s an explanatory theory.
Blacks in Canada and the UK are still overrepresented in the prison system.
Source: The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability
I agree, and thinking about social policy is a distant thought to me, I just like thinking about theories and reading research. However, appealing to one’s authority is fallacious.
I don’t mean biased as in Richard Lynn bias. I mean people go into fields and they have their own little biases which they cannot help. Bias pervades science and I don’t think it can ever be fully eradicated.
“The most recent paper that came out last year found genes that were associated with intelligence were also associated with intracranial volume.
We will have some concrete answers w”
If you give me the link, I’ll check the allele frequency by population on genecards.
“We will have some concrete answers within the next five years pointing to which way this debate will end up I believe.”
It will only end the debate if it confirms HBD. If not, HBDers will jump on other traits to come up with the exact same conclusions. There are already genes that affect different aspects of brain function. None confirms HBD so HBD never mentions them.
“Correct. But ‘find the genes’ is meaningless; just because we can’t find them doesn’t mean they do not exist.”
There is no murder if there is no corpse. If something exists we can find it. If we can’t find it, we must assume that it doesn’t exist or it’s religion.
“And with the acceptance of the HH, people will know why blacks underachieve in comparison to whites (assuming the HH is true).”
Why should we be assuming it’s true when there is no evidence of that ? In fact, the only thing you want is the HH to be proven true and find mainstream acceptance.
“But more often than not, one with higher IQ will be more successful. ”
This is a PPesque statistical abstraction. People aren’t odds and numbers. If one has an IQ of 100 but needs help for whatever reason, this person must be helped just as much as someone with IQ75.
“I oppose genocidal policies based on scientific research.”
You oppose but you’re not alone. Most Germans would probably have opposed the holocaust if given the opportunity to vote while supporting Hitler at the same time. Many people oppose racism but support Trump. HBD is planting the seeds of genocide or any kind of human right abuse.
“Blacks in Canada and the UK are still overrepresented in the prison system”
First, both countries have incarceration rates so low that the incarceration rates of blacks there are even lower than the incarceration rates of US whites.
Then blacks are on average younger, poorer, more urban, more targeted by the police, more likely to have a public defendant instead of a “real lawyer”. And it’s mostly the Jamaicans who have the same family disorganization as US Blacks. Blacks from the gulf of Guinea or Haitians seldom end in the underclass.
” However, appealing to one’s authority is fallacious”
If Gottfredson had a hearing in the senate, she would be questioned on her authority and of course, ridiculed.
Genome-wide association study of cognitive functions and educational attainment in UK Biobank (N =112 151)
“It will only end the debate if it confirms HBD. If not, HBDers will jump on other traits to come up with the exact same conclusions. There are already genes that affect different aspects of brain function. None confirms HBD so HBD never mentions them.”
If there are literally no differences in allele frequency, you’d still have to think about gene expression.
Five years from now, if there are no differences in allele frequency in the brain then it could still come down to gene expression. The amount of alleles that differ doesn’t matter as much as which genes are expressed.
Well, yea. No evidence? Look at African-Americans.
Oh yea by the way. Did you see what I posted over at PP’s the other day? Blacks breastfeed way less than whites, and breastfeeding literally has a causal effect on IQ. I wonder how many points it could account for.
Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Breastfeeding
African Americans continue to have the lowest rates of breastfeeding initiation (60%) and continuation at 6 months (28%) and 12 months (13%) compared with all other racial/ethnic groups in the United States.3 Although improvements in breastfeeding rates for African American women are evident from the 2000–2007 National Immunization Survey (Figs. 1 and and2),2), African American mothers are still 2.5 times less likely to breastfeed than white women.21 A 16 percentage-point gap in the prevalence of continued breastfeeding for 6 months has been consistent since 1990 between African American and white women.2 African American women (32%) are also more likely than most minority groups to provide formula supplementation by 2 days of life.22 Currently, African American women are not meeting any of the Healthy People 2020 objectives for breastfeeding (Table 1).
Breastfeeding and intelligence: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Breastfeeding is related to improved performance in intelligence tests. A positive effect of breastfeeding on cognition was also observed in a randomised trial. This suggests that the association is causal.
Ugh, thanks for catching that. You’re right.
Using science to attempt to harm people is wrong. I’m interested in this from a completely intellectual perspective; my politics doesn’t drive me in my search for truth.
Trump is not a ‘racist’; he is an American Nationalist.
Correct. I seem to recall reading a while back that 3 percent of black males—aged from 15 to 45 accounted for over 40 percent of the murders in America a few years back. If/when I find it I’ll link it.
I wonder what it’d look like controlled for age. Because the mean age for white Americans is obviously higher.
Yes, but that’s in a courtroom, deciding the fates of millions of people. This is a discussion on a blog.
“If researchers do not responsibly study and discuss population differences, then they leave an abyss that is likely to be filled by the most extreme and hateful writings on population differences. So, although it is understandable to have concerns about the dangers of speaking and writing frankly about potential population differences, it is also important to understand the likely dangers of not doing so. It is not possible to hide the reality of human variation from the world, not possible to propagate a noble lie about human equality, and the attempt to do so leaves a vacancy for extremists to fill.”
Go ahead dude, earn some relevant degrees, call the pioneer fund for funding and finde the direct evidences of your theories. Why are you telling people to do something that you can do on your own. No one is hiding anything from anyone.
I have other interests in life. I may pursue a relevant degree in the future, but it won’t be for anything serious, just to get more knowledge.
People are specifically against a genetic hypothesis. This has also seeped into academia.
It’s a simple question: why would humans and human races/populations/whateveryouwannacallthem be exempt from the pressures of natural selection, causing intrinsic genetic differences between them?
I was talking to the guy you quoted, not to you. I know you blog as a leisure.
“It’s a simple question: why would humans and human races/populations/whateveryouwannacallthem be exempt from the pressures of natural selection, causing intrinsic genetic differences between them?”
There is no reason, but we haven’t yet found a valid model of natural selection that could result in HBD. Neither did we find signs of such selection in the genome. So there is no scientific support for HBD.
Bo Winegard is a psychology professor. Benjamin Winegard is also a psychology professor and he’s an evolutionary psychologist. Brian Boutwell is a criminologist.
This was just a theoretical article, looking at known evidence as well as avenues for future research. Articles such as this pave the way for future research.
Here’s that paper you asked for on on PP’s blog by the way.
I’m ready to discuss this. I’ve pretty much discarded climate theories as a whole now. You’ve seem me criticize them on PP’s blog.
Psychology, evolutionary psychology, criminology… These are only social sciences that can’t conduct laboratory experiments. They don’t know the biological basis of anything. They only elaborate theories after theories but at the end of the day, what have they discovered in the last 20 years ?
“I’m ready to discuss this. I’ve pretty much discarded climate theories as a whole now. You’ve seem me criticize them on PP’s blog.”
Yes, I’ve noticed. What are your HBD beliefs based on now that you have no clue on how natural selection might have shaped population differences ?
I’ll respond to your other comments tomorrow.
Biocriminology: Genetic links in a criminal chain
Kevin Beaver is a criminologist I know. My little sister also studies criminology so I can ask her about it as well.
I’m reading a book (well one of the books I’m reading at the moment) by Adrian Rayne about the biological basis of crime. It’s full of theory, but he uses neuroscience in the book and talks about what we could do in the future to ameliorate crime. I like these fields, and I love a good theory.
I’m sure you know that theories are all that science is based on, so the fact that they propose theories and attempt to synthesize research is a great thing.
I’ve not really thought about it lately. I’ve been reading books about the origin of life recently. Currently reading A New History of Life, great read so far.
But I have been thinking a bit on differing groups and sexual selection. I’ve also been reading The Descent of Man by Darwin and that’s giving me a lot of ideas as well. I know you brought that up two months ago in another thread. I’d like to return to that and discuss it this week.
“I’m sure you know that theories are all that science is based on, so the fact that they propose theories and attempt to synthesize research is a great thing.”
Sure but these soft sciences always come up with difficultly verifiable theories that have huge explanatory powers and far reaching implications. On the other hand, hard sciences make hypotheses that are verifiable under laboratory conditions ad these hypotheses are much more modest in their explanatory pretensions.
Don’t you see that HBD literally explains the world like the bible does and that the cold climate theory is as unverified than the flight from Egypt ?
” I’d like to return to that and discuss it this week.”
Great, at least you are open to discussion, that’s why I like what you do.
You’re right the evo psych theories are hard to prove (and be falsifiable, but I don’t push any evo psych theories that aren’t falsifiable), but theorizing about the evolution of our psychology is very important. The same goes for criminology. Sure they are soft ‘sciences’, but when combined with other hard scientific disciplines, they can compliment it extremely well, giving a whole new perspective on what may have been a stagnant field.
I do still believe that climate differences caused differences in personality, especially the Big Five traits. But I see where you’re coming from. And there is no actual archeological evidence for Jews being enslaved in Egypt.
But I am moving away from climate as a cause for racial differences in intelligence. I may swing back to it one day, but I’m really liking sexual selection hypotheses more.
I’m down to discuss anything. I’ve been discussing HBD for about 4 years now. In my beginning days I was an ultra-hereditarian. But now I can definitely see other’s viewpoints and rationally think about them in contrast to my own.
Ever since I’ve read a few books by Gould, and especially Herculano-Houzel’s book, I don’t know. It’s given me cognitive dissonance that there’s the possibility that Neanderthals and antecessor could have had the possibility to be as intelligent as us, as in they had the potential.
Now, could Africans have the potential to be as intelligent (however intelligence is defined) as other populations? Maybe. But then think about natural environments. They’d obviously be their phenotypic intelligence.
But I am very open to Epigg et al’s hypothesis on parasite load and how when one has a parasite at a young age, the brain diverts energy to fight the paradise instead of growing the brain. Parasites are extremely demanding on the metabolism.
We know the brain needs at least 519 kcal to function correctly, so if energy is diverted to fight the parasite then they cannot grow to full potential.
Adrian Rayne did a study on the effects of nutrient and antisocial disorder. I’ve linked it before.
Malnutrition In Early Years Leads To Low IQ And Later Antisocial Behavior, USC Study Finds
I do find it ridiculous that all brains could have the same potential despite evolving in geographically isolated populations for tens of thousands of years, even when evolution has sped up in that time frame. I’m more than welcome to be proven wrong. It just doesn’t make sense that human populations are the same in cognitive ability.
“but theorizing about the evolution of our psychology is very important.”
Maybe, but evo psychologists can’t complain that their theories are ignored by other fields or by the public. Because theories are just theories, not facts.
What do HBDers actually want ? Hearing every day on the TV that blacks are genetically dumb according to theory X and theory Z ? What’s the point ? People have their opinions but public debates don’t make science advance.
And if HBD’s real goal is to apease race relations why aren’t they advocating for direct cash transfers (call them inferiority pensions if you like) that would put every single person on par with the white average in terms of wealth of income ? It could be just as simple.
“It just doesn’t make sense that human populations are the same in cognitive ability.”
why ? What can every white person do that no black person can do ? And why ?
And if HBD’s real goal is to apease race relations why aren’t they advocating for direct cash transfers (call them inferiority pensions if you like) that would put every single black person on par with the white average in terms of wealth or income ? It could be just as simple. Whites would say whatever they want about black intelligence, blacks would be receive compensation for the undeserved genetic advantage of whites and every thing would be just fine. Is that what you really want ?
What is HBD concretely proposing as remedial solutions to the genetic gap in ability ?
PP’s in his feelings tonight. I’m possibly already in the dungeon.
He’s very emotional. That’s that low T at work. =^)
Lol, yeah ! Smh. I’m moderated right now.
He’s not rational when he’s emotional like that. He should learn to curb that, lest he becomes (even more) biased.
Definitely, right now he looks like an unredeemable childish autist.
I think he is slightly autistic. You can tell by how he writes.
Yes but he’s downright childish. I touch a nerve on him everytime we talk about girls.
“What is HBD concretely proposing as remedial solutions to the genetic gap in ability ?”
Universal Basic Income.
Iffen, I support UBI when robots begin taking jobs which should happen by 2025. If I recall correctly, by 2025 one quarter of all jobs will be automated.
Do the Guys at UNZ AmRen and Breitbart support that ?
I have no idea but I try not to associate myself with those magazines. Especially AmRen and their comment section. Full of evolution-denying evangelicals. A ton of ignorance in those comments sections.
Breitbart is full of morons. The only one I like that you mentioned is Unz Review. A lot of intelligent people comment there.
“Do the Guys at UNZ AmRen and Breitbart support that ?”
AmRen is worthless. I haven’t read Breitbart comments. The site seems worthless. UBI hardly comes up at Unz. There really is a wide spectrum there with the writers and the commenters so it is possible that I have missed discussions of the subject. Some writers I always read and some I never read. Anyway, at Unz and with HBDers in general there are many, if not a majority, of true “Social Darwinists.”
Stop right there buddy.
Theory—a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
If you’re using the definition of theory in a non-scientific way—as in just an assumption with nothing else to it—then maybe you’d be correct. But the scientific definition of theory is nothing like that—so what you said doesn’t make sense.
I can’t speak for everyone, but I’d like to see it acknowledged as a legitamate reason for the cause of a lot of different variables. No theory should be discarded because it makes people uncomfortable. People need to hear harsh truths sometimes; people need to learn how to be tolerant (funny, huh?) to disagreeing viewpoints.
Think about CRISPR, then think about gene editing. That’s a future possibility. But only if we acknowledge genetic differences.
Disregarding genetic differences is dishonest and it possibly may be the ‘missing link’.
There is a bell curve of traits. Blacks are here, whites are there. People differ on these traits. Why is the NFL and NBA full of African Americans? Geneti reasons, right? Don’t get me started on training and willpower. Because the genetic giftedness has to be there first; and who’s better on average in terms of those sports? Which race, on average, woud have the morphology, physiology and muscuoloskeletal system, on average, to succeed in those competetitions?
No one denies genetic differences when it comes down to sports; hell you can see that with your own two eyes. However, there is science behind it as you can see. The same holds for the brain as well, no? Do you believe that there are no differences in the brain between genetically isolated?
I don’t use the words ‘inferior’ and ‘superior’ when discussing this, remember?
Do you really think it’s about money? If everyone had an equal amount of money that everything would be OK in the world?
MONEY AND SCHOOL PERFORMANCE Lessons from the Kansas City Desegregation Experiment
What do you mean by undeserved genetic advantage? People are different, that’s it.
I don’t want that. Because I’d like to see people work for their money. I don’t like handouts. Only when it’s necessary.
Even then, let’s say tomorrow everyone in America had the same amount of money. What do you think the end result would be 5 years from then?
China is already testing CRISPR on humans. So one avenue is to use CRISPR once the FDA and other relevant agencies approve it.
But other than that (and purposefully lowering the bar for others), I don’t see another way a gap like that can be remedied.
Entertain the idea that the main points of HBD are correct; what would you propose to mitigate the gap?
Well, you’re actually right, HBD doesn’t even belong to the category of theories. It is a set of scientific models.
“From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than “just a theory.” It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.”
It is just a set of untested or non-validated hypotheses. Hence the “hereditarian hypothesis”.
So let me rephrase my statement.
“What do HBDers actually want ? Hearing every day on the TV that blacks are genetically dumb according to hypothesis X and hypothesis Z ? What’s the point ? People have their opinions but public debates don’t make science advance.”
“I can’t speak for everyone, but I’d like to see it acknowledged as a legitamate reason for the cause of a lot of different variables. No theory should be discarded because it makes people uncomfortable. People need to hear harsh truths sometimes; people need to learn how to be tolerant (funny, huh?) to disagreeing viewpoints.”
We’re talking about hypotheses, not theories, let alone truths.
“Think about CRISPR, then think about gene editing. That’s a future possibility. But only if we acknowledge genetic differences.”
In the current state of scientific knowledge, there is no known gene to edit. So what are we supposed to acknowledge ? The fact that such genes may exist ? It’s already acknowledged and there is a whole specialist discipline for that purpose: neurogenetics.
“People differ on these traits. Why is the NFL and NBA full of African Americans? Geneti reasons, right? Don’t get me started on training and willpower.”
And why aren’t blacks playing these sports in France or Brazil too ? Did the US import slaves with basketball genes ? Or are these blacks attracted by sports scholarships, following their role models, trying to find an escape from their miserable condition and daily worries ?
“Which race, on average, woud have the morphology, physiology and muscuoloskeletal system, on average, to succeed in those competetitions?”
Randomly pick some Nigerians and see how they do against a team of randomly picked Dinarics.
“No one denies genetic differences when it comes down to sports; hell you can see that with your own two eyes. However, there is science behind it as you can see. ”
The consensus is not as large as you think.
“Do you believe that there are no differences in the brain between genetically isolated?”
I told you I don’t know, all I know is that HBD is not yet supported by neurogenetics. What you and I believe is irrelevant to science and public policy.
“I don’t use the words ‘inferior’ and ‘superior’ when discussing this, remember?
Do you really think it’s about money? If everyone had an equal amount of money that everything would be OK in the world?
It would be naive that anyone thinking about differentiation doesn’t have hierarchisation in mind.
Anyway yes, it’s a lot about money. I’m not talking about installing super-computers in inner city schools, that wouldn’t work. The students are in opposition with mainstream institutions by principle.
I’m talking about calculating the average black and white wealth gap and add this value to each black household’s bank account. So that the wealth gap doesn’t exist anymore and if the blacks fail to do something with their newfound $100K per family, whites will be free to say whatever they want about how blacks are incapable.
If whites are genetically better endowed, then they have no merit in being richer. In a meritocracy, those genetic differences have to be addressed like that. People receive disability pensions, old age pensions, veteran pensions then why not genetic unfitness pensions ?
If blacks were to receive $100 K per familiy, the richest would start businesses which would employ the poorest who would buy new homes or cars or college training . Very few of them would find it interesting to get involved in gangs, drug dealing, robberies, no more welfare babies. Financial hardships are the first cause of relationship breakup, more money, less baby mamas and so on. So yes, if you want HBD to appease race relations, just give them the money they are incapable of earning with their own genes and it will be alright.
Noted. However, the definition that I cited (which Richard Dawkins uses in his 2009 book The Greatest Show on Earth) pretty much describes HBD.
This is assuming that the hereditarian hypothesis is true.
I’ve not looked into it myself yet, I’ll have some time later this week. Bruce Lahn has discovered some, however.
Care to explain to me about French sports (do you have American football?)?
So are you saying that environmental factors matter more than genetic giftedness?
A thought experiment will do. Just think of leverages, somatype and muscle fibers.
Can you point me to some researchers who believe that environmental factors dictate these differences more than genetic ones?
I agree. I still need to look into those brain genes. You can read this, in the mean time:
Race and IQ: Genes That Predict Racial Intelligence Differences
I can get behind something like this, maybe. I already know what the outcome will be in five years: it will be mostly how it is now, with more whites who have more wealth while only a few blacks amass and keep wealth.
As iffen said, UBI is a good mediator. It will eventually come to that with robots taking more and more jobs. And who will be disproportionately affected by that? Minorities.
I’m not sure that it’d be ‘alright’. Look at Chicago. Dem controlled for over 50 years. How is life there? You can throw money at a problem, but the actual physical presence of money will not fix it. Throwing money at schools doesn’t fix black-white gaps. And obviously, by people denying any and all genetic causation, research can’t be undertaken to see how to better accommodate people to work with their strengths and weaknesses because we’re all the same right?
I can see a reduction in those variables you bring up, but I don’t think it would be too drastic, personally.
“This is assuming that the hereditarian hypothesis is true.”
Excuse me but this hypothesis has failed too many tests for you to be rationally optimistic about it.
“I’ve not looked into it myself yet, I’ll have some time later this week. Bruce Lahn has discovered some, however.”
The variant he found had no effect on IQ and was only absent in Africa, not among other low IQ populations like Indians and Aborigines of Australia or Native Americans. No effect, no confirmation of HBD patterns, only noise.
“Care to explain to me about French sports (do you have American football?)?
So are you saying that environmental factors matter more than genetic giftedness?”
There is no American Football in France (It’s not popular) but there is Rugby which is very similar, very few blacks play rugby, they like soccer instead.
It is obvious that life experiences play a role in what you chose to become in life. You don’t just need to be good or excellent in something to invest your full potential into it, you also need to evaluate the benefits you can get from it and find people who believe in you.
I was good at many sports when young, but the idea of being a pro athlete just never crossed my mind. I had to become a lawyer. But I know lower class people really consider high paying sports as a way out of poverty.
“A thought experiment will do. Just think of leverages, somatype and muscle fibers.”
I especially chose Dinarics and Nigerians because teams from the Balkans excel in international basketball.
“Can you point me to some researchers who believe that environmental factors dictate these differences more than genetic ones?”
I can find you that later on. But in France, the composition of the national team has always reflected the waves of lower class immigrants. First the southern Europeans, the the Arabs, now the Sahelians, with always a minority a French proles.
“I agree. I still need to look into those brain genes. You can read this, in the mean time:
Race and IQ: Genes That Predict Racial Intelligence Differences”
Lol, this charts cite non-peer reviewed papers by Piffer, Lynn’s sidekick. They are misinterpreting the huge study that found 70 genes influencing academic success. Piffer’s paper was refused by the very HBD friendly journal Intelligence on methodological grounds. Then Piffer did the recommended corrections, the order wasn’t anymore in line with HBD and bizzarely he didn’t apply for peer review afterwards. I’ll provide links of that story when I’m back from work. High level charlatanism anyway.
“it will be mostly how it is now, with more whites who have more wealth while only a few blacks amass and keep wealth.”
Ok, you believe that blacks are dumb monkeys. There is no other way that you can be pessimistic about the outcomes of giving $100k to each family right into their bank accounts.
You talk about local government mismanagement, throwing money on schools and stuff, I’m talking about directly equalizing family wealth.
In fact, something tells me that you are trying to reassure yourself into thinking that blacks would be inferior no matter what we do.
That’s your opinion after all, but I can’t believe that your HBD opinions are paved with good intentions.
“And obviously, by people denying any and all genetic causation, research can’t be undertaken to see how to better accommodate people to work with their strengths and weaknesses because we’re all the same right?”
Neurogenetics bro. Stop saying there is no research in the genetics of brain function, it is not true. There are specialists who discover things that HBD just doesn’t want to acknowledge.
Care to name some?
Well, you and I both know (and agree) that the African environment is not conducive to intelligence due to the immediate environment—disease, lack of good nutrition and parasitic load. It is my contention that the African IQ (I personally think it’s retarded to use 70 for the whole continent, when the actual mean that is used is the mean for white Britons, I’ve calculated average IQ for all of Europe and came to around 94 with Lynn-data. Ie, not too well for Europe as a whole (according to Lynn-data) should be around 80bto 85, good enough to care for themselves.
Anyway, here is el papel (God, I LOVE Sci-Hub):
Genetic links between brain development and brain evolution
I just scanned it but didn’t see a mention race. I’ll read it in full tonight.
In the meantime, check this out.
Science Explains Why Asians Have Bigger Brains Than Europeans and Africans
Having trouble finding the original paper, but this is recent news.
Afro-Caribbeans are overrepresented on the UK rugby team:
Positional Play: Racial Stereotyping in Rugby League
I don’t disagree here. But, still, genetics matters more—especially for elite competitions. One with better genetics will always beat one with worse genetics, all things being equal.
My family didn’t have a lot of money when I was growing up. I did play sports, though. Never pursued past high school however. I’m more interested in biology, lifting and nutrition.
How well do they fare during the ‘Lympics?
I’d love to see a citation stating that environmental factors matter more in elite sports performance.
Do you have the source?
Piffer talks about this on his blog:
The forbidden paper on the population genetics of IQ
I believe that blacks, on average, have lower intelligence than whites, but I don’t refer to them as ‘dumb monkeys’. Please don’t put words in my mouth. Thank you.
All you need to do to see this is look to lottery winners. Have you ever seen the show The Lottery Changed My Life?
People love blowing money when they have it. Whites save more money, blacks save less money. It’s just basic logic to assume that blacks will spend money they were just handed while whites would invest it or something like that.
Is that not what matters? Do you think money just changes things? As if it makes people different and changes their outlooks and worldview? I don’t believe it is. Now that I have a few things under my belt, my worldview hasn’t changed now that I’m succesful. The only thing that changed was how much money I have. People’s worldviews will not change if they are handed 100,000 dollars. See what most lotto winners do with their ‘earnings’.
Realistically speaking, what would you see happening if something like this was enacted?
Not at all. You’ve seen me concede things, I will concede that blacks can become successful (as a group) if it happens, however I don’t see it happening anytime soon.
And it’s funny; Rushton and Jensen (2005) do say that low IQ isn’t a death sentence. That is overlooked by people who cite their opus.
I am interested in biology. I’m just a lowly blogger who writes about HBD, I cannot influence any policy. And this is what I tell to people who go to retarded protests; you’re wasting your time. Put your time to better use, do something constructive instead of wasting it ‘protesting’. Sure it’s ‘our right’ in America, but it’s a waste of time and mostly people who do not work do this stuff.
I’ve not had time to look into this myself yet, but at the moment I will take your word for it.
Check this out from Razib Khan:
That’s lower than I expect for Euros. Could you elaborate?
Hey bro, got something for PP.
Neuroscientists Found Eight Genes That Govern Human Brain Size
A research project that brought together 300 scientists from 33 countries has announced, in Nature, that its collaborators identified eight genes that govern the size of parts of the human brain—including areas that help us learn, play, move and remember.
“We were able to identify hot points in the genome that help build the brain,” Paul Thompson, a University of Southern California neuroscientist involved in the study told Science.
Those “hot points” are eight genetic mutations that, as Science reports, “can shrink brain tissue by about 1.5%, depending on the letter inherited”—or, as USC puts it, can “age the brain an average of three years.” Several of these variants are quite common, affecting over one-fifth of the world’s population. Certain cognitive abilities are thought to be linked to the size of some parts of the brain affected by these mutations.
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/big-data-helps-uncover-genetic-variants-influence-brain-size-180953994/#OcZHafp2Ca0hVRwH.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
No qualms here. I fully agree that the brain is shrinking; nice to see some genetic evidence for it. We only need to look to the fossil record to see it in action.
Fits in line with the slight dysgenic trend recently in Iceland too.
Modern society is dysgenic.
As I told you on PP’s blog, I’ve been looking into population differences in frequency of alleles that are expressed in the brain and that are either uniquely human or that affect the volume of brain parts and lead to different cognitive outcomes.
Man, HBD is completely unrealistic.
Here are the genes that I found:
You can search gene frequencies using engines like genecards and snpedia.
Man it’s worse than I thought. Not only some genes with significant effects have been found but their allele frequencies do not follow the rules of HBD.
The uniquely human genes tend to vary little by population or not in HBD’s direction, and they have no known effect.
Some genes with large effect on brain part size or risk of schizophrenia actually advantage Africans. Others do not vary significantly and don’t follow HBD’s expectations.
HBD is already debunked. They now have to stop lying about the state of neurogenetics and acknowledge that current findings do not support the hereditarian hypothesis.
I’m copying and pasting that to PP.
I need a few days to read these, as well as a few more things related to them.
Can you specifically link to what you said about schizophrenia in Africans?
This is something I’ll definitely look into this week and get back to you on by the weekend.
I doubt you’ll get a pertinent response from PP.
rs7294919, showed a particularly strong link to a reduced hippocampus volume, suggesting that this gene is very important to hippocampus development or health. No associations for brain volume, but they did discover that intracranial volume was significantly associated with two loci: rs4273712, a known height locus on chromosome 6q22, and rs9915547, tagging the inversion on chromosome 17q21. The SNP is located between two genes, HRK  and FBXW8 , but evidence suggests that it influences the expression level of a gene 3’ to FBXW8, TESC . Each copy of the T allele was associated with a 107.8 mm3 decrease in hippocampal volume . In European populations, the effect allele (T) is found at frequency of 0.898 . The minor allele (C) is found at a frequency of 0.102.
The hippocampus is a critical brain structure involved in learning and memory. In particular, it is associated with the ability to form long-term memories of facts and events . This is in contrast to short-term and working memory, which have been shown to be independent of the hippocampus . Hippocampal size decreases with age and is diminished in several disorders including Alzheimer’s Disease , Major Depressive Disorder , Post-traumatic Stress Disorder , and Schizophrenia . Moreover, the size of the structure is heritable, with estimates of heritability ranging from 40-70% .
(Edit if the image doesn’t show)
CEU = Central Europeans Utah
HCB = Han Chinese Beijing
JPT = Japanese Tokyo
YRI = Yoruba Ibadan
ASW = African American South West
RR do you have a response to this yet?
I agree with him in regards to ASPM and Microcephalin. See this study by Rushton, Vernon, and Bons (2009):
We test the hypothesis that polymorphisms of the brain regulator genes MCPH1 and ASPM contribute to variations in human brain size and its correlates. We measured general mental ability, head circumference and social intelligence in 644 Canadian adults (496 Caucasians, 36 Orientals, 84 Mixed Race/Other and 28 Blacks; 257 men and 387 women). The gene polymorphisms were assessed from buccal DNA; mental ability by Wonderlic Personnel Test and Multidimensional Aptitude Battery; head circumference by stretchless tape; and social intelligence by prosocial attitude questionnaires. Although all measures were construct valid and the allele frequencies showed expected population differences, no relationship was found between the genes and any of the criteria. Among Caucasian 18–25 year olds, for example, the two mental ability tests correlated with each other (r=0.78, N=476, p<0.001), with head circumference (r=0.17, N=182, p<0.05) and with prosocial attitudes (r=0.23, N=182, p<0.001).
No evidence that polymorphisms of brain regulator genes Microcephalin and ASPM are associated with general mental ability, head circumference or altruism
I’ve still not looked into the SNPs at snpedia. I’ve been busy. I’m going to look into that this weekend.
Rushton et al showed that Lahn was wrong.