Home » Culture (Page 5)
Category Archives: Culture
Black Crime, Black Physical Attractiveness and Testosterone
I touched on black crime a bit a few months ago. I will now go more in depth on reasons for black crime.
First, what is the caused of all crime, no matter the race?
People have always said that parental socialization was the cause of black crime. But, genetic confounding was never considered in those studies. Kevin Beaver et al found in an analysis of adoptees that once genetic confounds were properly controlled, the effects of parenting on criminal justice measures were nonsignificant. That’s weird. I thought parental socialization was the cause of a kid turning out bad or good.
What is the cause of rape?
In a 37 year nationwide study in Sweden, it was found that sex offending runs in families. They reported strong evidence of familial clustering of sex offenses, mostly accounted for by genes and NOT shared environmental influences (ie, the same thing happening to both people in the family, therefore being the environmental cause of rape).
It’s of course genetics. We know that there is huge variation between individuals of the same race/ethnicity, how about between races? It also follows Rushton’s Rule of Three, Asians on top, whites intermediate and blacks on the bottom.
There are testosterone differences between blacks and whites. On top of those testosterone differences, men who stay and raise children have, on average, lower testosterone. This was noted in the West, but non-Western samples gave differing numbers. The study was conducted in two East African populations from Tanzania, Hadza foragers and Datoga pastoralists. They predicted that high levels of paternal care by the Hadza fathers would be associated with lower testosterone and that no difference would be found in non-fathers and fathers of Datoga men, who provide direct paternal care. The measurements in both populations confirmed the hypothesis, as well as adding further support that decreased testosterone leads to more paternal care.
What does that have to do with crime? Not having a father is detrimental to a young child, studies have shown in the UK that those from broken homes are more likely to commit crime than those from stable families. Also, seven out of ten offenders come from broken homes.
In this paper by Steven Ruggles, he says that analysis confirms that the high incidence of black Americans of single parenthood and children residing without their parents is not a recent phenomenon. Data shows that from 1880 through 1960, black children were two to three times more likely to reside without one or both children than white parents. This directly goes in the face of what liberals say is the cause of the demise of the black family structure. Ever since blacks have been free from slavery has this begun to happen.
Why did black father rates jump so much after the Civil Rights Movement?
I have my own theories.
Today, the black single mother rate is at 72 percent. In 1965, 24 percent of black infants were born without a father. What is the cause for that?
Blacks weren’t allowed to marry whites, and the CRA changed that. So with them being legally allowed to court white women, they obviously shied away from attempting to court black women. We can see that the trends show huge changes in 50 years. The cause is desegregation obviously, but what exactly is that environmental cause? Being able to court white women.
So with those men who DO stay around to raise children who show a decrease in testosterone, it’s extremely safe to say that those men who leave, regardless of race, have higher testosterone than those men who stay. This is reflected in racial single parent stats that show, again as for many more variables, Rushton’s Rule of Three.
What is wrong with black women? How come when segregation got lifted, black single motherhood rose exponentially?
Satoshi Kanazawa knows why. He noted in this study on why black women are not as attractive as other races, that women, on average are more physically attractive than men. EXCEPT BLACK WOMEN. The data shows black women as not being statistically different from the average, and far less attractive than whites, Asians and Native American women.
The cause is higher testosterone. Kanazawa says that the cause for this is due to the mean BMI of black women being 28.5 among black women and 26.1 among non-black women. Though he says that’s not the reason why black women are less physically attractive. Black women have lower levels of intellect net of BMI. Even the racial differences in intelligence don’t account for these differences. Black women are STILL less physically attractive, net of BMI and intelligence. Kanazawa says: “Net of intelligence, black men are significantly more physically attractive than nonblack men.”
Why is that? He says the reason is testosterone. He ends up concluding that testosterone differences are the only cause for these differences. With blacks having the highest testosterone out of all the races, black women obviously have higher rates of testosterone than white women. Those women with higher levels of testosterone have more masculine features, therefore making them less attractive.
Previous research has suggested that perceived attractiveness and personality are affected by the race such that White faces are more attractive but less masculine than Black faces. Such studies, however, have been based on very small stimulus sets. The current study investigated perceived attractiveness and personality for 600 Black, White and mixed-race faces. Many of the investigated personality traits were correlated with race when rated by White participants. Attractiveness specifically was greater for Black male faces than White male faces and among mixed-race faces. Blackness correlated with increased attractiveness. A reverse pattern was found for female faces with Whiteness being associated with attractiveness. The results are discussed in terms of the sexual dimorphism demonstrated in skin color. (Lewis 2010)
That’s the same as was noted in the Kanazawa paper. Darker-skinned males were more attractive, lighter-skinned women were more attractive.
Rushton wrote, in his last paper before his death, that skin color as a multi-generational adaptation to differences in climate over the past 70,000 years. He proposed life history theory (formerly known as r K selection theory) to explain the covariation found between human and non-human pigmentation and variables such as birth rate, infant mortality, longevity, the rate of HIV/AIDs and violent crime.
Dark skin is correlated with these things because of evolution.
High testosterone is linked to crimes of violence and sex. Men who gave saliva samples in prison were shown to violate more rules in prison, especially rules involving overt confrontation. Dabbs et al say: “the variety of rule violations suggests the behavior of high testosterone individuals reflects intractability, unmanageability, and lack of docility as well as aggression and violence.” Higher testosterone levels were associated with more violent crimes, parole board decisions against release, and more prison rule violations. This same thing was noticed in women, high-testosterone women had more crimes of unprovoked violence, increased number of prior charges, and decisions against parole.
For chronic adult offenders, the average IQ is 85, 1 SD below the mean of 100. Why do criminals have low IQ? Lack of abstract thought for one. Those with low IQ have a lack of ability to think of what their actions will do. Along with the lack of ability to delay gratification, paired with high testosterone and low IQ, that is the cause for higher than average crime in the black community in America.
Men with lower intelligence may be more likely to resort to evolutionarily familiar means of competition for resources and mating opportunities, and not to fully comprehend the consequences of their criminal behavior.
Even just a few points of IQ matter to criminality. There is a lot of data on the link between crime and low IQ. Who just so happens to have the lowest IQ in America on average?
It was noted in this study that states with lower IQs have more property crime and violent crime.
Increased intelligence is also linked to lower sex drive. I would reason that as shown above, those with higher IQs will be able to resist natural urges better than those with lower IQs. This shows in NLSY data with lower IQ people having more kids, higher IQ people fewer kids.
All of this data piles up, and the only thing that jumps out, is that lower IQ people have more testosterone, lower IQ people commit more crimes, therefore, high testosterone and low IQ is the cause of black criminality.
HBD and Diet Advice: Anglin Paleo Refutation Part 2
2300 words
A lot of people seem to have wrong views on nutrition. It’s not really taught in school, people think that it doesn’t matter so they do no independent research of their own and they believe anything and everything that comes out in the MSM as gospel. The thing is, the average person doesn’t read studies, or anything nutrition related for that matter, and believes most everything they read and hear in the MSM. I have talked about nutrition a bit here. I refuted Andrew Anglin’s atrocious writing and arguments for the Paleo Diet here and wrote on obesity and ethnicity including genetic and environmental causes. I also wrote on how nutrition is important prenatally as well as postnatally in developing children. I will also touch on comments in that Dailystormer article that jump out to me that need refuting.
Today I will talk about HBD and diet advice.
Steve Sailer wrote an article on HBD and Diet Advice back in September. He claims a few things that need to be disproven.
It’s common for nutrition scientists to give advice to white Americans based on studies done of what is good for nonwhites to eat. For example, in the 1980s, one of the most fashionable studies was of Japanese in Hawaii. The first generation ate mostly rice with little fat, and they had relatively few heart attacks. The next generation ate cheeseburgers and had higher rates of coronary disease than their parents.
I have covered this in the Dailystormer refutation.
Noted in this study are:
- High interpersonal variability in post-meal glucose observed in 800-person cohort
- Using personal and microbiome features enable accurate glucose response prediction
- Prediction is accurate and superior to common practice in an independent cohort
- Short-term personalized dietary interventions successfully lower post-meal glucose
You can see from the above bullet points that there is high interpersonal variability in post-meal glucose. What that means is, that between each individual in the cohort, there were different glucose spikes in each person.
They can accurately predict glucose response with certain tools. They devised a machine-learning algorithm that uses blood parameters, dietary habits, anthropometrics, physical activity, and gut microbiota measured in the cohort and showed that it accurately predicted personalized postprandial (post-meal) glycemic response to real-life meals.
They validated the prediction using a 100 person cohort.
Personalized dietary interventions showed interventions successfully lowered post-meal glucose. (Emphasis mine). This shows that each person should be on an individual diet and not on a one-size-fits-all diet.
Of course the next generation had higher rates of coronary disease than their parents. High carb, high fat diets lead to coronary blockage, leading to heart attacks and other coronary implications.
That is due to the demonization of fat starting in the 70s. We were told that fat is bad and carbs were fine. That turned out not to be the case. That’s what led to the obesity explosion. People think that eating fat “makes you fat”. Well if that’s the case, eating protein leads to kidney failure and eating carbs leads to Diabetes Mellitus. It’s stupid to think of it that way. Anything in excess is bad for you.
The RDA (Recommended Daily Values) for women is as follows:
69 grams of fat, which comes out to 585 kcal, 300 grams CHO which comes out to 1200 kcal and 53 grams of protein which comes out to 215 kcal. For men, it’s 80 grams of fat which comes out to 720 kcal, 375 grams CHO which comes out to 1500 kcal and 70 grams of protein which comes out to 280 kcal. This is data from the FDA on dietary recommendations for the average America.
Protein is nowhere near high enough. Protein is the main macronutrient you want to eat if you want to stay fuller longer as it has a higher TEF (Thermic Effect of Food). In the linked study, they come to the conclusion that TEF contributed to the satiating power of foods. Protein has the highest TEF of all of the macros, and because of this, some researchers have lobbied to have protein count as 3.2 kcal instead of 4 kcal. So if you want to stay fuller, eat more protein, fewer carbs and more fat. Carbs spike your insulin leading to insulin spikes, which lead to you feeling hungry sooner, as most people ingest fast digesting carbohydrates.
Sailer then cites this NYT article that says:
Today, at least 10 percent of Americans regularly take fish oil supplements. But recent trials have failed to confirm that the pills prevent heart attacks or stroke. And now the story has an intriguing new twist.
Wrong. So, so wrong. Controlled studies clearly show that omega-3 consumption had a positive influence on n-3 (fatty acid) intake. N-3 has also been recognized as a modulator of inflammation as well as the fact that omega-3 fatty acids down-regulate genes involved in chronic inflammation, which show that n-3 is may be good for atherosclerosis.
Studies have shown an increase in omega-3 consumption leads to decreased damage from heart attacks.
Omega-3 may also reduce damage after a stroke.
Dietary epidemiology has also shown a link between n-3 and mental disorders such as Alzheimers and depression. N-3 intake is also linked to intelligence, vision and mood. Infants who don’t get enough n-3 prenatally are at risk for developing vision and nerve problems. Other studies have shown n-3’s effects on tumors, in particular, breast, colon and prostate cancer.
Omega-3’s are also great for muscle growth. Omega-3 intake in obese individuals along with exercise show a speed up in fat-loss for that individual.
Where do these people get their information from? Not only are omega-3’s good for damage reduction after a stroke and a heart attack, they’re also good for muscle growth, breast, colon and prostate tumor reduction, infants deficient in omega-3 prenatally are at risk for developing nerve and vision problems. Increase in omega-3 consumption is also linked to increases in cognition, reduces chronic inflammation and is linked to lower instances of depression.
Omega-3’s are fine. As I said with the Anglin refutation, do not listen to those with no background in nutrition as they most likely have no idea what they are talking about.
Rasmus Nielsen, a geneticist at the University of California, Berkeley, and an author of the new study, said that the discovery raised questions about whether omega-3 fats really were protective for everyone, despite decades of health advice. “The same diet may have different effects on different people,” he said.
See above links on omega-3 intake and all of the positive/negative factors.
In the future, maybe you’ll be able to get your DNA analyzed and be given a list of diets in rank order of their likelihood that they will work for you. But, right now, you can still try different diets. In particular, ask your relatives about what has worked and not worked for them.
That doesn’t matter, as diets should be tailored to the individual, as seen in the Cell study.
Oh, wow. I just found that Anglin wrote a refutation to those who deny the Paleo Diet. Let’s see what that’s about.
And maybe these people have scientific research and/or personal experience to back up what they’re saying. I’m not insulting them for disagreeing with me on diet, that is clearly their right.
The evolutionary argument for Paleo does not line up with your statements. As I noted in my previous article, if you want to eat Paleo because it works with what you like to eat, good for you. But doing it for any magic benefits is stupid, as there are none.
I know for a fact that at least 9 out of 10 people who dare to take this challenge will report back positively if they follow it properly for a month, and this means a whole lot more than someone’s opinion about what it might or might not do, theoretically.
Want to know why people will report back positively? Any time you begin a new diet, especially one on a kcal restriction, your body will drop weight quickly. That’s what piranha personal trainers use on unknowing people. Telling them that they’re doing a “great job”, when in actuality, that happens to everyone who begins a new diet.
Instead, they are arguing theoretically, making highly debatable statements like “White people have evolved to be able to consume dairy products.”
The above map shows lactose intolerance for countries around the world. Ancient Europeans began dairying around 7500 ya and were lactose intolerant when starting to drink milk. But along with faster evolution, which includes no gene flow from other parts of the world, that led to Europeans evolving to, on average, have lower rates of lactose intolerance.
People should really learn what they’re talking about before they say it.
The way to know whether or not they are beneficial is to quit them for a period and see how you feel.
Placebo effect.
Currently, because the scientific literature on these topics is so convoluted and debated on, there is no other conceivable way to prove it one way or another than through our own testing.
The science is pretty solid on this. Anecdotes don’t mean anything to studies.
Many have referred to paleo as a “fad diet.” And it may be a diet that is a fad, but it is also a diet with a thousands upon thousands of years long precedent. One might even suggest that it is the consumption of grains and dairy that are the “fad,” as it is a relatively new trend, in the scope of things.
It IS A FAD DIET ; with NO basis in science that Europeans should eat that way.
If you feel as if you are at peak physical health eating grains and dairy, and have no desire to spend time trying to improve on this, than by all means skip the challenge.
Is he implying that the Paleo Diet is the only diet that doesn’t allow grains and dairy? Not true at all. The Slow Carb Diet is the same, as well as any other high fat, high protein low-carb diet.
We should also note that the definitions of vegetarianism were different then, and Hitler did eat eggs and probably wasn’t completely meat-free.
That’s vegetarianism. Veganism is the more extreme one you’re thinking of where absolutely no animal products are consumed at all.
Vegetarian diets are shown to lead to vitamin inadequacies such as zinc, calcium, iron, manganese, selenium, and copper. Vegetarianism works, it just has to be well-planned. You need to make sure you get the right amount of essential as well as non-essential amino acids, high amounts of protein and make sure you’re not nutrient deficient.
Last time I wrote that White rice and potatoes are good carbs, but I want to be clear that they are not necessary unless you are both already at 5% body weight and you are highly active.
They are not ‘good carbs’. They are white carbs, which are bad for us if we don’t go to the gym to utilize the CHO being ingested. Five percent body-fat? That’s for competition bodybuilders and marathon and distance runners. The average person will never cut down to the level of body-fat. CHO is extremely useful if you’re highly active and go to the gym.
Even if you are not active, you need to consume a decent amount of carbs once a week in order to keep your metabolism from slowing down too much. However, it is probably preferable to use fruits for this purpose, as they contain more micronutrients.
Correct. If you eat a low-carb diet, you need a CHO refeed once a week to keep metabolism high. Though, using fruits is stupid. I know the Paleo thing, but there are many reasons why fructose (the sugar found in fruit) is bad for you. Sugar is just as addictive as cocaine. So telling the average person to ‘use fruits for this purpose’ is stupid, as the average person doesn’t know when to stop eating.
Yes, this diet will technically cost more than a processed foods and grain-based diet, all things being equal. The only reason anyone ever ate grains in the first place is because they were cheap, and processed foods were invented for the same reason. Any natural and healthy diet is going to cost more, all things being equal. However, things don’t have to be equal.
Wrong. Whole foods are not more expensive. The conclusion that was (obviously) reached is that there is expensive and non-expensive junk food as well as whole foods. I personally spend 70 dollars a week on food for myself, with all of my meals planned out. Natural diets will not cost more, all things being equal. If you know how to eat and how to buy food, you will avoid spending too much money.
I tried to answer most of the questions people had in the last thread, but it was so filled up with denialism I could have missed something. So ask here.
I hope you answer this, as well as my other refutation of your horrible nutrition article. I doubt it though.
How did we really evolve to eat?
The most common form of eating, 3 meals a day, is abnormal from an evolutionary perspective. We didn’t evolve eating 3 times a day. We evolved eating intermittently. The study says that intermittent energy restriction periods of up to 16 hours are fine. Long-term calorie restriction is highly effective in reducing the risk for atherosclerosis in humans. Again, another huge benefit for intermittent fasting. As the data comes out on human cohorts, we will be able to see all of the great effects that IF has for us, because that’s how any human population, no matter where they evolved, evolved eating.
There are beneficial effects to IF including reduced oxidative damage and increased cellular stress resistance. Rats put on an IF diet show heightened life-spans. IF is also extremely useful to keep a youthful brain as you age.
There are a mountain of studies that show how beneficial IF is to us and is the TRUE way humans evolved to eat, not any specialized diets. We evolved eating intermittently, and with our hedonistic society we live in now, along with low ability to delay gratification, as well as other factors I have covered in my previous nutrition articles, have led to the effects we see in America, and around the world today.
In conclusion, don’t listen to people who have no background in nutrition. They tell clearly wrong information, and those who aren’t privy to new information in the nutrition world, won’t know that they are being lied to and or manipulated into believing things based on shoddy evidence.
When Was Writing Invented?
Was writing first invented by the Sumerians? Before then? A lot of people seem to have misconceptions about what actually constitutes ‘writing’ and it’s predecessor ‘proto-writing’. Today I will touch on writing’s beginnings, as well as confusion of what writing is and is not.
Writing was first invented in Sumeria around 3200 B.C. What people confuse with writing is proto-writing, which is a precursor to writing. The word writing is defined as the activity of skill of marking coherent words on text. Therefor, proto-writing is not writing.
Above is a picture of the Karanovo Seal. People like to say that that denotes writing having it’s beginnings in Southeastern Europe in Romania around 7000 years ago. But that is proto-writing and not what we would call “writing” today. The Seal was made by the Vinca culture of Southeastern Europe. It is devoid of logograms, which is a written symbol representing an entire spoken word without expressing its pronunciation. The Seal is also of the Zodiac, and not any actual writing. It roughly matches up to the constellations when divided up in to four quadrants.
The Tartaria Tablets (which the Karanovo Seal is included with) were excavated in 1961 in Romania. People say that the above is writing. To quote Professor Colin Renfrew:
“To me, the comparison made between the signs on the Tărtăria tablets and those of proto-literate Sumeria carry very little weight. They are all simple pictographs, and a sign for a goat in one culture is bound to look much like the sign for a goat in another. To call these Balkan signs ‘writing’ is perhaps to imply that they had an independent significance of their own communicable to another person without oral contact. This I doubt.”
Steven Fischer writes in his book History of Writing:
The current opinion is that these earliest Balkan symbols appear to comprise a decorative or emblematic inventory with no immediate relation to articulate speech.
Proto-writing=/=writing. It doesn’t convey text and syllables and logographs. A logograph is 1 word represented by a single sign. For something to be classified as writing, it needs to have logograms and phonographs, which are signs holding purely phonetic or sound value.
The New World Encyclopedia says that those ‘writings’ cannot be called proper writing due to the fact that they are ancient traditions of symbol systems.
Now that we have a good understanding of proto-writing and what is and is not writing, lets touch on where writing was developed.
The five original writing systems were developed by the Sumerians of Mesopotamia, the Maya of Central America, the Ancient Egyptians of Egypt, the Dravidians of India and the Chinese of China. Though, the only remaining language in use is Chinese.
All five of the writing systems mentioned above use logograms, phonograms and syllables. All five of those writing systems can be spoken, which denote writing and language. The Tartaria Tablets, including the Koronovo Seal, cannot be spoken from, as the Seal is for the Zodiac and the Tablets are a form of proto-writing that cannot be spoken due to no logograms or phonograms.
Solutrean Hypothesis: Were the first peoples of the Americas from Spain?
Just like Afrocentrists have cockamamie theories, so do Eurocentrists. Some people believe that the first peoples of the Americas were the Solutreans, a stone age people from France and Spain who existed around 25 kya, and ended 16,500 ya. They would have had to cross 3000 miles of ice and water, does that seem possible 20 kya? Not at all.
The Solutrean Hypothesis first came about in the 30s by archaeologist Frank Hibben. He noted that the style of the spear tips the Solutreans used was like that of the Clovis culture in the Americas, who are the oldest culture on the continent. He said the tips bore an extremely strong resemblance to those from the Solutreans in Europe.
The points of the tips are different (diamond shaped, non-fluted vs concave bottoms, fluting). They also didn’t have boats to cross the ocean to reach the Americas.
From this Nature article, we can see that the genome of the Clovis people had direct ancestry to Native Americans:
An alternative, Solutrean, hypothesis posits that the Clovis predecessors emigrated from southwestern Europe during the Last Glacial Maximum4. Here we report the genome sequence of a male infant (Anzick-1) recovered from the Anzick burial site in western Montana. The human bones date to 10,705 ± 3514C years BP (approximately 12,707–12,556 calendar years BP) and were directly associated with Clovis tools. We sequenced the genome to an average depth of 14.4× and show that the gene flow from the Siberian Upper Palaeolithic Mal’ta population5 into Native American ancestors is also shared by the Anzick-1 individual and thus happened before 12,600 years BP.
Consistent with the population migration from Siberia into the Americas, as noted in this study. This study I will quote below also shows why some of the same alleles are found in both Europeans and Native Americans:
Y chromosomal DNA polymorphisms were used to investigate Pleistocene male migrations to the American continent. In a worldwide sample of 306 men, we obtained 32 haplotypes constructed with the variation found in 30 distinct polymorphic sites. The major Y haplotype present in most Native Americans was traced back to recent ancestors common with Siberians, namely, the Kets and Altaians from the Yenissey River Basin and Altai Mountains, respectively. Going further back, the next common ancestor gave rise also to Caucasoid Y chromosomes, probably from the central Eurasian region. This study, therefore, suggests a predominantly central Siberian origin for Native American paternal lineages for those who could have migrated to the Americas during the Upper Pleistocene.
And what do you know? There was this study proves the bolded text from the above study. That the Caucasoid Y chromosome comes from the central Eurasian region, which is where the Yamnaya came from, who populated Europe around 4500 years ago.
A study of the genetics of Kennewick man from Nature says:
We therefore conclude based on genetic comparisons that Kennewick Man shows continuity with Native North Americans over at least the last eight millennia.
That proves that Kennewick man was of Siberian origins, not European.
To round this up, some people like to say how some of the Natives have myths that a bearded white man came from across the Atlantic and gave them knowledge, who then left, promising to return. Then on the same day he promised he would return, was the day that Hernan Cortez landed at the Yucatan Penninsula. From their myths, they knew that the man was a god, because of his description.
People like to say that this myth proves Europeans crossing the ocean thousands of years ago to give knowledge to Native peoples of the Americas. Ridiculous, and here is why.
When the Aztec Empire fell, they needed a way to explain how their once great empire fell. So they then thought of the myth I described above. That the only way their civilization could have possibly fallen is only because of a god.
In conclusion, the Solutrean Hypothesis has no basis in genetics, paleoanthropology, and even basic common sense. Those who say that the Hypothesis is true are uneducated, and just like Afrocentrists, trying to push an untrue agenda.
BEHAVIOR=GENES+ENVIRONMENT NEEDS TO DIE: Vindication!
1800 words
So I was at Barnes N Noble a few weeks ago and picked up this book called ‘This Idea Must Die‘. It has a ton of researchers who wrote for it. Each person writes a short, 3 to 4 page writing on what idea must die and why. it’s a great read so far. Jared Diamond, Steven Pinker and Richard Dawkins wrote for it.
Now, I just came to this section in the book where Steven Pinker talks about behavior=genes+environment. To quote Pinker from the book:
Would you say that the behavior of your computer or smartphone is determined by an interaction between its inherent design and the way it is influenced by the environment? It’s unlikely; such a statement would not be false, but it would be obtuse. Complex adaptive systems have a nonrandom organization , and they have inputs. But speaking of inputs as “shaping” the system’s behavior, or pitting its design against its input, would lead to no insight as to how the system works. The human brain is far more complex, and processes its input in more complex ways, than human-made devices, yet many people analyze it in ways that are too simplistic for our far simpler toys. Every term in the equation is suspect.
Behavior: More than half a century after the cognitive revolution, people still ask whether a behavior is genetically or environmentally determined. Yet neither the genes nor the environment can control the muscles indirectly. The cause of the behavior is the brain. While it’s sensible to ask how emotions, motives, or learning mechanisms have been influenced by genes, it makes no sense to ask this of behavior itself. (Emphasis mine.)
Genes: Molecular biologists have appropriated the term “gene” to refer to the stretches of DNA that code for a protein. Unfortunately, this sense differs from the one used in population genetics, behavioral genetics and evolutionary theory – namely, any information carried that’s transmittable across generations and has sustained effects on the phenotype. This includes any aspect of DNA that can affect gene expression, and is closer to what is meant by “innate” than genes in the molecular biologists’ narrow sense. The confusion between the two leads to innumerable red herrings in discussions of out makeup, such as the banality that the expression of genes (in the sense of protein-coding stretches of DNA) is regulated by signals from the environment. How else could it be? The alternative is that every cell synthesizes every protein all the time! The epigenetics bubble inflated by the science media is based on a similar confusion. (Emphasis mine.)
Environment: This term for the inputs to an organism is also misleading. Of all the energy impinging on an organism, only a subset, processed and transformed in complex ways, has an effect on its subsequent information processing. Which information is taken in, how it’s transformed, and how it affects the organism (that is, the way the organism learns) all depend on the organisms innate organization. To speak of the environment “determining” or “shaping” behavior is unperspicuous.(Emphasis mine.)
Even the technical sense of “environment”used in quantitative behavioral genetics is perversely confusing. Now, there’s nothing wrong with partitioning phenotypic variance into components that correlate with genetic variation (heritability) and with variation among families (“shared environment”). The problem comes from so-called “nonshared” or “unique” environmental influences. This consists of all the variance attributable to neither genetic nor familiar variation. In most studies, it’s calculated as 1 – (heritability + shared environment). Practically, you can think of it as the differences between identical twins who grow up in the same home. They share their genes, parents, older and younger siblings, school, peers, and neighborhood. So what could make them different? Under the assumption that behavior is a product of genes plus environment, it must be something in the environment of one that is not in the environment of the other.
But this category really should be called “miscellaneous/unknown,” because is has nothing necessarily to do with any measurable aspect of the environment, such as one sibling getting the top bunk and the other the bottom, or a parent unpredictably favoring one child, or one sibling getting chased by a dog, coming down with a virus, or being favored by a teacher. These influences are purely conjectural, and studies looking for them have failed to find them.The alternative is that this component actually consists of the effects of chance – new mutations, quirky prenatal effects, noise in brain development, and events in life with unpredictable effects. (Emphasis mine.)
Stochastic effects in development are increasingly being recognized by epidemiologists, frustrated by such recalcitrant phenomena such as nonagenarian pack-a-day smokers and identical twins discordant for schizophrenia, homosexuality, and disease outcomes. They’re increasingly forced to acknowledge that God plays die with our traits.(Emphasis mine.) Developmental biologists have come to similar conclusions. The bad habit of assuming that anything not classically genetic must be “environmental” has blinkered behavioral geneticists (and those who interpret their findings) into the fool’s errand of looking for environmental effects foe what may be randomness in the developmental processes. (Emphasis mine.)
A final confusion in the equation is the seemingly sophisticated add-on of “gene-environment interactions.” This is also designed to confuse. Gene-environment interactions do not refer to the fact that the environment is necessary for genes to do their thing (which is true of all genes). It refers to a flipflop effect inn which the genes affect a person one way in one environment but another way in another environment, whereas an alternative gene has a different patter. For example, if you inherit allele 1, you are vulnerable: a stressor makes you neurotic. If you inherit allele 2, you are resilient: a stressor leaves you normal. With either gene, if you are never stressed, you are normal.
Gene-environment interactions in this technical sense, confusingly, go into the “unique environmental” component, because they’re not the same (on average) in siblings growing up in the same family. Just as confusingly, “interactions” in the commonsense – namely, that a person with a given genotype is predictably affected by the environment – goes into the “heritability” component, because the quantitative genetics measures only correlations. This confound is behind the finding that the heritability of intelligence increases, and the effects of shared environment decrease, over a person’s lifetime. One explanation is that genes have effects late in life, but another is that people with a given genotype place themselves in environments that indulge their inborn tastes and talents. The “environment” increasingly depends on their genes, rather than being the cause of exogenous behavior. (Emphasis mine.) (pg 188-191 This Idea Must Die)
I’m pretty excited about this. I have said for a while, to quote Douglas Whitman:
Race is not a social construct. Society is a racial construct. Society and culture derive from race/biology
You can see the effects from race/biology anywhere in the world you look and see the majority racial/ethnic mix of a country and/or area. A place is ONLY as good as its majority population.
We can see the kinds of effects this will have on our society as a whole. The way all of these 3rd worlders are flooding in to our countries. They leave their countries, to come to ours (in the West), and they don’t realize that once they become the majority and displace the native populations of the countries, that the place they will be living in will be just as bad, or even worse than where they came from.
Now, what Pinker said about the nonshared environment was really interesting. Especially at the end where he says ‘The “environment” increasingly depends on their genes, rather than being the cause of exogenous behavior.’
What does that mean? You can see this, for the most part, whenever there are new immigrants to an area. They still act how they did back in their home countries. The native peoples of the country have a certain way they act, and so do the immigrants to that country. The native peoples environment is an expression of their genetics. The new environment that the new immigrants bring to the country is also an expression of genetics. So, we can see just with what Pinker explained above, that environment itself doesn’t dictate behavior, but GENES DICTATE BEHAVIOR AND ALSO THE ENVIRONMENT THAT GETS CREATED.
So, it seems that those with certain genes place themselves in environments that indulge their inborn tastes and talents. “Environment” INCREASINGLY DEPENDS ON THEIR GENES RATHER THAN BEING THE CAUSE OF EXOGENOUS BEHAVIOR.
We know that genes are the driving force in life, and with this new ‘epigenetic’ field of genetics, they will attempt to say that environment is the main cause of molding genetics because one may have different things happen to them in one environment and not the other. But, since we have just seen here that those with certain genes put themselves into their environments, what does this say about certain people you may know? Does this mean that their genes put them in their situation? Well, for the most part, yes.
If one chooses their environment based on their genetic makeup, wouldn’t that throw out any and all environmental interactions?
For instance, how leftists say that negros can’t help it and are ‘born in to poverty’. Negros, as well as other low IQ peoples, choose their environment based on their genetics.
THE ENVIRONMENT YOU CHOOSE IS BASED ON YOUR GENETICS. THE PEOPLE DICTATE THE ENVIRONMENT OF A PLACE.
Growing up in a bad environment does not make you a bad person, sorry to say, but your genes make you a bad person. People seem to have the wrong idea about how environment interactions work with genes. I’m glad this came out.
This is inferred from what Pinker said. This is also explicitly said in the Whitman quote.
This new “epigenetic revolution” needs to die. It is saying that gene x environment interactions matter, when it really is the opposite. What is really happening is that individuals group up, due to genetic similarity theory, the theory proposed by Rushton after noticing that each ethnic group basically stayed with each other, along with their genetics that dictates their environment to live in. By putting so many genetically similar people in the same environment, in this case, immigrants, you will, therefore, get the same situation of how the conditions in their countries were, due to genetic similarity theory having them be with peoples of similar genetics, as well as their genes dictating their environments.
BEHAVIOR=GENES+ENVIRONMENT NEEDS TO DIE!!
Refuting Afrocentrism Part 2: Are Italians Black?
1400 words
Afrocentrists like to say things like ‘Italians were black’ and ‘the Romans were black’ and ‘The Moors were black’. All of this is based on shoddy evidence and uneducated people not knowing what they’re talking about.
In this article by an Afrocentrist, he claims that ‘Italians were black’ and talks about ‘dark-skinned Sicilians’.
Southern Italians were considered “black” in the South and were subjected to the Jim Crow laws of segregation. They weren’t allowed to marry “whites.” It was difficult, damn near impossible.
They were designated as “black” on census forms if they lived in the South and that is because the majority of them were dark-skinned Sicilians.
No idea what he’s talking about. In America at the time, Northern Italians said that Southern Italians were of a different race due to a slightly different look. Well, genetic testing shows similarities between the Northern and Southern Italians which I will get to later.
First off, it’s not only Sicilians who are ‘dark-skinned’. It’s all of Southern Europe.
The map seen above is a map of UV rays that Europe and parts of North Africa get. Notice how North Africa and Southern Europe get the same amount of UV rays. That’s the cause of the difference in appearance between the North and South of Italy.
Mass lynchings happened to them often.
Mass lynchings happened to everyone often, not just blacks and Italians. Lynchings happened to anyone who raped, murdered, or did any other heinous crime. 27 percent of those lynched between the years of 1882-1968 were white. It wasn’t only a ‘black problem’.
One of the biggest mass lynchings happened to Italians in New Orleans when they thought that a Italian immigrant had killed a “white” police officer.
Right. It was the biggest mass lynching ever in the history of the US, 11 Italians got lynched. But, what he says about the cause being ‘killing a “white” police officer’ is unfounded. They got lynched for killing the police officer, not because they were of ‘another race’.
The very few Northern Italians that immigrated here perpetuated the myth that Southern Italians and Greeks were of a different race than them in order to save their own asses. This wasn’t true, and there are actually dark-skinned Italians all over Italy, not just in the South, as well as light-skinned Italians all over Italy.
But it is true. The differences between Northern and Southern Italians are embellished due to political reasons. There are dark-skinned Italians who live in Italy but are not genetically Italian/Greek. Yes, light-skinned ‘all over Italy’, those in the North are more Germanic, while the South has slight admixture from North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa. Though, some from the South migrated to the North and vice versa. The amount of non-white admixture in Italians is less than that of the average for Europe:
Combined data from two large mtDNA studies provides an estimate of non-Caucasoid maternal ancestry in Italians. The first study sampled 411 Italians from all over the country and found five South Asian M and East Asian D sequences (1.2%) and eight sub-Saharan African L sequences (1.9%). The second study sampled 465 Sicilians and detected ten M sequences (2.2%) and three L sequences (0.65%). This makes a total of 3% non-white maternal admixture (1.3% Asian and 1.7% African), which is very low and typical for European populations, since Pliss et al. 2005, e.g., observed 1.8% Asian admixture in Poles and 1.2% African admixture in Germans. (Plaza et al. 2003; Romano et al. 2003)
Similar data from the Y-chromosome reveals Italians’ even lower non-Caucasoid paternal admixture. Both studies obtained samples from all over the mainland and islands. No Asian DNA was detected anywhere, but a single sub-Saharan African E(xE3b) sequence was found in the first study’s sample of 416 (0.2%), and six were observed in the second study’s sample of 746 (0.8%). The total is therefore a minuscule 0.6%, which decreases to 0.4% if only Southern Italians are considered and 0% if only Sicilians are considered. Again, these are normal levels of admixture for European populations (e.g. Austrians were found to have 0.8% E(xE3b) by Brion et al. 2004). (Semino et al. 2004; Cruciani et al. 2004)
An analysis of 10 autosomal allele frequencies in Southern Europeans (including Italians, Sicilians and Sardinians) and various Middle Eastern/North African populations revealed a “line of sharp genetic change [that] runs from Gibraltar to Lebanon,” which has divided the Mediterranean into distinct northern and southern clusters since at least the Neolithic period. The authors conclude that “gene flow [across the sea] was more the exception than the rule,” attributing this result to “a joint product of initial geographic isolation and successive cultural divergence, leading to the origin of cultural barriers to population admixture.” (Simoni et al. 1999)
These studies show the opposite of what Afrocentrists, and even Nordicists say.
The reason I say very few is because over 80% of Italian immigrants were from Southern Italy (Sicily, Abruzzo, Calabria, Campania, Sardinia, Naples, etc.)
Correct, and as seen above with those 3 studies, neither of them are ‘African’. My grandmother was born in Calabria. She looked like any other normal Italian woman you see on the street. These people take their ideas from movies, take genetics information from a movie like True Romance and attempt to say that all Italians are ‘black’ or ‘African’ or ‘Moorish’.
It was highly unlikely (damn near impossible) for a Southern Italian to own a slave because they were seen as the same as blacks, and at the time, they were the second (right behind blacks) most discriminated against group.
Too bad Italians started coming to America in the 1870s. What he states doesn’t even make sense because blacks owned slaves way disproportionately than whites. 4.8 percent of Southern whites, along with the North, being 1.3 percent of all whites in America in 1860 owned slaves. There are reports from New Orleans from their 1860 census that showed 3000 freed blacks owned slaves, accounting for 28 percent of the city’s population.
In 1860 Louisiana, at least 6 blacks owned more than 65 slaves, with the biggest number of slaves being 165 slaves who worked on a sugar plantation. So even if Italians were looked at as ‘black’, as you can see, blacks themselves had no problem owning slaves, and actually did it more than whites did right before slavery ended.
A lot of this confusion comes from the race of the Moors. The Moors are a Caucasoid Muslim group from North Africa. People hear ‘Africa’ and automatically think sub-Saharan Africa. Well, the Moors were Cacausoid for one. 2, as I have shown above, the amount of Moorish/Berber admixture is minute in Italians. 3rd, I will show now that the Berbers are not sub-Saharan African.
You have other Afrocentrist websites who talk about so-called ‘black Moors’. Well, the Moors were Berbers and Arabs, who are Caucasian.
Berbers live in groups scattered across NorthAfrica whose origins and genetic relationships with their neighbours are not well established. The first hypervariablesegment of the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region was sequenced in a total of 155 individuals from three Tunisian Berber groups and compared to other North Africans. The mtDNA lineages found belong to a common set of mtDNA haplogroups already described in NorthAfrica. Besides the autochthonous North African U6 haplogroup, a group of L3 lineages characterized by the transition at position 16041 seems to be restricted to North Africans, suggesting that an expansion of this group of lineages took place around 10500 years ago in NorthAfrica, and spread to neighbouring populations. Principal components and the coordinate analyses show that some Berber groups (the Tuareg, the Mozabite, and the Chenini-Douiret) are outliers within the NorthAfrican genetic landscape. This outlier position is consistent with an isolation process followed by genetic drift in haplotypefrequencies, and with the high heterogeneity displayed by Berbers compared to Arab samples as shown in the AMOVA. Despite this Berber heterogeneity, no significant differences were found between Berber and Arab samples, suggesting that the Arabization was mainly a cultural process rather than a demographic replacement.
IQ defines culture culture doesn’t define IQ
2500 words
People seem to be confused when it comes to IQ and culture. IQ is what determines the culture, the culture does not determine IQ
The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study: A Follow-Up of IQ Test Performance at Adolescence
Adopting parents tested when children were 7 and 17 120 115 — — —
Non adopted, with two white biological parents 116 109 3.0 64 69
Adopted, with two white biological parents 118 106 2.8 54 59
Adopted, with one white and one black biological parent 110 99 2.2 40 53
Adopted, with Asian or indigenous American parents 101 96 — — —
Adopted, with two black biological parents 95 89 2.1 36 42
The first column is age 7 IQ. Second is age 17 IQ. Third is age 17 GPA. Fourth is age 17 class rank(percentile) Fifth is age 17 school aptitude(percentile.
Levin and Lynn (1994) then disputed Weinberg et al’s conclusion with a hereditarian alternative. That the average IQ and school achievement scores of the black children directly reflected their amount of African ancestry. At both age 7 and 17, the adopted children with 2 black parents had lower average IQs and worse school achievement tests than those with one black parent and one white parent. So right here, in the MTAS, it shows that mixed-race people DO score better than just blacks, which is attributed to their white ancestry. Weinberg et al responds to their claims with this:
Waldman, Weinberg, and Scarr (1994) responded to Levin (1994) and Lynn (1994) with further regression analyses that indicated the children’s preadoptive experience was confounded with racial ancestry, and so an unambiguous interpretation of the results was not possible. [pg 259]
THIRTY YEARS OF RESEARCH ON RACE DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY
Why people attempt to deny these truths is beyond me. It’s clear there are cognitive, as well as behavioral differences between races, but the egalitarians attempt to make it out to be a 100 percent environment cause, which is a ridiculous statement to make.
What this tells me is that obviously, there are differences between the races. These were children adopted by upper-middle-class white families in Minnesota. Therefore negating any leftist argument of socioeconomics and broken homes or whatever other excuses they want to come up with.
The adopting parents of 12 of the interracial children wrongly believed that their adopted children had two black parents. The average IQ of these 12 children was not significantly different from the scores of the 56 interracial children correctly classified by their adoptive parents as having one black and one white parent.
Now, this doesn’t say which parent is which race. But, let’s assume that the mother is white. As seen at the end of the study, white mothers and black fathers produce generally intelligent kids. Is it the genes from the mother giving the intelligence? Is it that white women are better caretakers for children then African-American women? I believe it is the intelligence factor from the white woman. We have tons of anecdotes where half-breeds are generally intelligent and have good success in life. Is this because of the white mother with her genes? My guess is, yes. As I said, IQ is what determines the culture, the culture does not determine IQ
IQ scores have high predictive validity for individual differences in school achievement.
IQ scores have predictive validity for adult occupational status, even when variables such as education and family background have been statistically controlled.
There is little evidence to show that childhood diet influences intelligence except in cases of severe malnutrition.
The Bell Curve is hotly debated, but IMO it is debated because they know the authors were on to something and it would have destroyed the narrative that we are all the same, just different colors. People get shunned all the time.
Like Dr. James Watson. A great man. One of the greatest scientists in of this century is shunned. He had to sell his Nobel Prize. Why? People are scared of the truth. They know that their views of egalitarianism were about to be shattered, so let’s shun the man who brings these “radical views.”
The argument of socioeconomic status is the cause for the negros low IQ has been disproven time and time again. IQ is what determines the culture, the culture does not determine IQ. Do you think if Europeans and Asians were to have the same IQ as Africans, which is 70, that we would be living in this society we are in today?
The typical leftist response to IQ tests is that the negro doesn’t know anything on the test. That they are “white IQ tests” therefore making the negro fail by default as the white man made the test to prove his superiority. But if that’s the case, why do Asians score higher?
I look at the advancements of Africans over time. Pretty much the same throughout history. Not really anything. No wheel, boat, or written language.
For instance, Africans have longer limbs, can sprint for longer distances and have higher stamina. This works out with what they had to do in Sub-Saharan Africa. They had to chase food, chuck spears etc. For the most part, African climate stayed the same pretty much all year round. They didn’t have to plan ahead. Could this be the reason that so many negros are so impulsive?
Then what would have become Europeans migrated north, they had the elements to contend with. They had to plan ahead. They had to be strategic with their food as to not be wasteful. Also, body hair came as an advantage to help keep them warm. Also, Europeans have medium length limbs.
Asians (Mongoloids) had to contend with the cold. They have shorter limbs as there is less surface area, so it’d be easier for them to get warm. Their eyes are that way from fat deposits to help keep them warm.
Last week, scientists said that modern Europeans share a number of genes involved in the build-up of certain types of fat with Neanderthals. The same genes were not seen in people from Asia and Africa, however. It is thought that ancient genes might have helped Europeans adapt better to colder climates, giving them an evolutionary advantage. This is the first time we have seen differences in lipid concentrations between populations,’ said evolutionary biologist Philipp Khaitovich the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany and the CAS-MPG Partner Institute for Computational Biology in Shanghai, China. ‘How our brains are built differently of lipids might be due to Neanderthal DNA.’
The study also uncovers a more accurate timescale for when humans and Neanderthals interbred, and finds evidence for an early contact between the European hunter-gatherers and those in the Middle East — who would later develop agriculture and disperse into Europe about 8,000 years ago, transforming the European gene pool. Scientists now believe Eurasians separated into at least three populations earlier than 36,000 years ago: Western Eurasians, East Asians and a mystery third lineage, all of whose descendants would develop the unique features of most non-African peoples — but not before some interbreeding with Neanderthals took place.
Everyone living outside of Africa today has a small amount of Neanderthal in them, carried as a living relic of these ancient encounters. A team of scientists comparing the full genomes of the two species concluded that most Europeans and Asians have between 1 to 4 percent Neanderthal DNA. Indigenous sub-Saharan Africans have no Neanderthal DNA because their ancestors did not migrate through Eurasia.
Now, how does all of this say that low IQ dictates culture and not vice versa? The fact that some people say that culture dictates IQ makes me believe that they don’t understand evolution.
Look at Europeans and Asians. They had to weather extremely cold climates. They had to plan ahead. They generally had to be on their toes all the time because of the harsh climates of Europe and Asia.
Now let’s get to the negro. They stayed in one place. Their climate allowed for basically the same food to grow year round. They didn’t have to plan ahead. Sound familiar? In my opinion, the negro is this way for 2 reasons.
Both teams found that non-African genomes have large continuous “deserts” that are totally devoid of Neanderthal DNA. These regions include genes such as FOXP2, which is involved in motor coordination and could play an important role in human language and speech.
2 No extremes in climate.
I truly believe that how Europeans and Asians had to weather such extremes in the places they lived brought us to where we are today. They had to plan ahead. The negro didn’t. This is the reason for their low IQ. They were never challenged, no Neanderthal DNA and a steady hardly ever changing climate. It is theorized that when the Europeans went north into what is now Europe, they mated with Neanderthals. The old Hominids were violent. They killed off the Neanderthals.
Now let’s think about today. Blacks have higher testosterone than every race. High testosterone is linked to aggressive behavior. Also, think about how blacks always say they didn’t do it or some variation thereof. It is because they lack abstract thought. So along with the lack abstract thought, high testosterone, low IQ, all of the cited sources about no Neanderthal DNA, their lack of being in a cold climate, among other things is the reason for the way the negro is. The low IQ drives this.
They didn’t have the high IQ that leads to the innovations that Europeans and Asians had. This can be seen even today, with how the African lives their daily life.
Now, with all this being said, does IQ determine the culture or the culture determine IQ?
My point to this essay is that IQ determines culture. Culture does not determine IQ. I see some people saying that negros are dumb because of the environment they live in. This is so far from the truth. Also that their socioeconomic status prevents them from this and that. That their schools are bad. Well, we have one common denominator: negros.
They say the schools are bad. Their area is bad. Well again, one common denominator: negros. We have mountains of evidence, both scientific and anecdotal, that say that negros are less intelligent than Europeans and Asians. Why this is still denied is beyond me.
Yes, we all know that “good blacks” exist. But, they are statistical anomalies. In any big group, you will have outliers. Where are all of these Africans with their major innovations bringing them out of the rut their in? That’s because their IQ doesn’t allow them to think in ways that Europeans and Asians do.
I hope that some of these points have changed some minds on the matter. Negros can not live in first world societies. Hell, they can’t even make their own and they live in ours when it clearly doesn’t work out? The negro is not fit to live in America. IQ is the reason why. These reasons are why they can’t live in first world countries.
IQ is what determines the culture, the culture does not determine IQ
Low IQs are Africa’s curse, says lecturer
Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist, is now accused of reviving the politics of eugenics by publishing the research which concludes that low IQ levels, rather than poverty and disease, are the reason why life expectancy is low and infant mortality high. His paper, published in the British Journal of Health Psychology, compares IQ scores with indicators of ill health in 126 countries and claims that nations at the top of the ill health league also have the lowest intelligence ratings.
Having examined the effects of economic development and income inequality on health, he was ‘surprised’ to find that IQ had a much more important impact, he said. ‘Poverty, lack of sanitation, clean water, education and healthcare do not increase health and longevity, and nor does economic development.’
Kanazawa declined to comment on either War on Want or Atkinson’s allegations about reviving eugenics because, he said, other academics had come up with the national IQ scores that underpinned his analysis of 126 countries. In the paper he cites Ethiopia’s national IQ of 63, the world’s lowest, and the fact that men and women are only expected to live until their mid-40s as an example of his finding that intelligence is the main determinant of someone’s health.
Having examined the effects of economic development and income inequality on health, he was ‘surprised’ to find that IQ had a much more important impact, he said. ‘Poverty, lack of sanitation, clean water, education and healthcare do not increase health and longevity, and nor does economic development.’
The LSE declined to offer any opinion on Kanazawa’s conclusions but defended his right to publish controversial research. A spokeswoman said: ‘This is academic research by Dr Kanazawa based on empirical data and published in a peer-reviewed journal. People may agree or disagree with his findings and are at liberty to voice their opinions to him. The school does not take any institutional view on the work of individual academics.’
Kate Raworth, a senior researcher with Oxfam, said it was ‘ridiculous’ for Kanazawa to blame ill health on low IQ and ‘very irresponsible’ to reach such conclusions using questionable and ‘fragile’ international data on national IQ levels.
Rumit Shah, chairman of the LSE student union’s 52-member Kenyan Society, said lack of education was probably one reason why many Kenyans die young. Aids, tuberculosis and malaria were key factors too.
Just attacks Kanazawa and not saying anything to his findings. That person is right, not everyone in Kenya has an IQ at 72, half fall below it.
Mainstream Science on Intelligence: An Editorial With 52 Signatories, History, and Bibliography
Richard Lynn renewed his old tabulation of IQ score in a 2010 paper. The East Asians have the highest score. Singaporeans having a Chinese majority is the highest scoring country at 108. China, Korea and Japan 105, 106, 105 respectively. East Asian regions like Hong Kong is 108 and Taiwan is 105. Nevertheless, the IQ of China Shanghai is estimated to be 112, the highest among all, given that Shanghai students rank number one in academic abilities, in the world.
Western Europeans have an IQ of around 100. The IQ of a lot of black African countries ranges from 60-90.
India is 82, a very low figure. Malaysia is 92 and Indonesia is 87.
IQ correlate nicely with wealth of nations. The higher the IQ score, the more advance a nation in development. Low IQ nations often found themselves in civil war, rampant corruption or anarchy.
http://veritas-lux.blogspot.com/2013/09/racial-realism-2-iq-cock-length-and.html
Science Breaks the Taboo of Race: Dr. David Duke
Intentional homicides (per 100,000 people)
See the correlation between violence and IQ in the countries with high murder rates?
In conclusion, I’m sure that I made a great case for IQ defining culture. It’s clear, especially from all of the links I have provided in this piece, that IQ matters much more than culture, and that culture is directly related to IQ.
The “Blank Slate”
1700 words
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.
NotPoliticallyCorrect 
