NotPoliticallyCorrect

Home » Race Realism (Page 37)

Category Archives: Race Realism

HBD and Sports: Baseball

January 20, 2016 5:02 am / 15 Comments on HBD and Sports: Baseball

1350 words

Racial differences in sports also prove HBD. The differences are extremely clear to the naked eye, but there are many physiological differences between races that lead to disparities of one being over-represented over another race. I will touch on the three main races (Europeans, Asians and Africans), what they excel in and what they are below average in. Sports, as does academic achievement, prove HBD right. Sports prove innate athletic differences, whereas academic achievement proves innate differences in the brain, as well as intelligence. This is on average of course.

The word ‘sport’ is defined as an athletic activity requiring skill or physical ability, often of competitive nature. The sports I will touch on are baseball, basketball, soccer, football, weightlifting, bodybuilding, chess, gaming and hockey.

Baseball is predominantly white (MLB’s 2015 Racial/Gender Report Card), at 58.8 percent white (down from 60.9 in 2014), 8.3 percent black (up from 8.2 percent in 2014), 29.3 percent ‘Latino’ (up from 28.4 percent in 2014), and 1.2 percent Asian (down from 2 percent in 2014). Baseball is actually one of the only sports in America to be close enough to the ethnic mix of the country. According to the SABR (Society for American Baseball Research), the highest rate for black players in the MLB was in 1981 at 18.7 percent.

Before getting in to why the disparity is that large, I need to touch on ‘Latinos’ in baseball.

According to MLB.com, in 2014, 224 out of 853  players (750 active 25-man roster players and 103 disabled or restricted Major League players) were foreign-born, accounting for 26.3 percent of the players that year. Highest is the Dominican Republic with 83 players, followed by Venezuela with 59 players, Cuba with 19, Puerto Rico with 11, Mexico with 9, Colombia with 4, Panama with 4 and Nicaragua with 3. That makes 192 ‘Latino’ baseball players.

This article talks about how ‘black Latinos’ don’t get treated as black, but as ‘Latino’, when they are racially black (I will show some notable examples below). People like to think that it’s its own separate racial category when that’s not true at all.

Using 2014’s numbers, 520 players were white, 72 were black, 243 were ‘Latinos’, and 18 were Asians. We know that all ‘Latinos’ aren’t black, so using 2014’s numbers by country I will try to estimate the number of black ‘Latino’ players to try to get a real look at the racial breakdown in the MLB.

For brevity, I will just add each country up as what the majority mix of that particular country is. So, adding to the 72 black players I will add 83 from D.R., Cuba with 19, I’ll split P.R. with 5. Venezuela has a mix of blacks, whites and mulattoes, so I will just say 25 percent are black. That’s 15. Adding those up you get 194 black players. Keep in mind, a conservative estimate. So that makes the MLB about 23 percent black (this is only for those from foreign-born countries, I may make a comprehensive list one day if I feel up to it about this).

(I will just group mestizos as white for brevity to only have 3 categories.) So with that being said, 641 white players, 194 black players, and 18 Asian players. So with my guesstimate, baseball is 75 percent white, 23 percent black and 2 percent Asian in 2014.

Why the huge disparity? Simple. Baseball, at its core, is about reaction time. To quote Rushton and Jensen from their magnum opus Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability (pg 244):

Reaction time is one of the simplest culture-free cognitive measures. Most reaction time tasks are so easy that 9- to 12-year-old children can perform them in less than 1 s. But even on these very simple tests, children with higher IQ scores perform faster than do children with lower scores, perhaps because reaction time measures the neurophysiological efficiency of the brain’s capacity to process information accurately—the same ability measured by intelligence tests (Deary, 2000; Jensen, 1998b). Children are not trained to perform well on reaction time tasks (as they are on certain paper-and-pencil tests), so the advantage of those with higher IQ scores on these tasks cannot arise from practice, familiarity, education, or training.

And from pg 245:

The same pattern of average scores on these and other reaction time tasks (i.e., East Asians faster than Whites faster than Blacks) is found within the United States. Jensen (1993) and Jensen and Whang (1994) examined the time taken by over 400 schoolchildren ages 9 to 12 years old in California to retrieve overlearned addition, subtraction, or multiplication of single digit numbers (from 1 to 9) from long-term memory. All of the children had perfect scores on paper-andpencil tests of this knowledge, which was then reassessed using the Math Verification Test. The response times significantly correlated (negatively) with Raven Matrices scores, whereas movement times have a near-zero correlation. The average reaction times for the three racial groups differ significantly (see Figure 2). They cannot be explained by the groups’ differences in motivation because the East Asian children averaged a shorter response time but a longer movement time than did the Black children.

Those with higher IQs average faster times on the simple RT, choice RT and odd-man-out RT. They follow Rushton’s Rule of Three, in which blacks will be at the bottom, whites in the middle and Asians at the top.

In this article, Mind Games: What Makes a Great Baseball Player Great, they say that studies done by Columbia University on Babe Ruth while he was playing showed that he could react to visual and sound cues better than the normal population, as well as having better hand-eye coordination than 98.8 percent of the population. A great proportion of MLB players have 20/20 vision or better. Within higher-skilled players, even then there are huge differences in reaction time (IQ differences). Hitters also have to predict where the ball will be, all within a 4/10ths of a second. This infographic explains it well. So you need an extremely high reaction time to hit a fastball coming at you at 95 miles per hour. All of this proves that, on average, baseball players have high IQs because of a lot of the things associated with baseball, also correlate highly with IQ.

Personality also is a factor. According to the previously linked article, with the example of Darryl Strawberry and Billy Beane, Strawberry handled the pressure well, while Beane folded under pressure. Seems this has to do with extroversion and introversion. Strawberry says that self-confidence and mental toughness come in to play because they fail 66 percent of the time they come up to hit.

Athletic ability is also important. The top two record holders for stolen bases in the MLB are blacks. Has to do with fast twitch muscle fibers (muscle fibers that exert force faster, but tire out more quickly than slow twitch). So you can see how natural fast twitch muscle fibers help blacks on the field, as well as the base pads, in baseball.

To touch on a previous point, even in the upper end of hitters (the elite ones), there are still marked differences in reaction time (IQ). That makes sense, seeing as I alluded to before that it takes 4/10ths of a second for a 95 MPH fastball to reach home plate.

Why the low rate for Asians? Well, natural athletic ability for one. The second reason is myopia. Those with myopia do have a higher IQ on average (as the correlation is .25), but those that are nearsighted are often late in their reactions to higher speed pitches.  For something anecdotal, I’ve noticed that most Asians are pitchers, either starters of relievers. This article talks about the critical vision skills that pitchers need, and all though Asians are only 2 percent of the MLB, their high visio-spatial ability, along with high reaction times, they are able to succeed as good pitchers in the MLB.

Outfielders are generally fast and quick. Blacks round out a good amount of outfielders, whereas whites round out catcher, as well as a majority of the infield, due to a lot of line-drive hits coming at them, which the player needs high reaction times to be able to catch/field the ball.

Sports prove HBD, just like academic/monetary achievement. Intelligence, as well as physical differences, are pretty much innate. They show in all facets of life. Even though they are obvious to most, no one ever speaks out on it.

“Race is a Social Construct”: Part 1

January 17, 2016 12:13 am / 22 Comments on “Race is a Social Construct”: Part 1

3200 words

“Race is a social construct”. You may hear that a lot from uneducated people. They may say that since the definition of race is ‘ever-changing’, that race doesn’t exist and that it only exists in our minds. They obviously have no understanding of genetics and how we came to be today. If you want to get technical, everything is a social construct. The Universe is a social construct. We’re only giving definitions to what we perceive something to be, so with the logic of ‘race being a social construct’, then everything is a social construct. With that logic, the Universe doesn’t exist because it’s a social construct.

I will look at 3 articles in the first of many articles on this subject. One from Angela Onwuachi-Willig, Bill Nye and Ta-Nehisi Coates. All 3 have extremely wrong views on the biological reality of race, and I will prove that here. I will quote from each article and show how they are wrong with scientific studies as well as point out their bad logic.

I will begin with Angela Onwuachi-Willig. In her article for The New York Times, ‘Race and Racial Identities Are Social Constructs‘, she says that because of the ever-changing definition of the term race, that it is a social construct and not a biological one.

Race is not biological. It is a social construct. There is no gene or cluster of genes common to all blacks or all whites. Were race “real” in the genetic sense, racial classifications for individuals would remain constant across boundaries. Yet, a person who could be categorized as black in the United States might be considered white in Brazil or colored in South Africa.

Race is not biological, it is a construct. There are no clusters of genes or one gene that is common in blacks or whites. That is correct, but her statement about race being social and not a biological construct is clearly ignorant as I will show below.

i-6505999ec389c9cb434f204f598809d8-race

You can see in the picture above that races clearly do cluster in different clusters from other races. She is right about the changing definitions, especially Brazil, but Brazil is a special case. So much mixing has gone on in Brazil that there is evidence of skin color becoming independent of ancestry. One outlier example doesn’t make race a ‘social construct’. South Africa is also another one. They classify race in South Africa with four categories: black, colored, Indian/Asian or white. Obama would have been called ‘colored’ in South Africa today. But, again, just because there are changing definitions of race throughout the globe, doesn’t mean that race doesn’t exist.

Like race, racial identity can be fluid. How one perceives her racial identity can shift with experience and time, and not simply for those who are multiracial. These shifts in racial identity can end in categories that our society, which insists on the rigidity of race, has not even yet defined.

Is she making an argument for being ‘trans-racial’? I bet Rachel Dolezal would be happy.

In a society where being white (regardless of one’s socioeconomic class background or other disadvantages) means living a life with white skin privileges — such as being presumed safe, competent and noncriminal — whites who begin to experience discrimination because of their intimate connection with someone of another race, or who regularly see their loved ones fall prey to racial discrimination, may begin to no longer feel white. After all, their lived reality does not align with the social meaning of their whiteness.

I always hear about ‘white privilege’ but never get an actual definition of what it means. People complain about ‘white privilege’ because they, of course, don’t understand the biological reality of race. Anything that may prove innate differences between individuals or races they just can’t imagine exists because of what they’ve been taught their whole lives. She is talking about those whites who are in the BLM movement. The false ideals of egalitarianism are the cause of this.

More than 50 years ago, Congress enacted the most comprehensive antidiscrimination legislation in history, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Half a century later in 2015, the same gaps in racial inequality remain or have grown deeper. Today, the unemployment rate for African-Americans remains more than double that for whites, public schools are more segregated now than they were in the 1950s and young black males are 21 times more likely to be shot and killed by the police than their white male peers. Even a white fourth-grade teacher in Texas, Karen Fitzgibbons, openly advocated for the racial segregation of the 1950s and 1960s on her Facebook page.

Right. IQ is the cause of the unemployment rate of African Americans. Not any imaginary forces such as ‘white privilege’. Public schools are more segregated today due to people wanting to be with others genetically similar to themselves. Blacks cause themselves to get shot and killed by police due to their actions during altercations with police officers. Oh no, someone has not politically correct opinions!! She should lose her job and never work a good job again!

That’s what the Left does. They attempt to shout you down with buzzwords so you can’t calmly and intellectually prove your case.

She is clearly wrong. Good thing this is called an ‘opinion piece’, there were few actual facts in it.

Now to touch on Bill Nye’s views on race. It’s funny. I loved his show when I was a kid. Now, knowing the truth about racial differences, hearing him say that made me lose all respect for him. He’s a mechanical engineer with a Bs from Cornell University. People only take what he says because he is ‘The Science Guy’ when he has no training in what he is talking about.

“We obsess about whether our dog is a pug-Jack Russell terrier mix with corgi overtones and an oaky finish. ‘An approachable little dog,’ whatever. They’re all dogs, okay? And so the idea of a purebred is just a human construct. There’s no such thing – in a sense there’s no such thing as a purebred dog.”

That right there is a fallacy. As with the woman’s article above, they both use the ‘continuum fallacy‘. The continuum fallacy is when someone rejects a vague claim because it’s not as precise as they want it to be. ‘There are no pure races’ or ‘there are no pure breeds of dog’, that doesn’t mean that genes don’t cluster differently, showing genetic differentiation.

“If a Papua New Guinean hooks up with a Swedish person all you get is a human.  There’s no new thing you’re going to get. You just get a human. Japanese woman jumping the African guy, all you get is a human. They’re all humans. So this is a lesson to be learned. There really is, for humankind there’s really no such thing as race. There’s different tribes but not different races. We’re all one species.”

Right. That doesn’t mean there is no such thing as race. Grizzly bears and polar bears can mate to create a prizzly bear. Does that mean species doesn’t exist? (I will touch on speciation at the end of this article.) Once again, that statement doesn’t deny the biological reality of race, as you can see from the picture above.

355d5b456573a2f5552037a86d5fab5b

Researchers have proven, scientifically, that humans are all one people. The color of our ancestors’ skin is a consequence of ultra-violet light, of latitude and climate.

We all belong to the same genus, Homo, but again, that doesn’t disprove race. He’s correct in saying that our ancestors’ skin is a consequence of UV light of latitude and climate, and right there he proves us correct in stating that sunlight differences depending on where your ancestors evolved in the world are the cause of racial differences.

Despite our recent sad conflicts here in the U.S., there really is no such thing, scientifically, as race. We are all one species. Each one of us more alike than different.

In this statement, he is saying the first sentence because of recent racial relations in the U.S. A clear politically-motivated statement.

“Each one of us more alike than different.’ That is correct, but, yet again, doesn’t disprove the reality of race. Geneticists estimate that humans will differ, on average, at 3 million base pairs in their DNA. That’s more than enough for distinct racial classification, as well as enough to differentiate us.

Is that supposed to mean anything? Cats have 90 percent homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice.

90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome.

99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans.

As you can see from the links above, we are all extremely genetically related to animals that are clearly extremely physically different from us humans. This shows, that the differences in humans are down to not how genetically distant we are from other animals in the animal kingdom, but how the differing genes we have are expressed.

We all came from Africa. We’re all made from the same star dust. We’re all going to live and die on the same planet – a pale blue dot in the vastness of space. We have to work together!

And finally, you can see his way of saying that racial differences mean nothing because ‘we all come from Africa’ and ‘ we’re all made from star dust’. That may be true, but that doesn’t do anything to acknowledge, or even show that racial differences are meaningless.

Bill Nye has absolutely no authority to speak on this matter. Liberals then eat this up and cite Bill Nye as proof that race doesn’t exist, which is clearly untrue as I have shown.

Finally, I will get to Ta-Nehisi Coates’ ‘The Social Construction of Race‘. He cites my favorite blogger/geneticist Razib Khan, so this should be good.

Ancestry — where my great-great-great-great grandparents are from — is a fact. What you call people with that particular ancestry is not. It changes depending on where you are in the world, when you are there, and who has power.

Right with the first sentence, and with the second. It seems he’s attempting to use what the first article I cited says: that due to ever-changing racial definitions that race doesn’t exist as we believe it to be. He says that ancestry is a fact, well wouldn’t that same ancestry be your racial classification? I am not following his logic. Just because there are differing views on the definition of race throughout the globe, doesn’t mean that there is no biological reality of race.

He cites someone else who states:

“Race” as a term is very nebulous. But human subgroups with similar ancestries can have group differences in DNA — and intelligence is highly unlikely to have no genetic basis at all (although most now believe its impact is greatly qualified by cultural and developmental differences).

Cultural and developmental differences. The cultural differences are thrown out. According to the editorial ‘Mainstream Science on Intelligence’, which came out shortly after The Bell Curve was published, one of their points is that IQ tests are not culturally biased if the individual speaks English. If they are not English speakers, they will either get a test in their native language or get Raven’s Progressive Matrices, which is a ‘culture free’ IQ test as it’s based on pattern recognition and has no writing involved. Developmental differences, yes. White mothers have a better prenatal environment then do black mothers, which is biological. Developmental differences are innate within the two populations.

I do not know. Andrew is more inclined to believe that there is some group-wide genetic explanation for the IQ difference. I am more inclined to believe that the difference lies in how those groups have been treated. One thing that I am not convinced by is controlling for income and education.

Oh, the old ‘Stereotype Threat‘ canard. The paper, which was cited more than 5000 times, states that African-Americans do worse on tests in which they are told that they are being judged on their race. Well, a meta-analysis of 55 published and unpublished studies came out and what was found that the it shows clear publication bias. Either due to people not knowing how to read scientific papers or more insidious tactics. The effect varies across studies and is small. Though elite university undergrads may underperform on tests of cognitive tests due to Stereotype Threat, this effect doesn’t generalize to non-adapted standardized tests, high-stakes settings and less academically gifted test takers. Stereotype Threat cannot explain the difference in mean cognitive test performance between African Americans and European Americans. (pg 68)

In the mid-20th century, as we have been documenting, it was the policy of this country to deny African-Americans access to the same methods of wealth-building, that it was making available to whites.
African-Americans can’t build the same type of wealth due to mean genetic differences in IQ.
This is not merely a problem for your local  diversity and sensitivity workshop. It is a problem of wealth and power. When you create a situation in which a community has a disproportionate number of poor people, and then you hyper-segregate that community, you multiply the problems of poverty for the entire community–poor or not. That is to say that black individuals are not simply poorer and less wealthier than white individuals.  Because of segregation, black individuals and white individuals of the same income and same wealth, do not live in communities of equal wealth.
Wealth and power are directly related to IQ. Communities have a disproportionate amount of poor people due to them being low-IQ, blacks, whites or Asians, you can’t get away from low-IQ being the cause of poverty. People hyper-segregate themselves, see my Genetic Similarity article. Again, segregation is due to GST, not any insidious plot to hold anyone down. I’ve spoken multiple time on how oxytocin is responsible for ‘racism’ (ethnocentrism), and everything he is saying is just proving my point.
What bearing does segregation have on IQ differential? I don’t know. My skepticism of genetics is rooted in the fact that arguments for genetic inferiority among people of African ancestry are old, and generally have not fared well. My skepticism is also rooted in the belief that power generally seeks to justify itself. The prospect of actual equality among the races is frightening. If black and white people truly are equal on a bone-deep level, then the game might really be rigged, and we might actually have to do something about it. I think there’s much more evidence of that rigging, then there is evidence of cognitive deficiency .
There is no evidence for racial/ethnic equality. Any ‘evidence’ is shoddy and has NOT and NEVER WILL BE replicated because any studies that show racial equality are either badly administered or they never do a follow-up study at adulthood.  Blacks and whites are not equal ‘on a bone-deep level’. What kind of statement is that? There is WAY MORE evidence for cognitive deficiency than for ‘rigging’ of the game to hold blacks down in America.
I must add that I can not pretend to be a dispassionate, nor impartial observer. I come from a particular place. I’ve now been out in the world, and seen how other people in other places live. They don’t strike me as more intelligent. They strike me as better armed. There’s nothing scientific about that. But I think we all have core faiths. These are mine. You’ve been warned.
“My personal anecdotal experiences mean more to scientific studies on race and intelligence.” Where have we all heard that before? Too bad your ‘core faiths’ are just that Mr. Coates: FAITH.

Regardless of the method used in the analyses, all researchers reached estimated very close to that obtained by Lewontin: The differences observed by the subdivisions (populations, groups of populations, races) represented 10 to 15 percent of the total genetic variation found within the human species. Formally, these findings demonstrate, first, that the species is indeed subdivided into genetically definable groups of individuals and, second, that atleast some of these groups correspond to those defined by anthropologists as races on the basis of physical characters. They do not however, settle the arguments regarding the methods of racial classification. Unfortunately, Lewontin did not specify before initiating his analysis how large the difference has to be in order to call the groups “races”.

Consequently, the results of the studies have led population geneticists to two diametrically opposite conclusions. Lewontin called the observed differences trivial, and proclaimed that “racial classification is now seen to be of no genetic or taxonomic significance” so that “no justification can be offered for its continuance.” This view is echoed by authors of similar studies, who seem to be surprised that genetic variation within populations is greater than that between them. By contrast, Sewell Wright who can hardly be taken for a dilettante in questions of population genetics, has stated emphatically that if differences of this magnitude were observed in any other species, the groups they distinguish would be called subspecies.

One can extend Wright’s argument even further. The more than 200 species of haplochromine fishes in Lake Victoria differ from each other much less than the human races in their neural genes, although they are presumably distinguished by genes that control differences in their external appearances. The same can be said about atleast some of the currently recognized species of Darwin’s finches and other examples of recent adaptive radiations. In all these cases, reproductively isolated groups are impossible to tell apart by the methods used to measure differences in human races. Obviously, human races are not reproductively isolated (interracial marriages are common and the progenies of such marriages are fully fertile) but the external differences between them are comparable to cichlid fishes and Darwin’s finches. Under these circumstances, to claim that the genetic differences between the human races are trivial is a more political statement than a scientific argument. Trivial by what criterion? How much difference would Lewontin and those who side with him consider non-trivial?

By mixing science with politics, geneticists and anthropologists are committing the same infraction of which they are accusing other scientists, who they themselves label as racist. Even worse, by labelling the genetic differences as insignificant, they play into the hand of genuine racists who can demolish this claim and so further their own agenda. It is intellectually more honest to acknowledge and then point out that by no means imply supremacy of one race over others. This can be done by demonstrating that the differences are in genes that cannot be linked to any features that would be required for the preeminence of a particular race.

It’s clear that racial classification does exist. The creator of Fst, Sewall Wright, says that a Fst distance of .15 is more than enough for speciation (differing racial classifications). It directly refutes Lewontin, who put his political ideology of Marxism over science. Those cichlids in Lake Victoria are a perfect example that though the definition of ‘species’ does change depending on which researcher you speak to, it doesn’t discount that there are real and physical genetic differences between races and ethnicities.

In conclusion, the term “race is a social construct” is a deliberately intellectually dishonest statement, or a statement used to hide the truth for more insidious things to happen due to the non-acknowledgement of race.

IQ, Nutrition, Disease and Parasitic Load

January 15, 2016 4:50 am / 20 Comments on IQ, Nutrition, Disease and Parasitic Load

1600 words

There are some environmental factors that have negative effects on IQ. Three I will touch on today are nutrition, disease and parasitic load. All three mean decreased cognitive ability as well as a slew of other negative effects on their lifestyle.

To start, nutrition of the mother is one of the most important and telling things for the health as well as IQ of the child. Prenatal nutrition is very important to a developing fetus. What the mother eats has a big effect on the fetus. For instance, vitamins and minerals are extremely important. A pregnant mother needs two times the amount of folic acid than a non-pregnant mother. A pregnant woman needs 400 mcg per day to prevent defects to the babies brain and spine called neural tube defects. A pregnant woman also needs double the amount of iron than a non-pregnant woman.

We can see here that if a pregnant woman is protein deficient, it passes on to the baby. Protein is more important in the second and third trimester due to the fetus developing more rapidly. It can also lead to growth retardation, due to reduced nutrient supply to the fetus. The authors end up concluding that the women who ingested 50-70 grams of protein per day and 156 to 465 ml of milk had children with significant and better tendency in femur length, bi-parietal diameter, abdomen circumference and head circumference. It’s important for a mother to get the right amount of protein for optimal fetal growth.

It’s also known how malnutrition in early years can lead to antisocial and aggressive behavior as well as lower cognition. It’s due to what I touched on above. They state that malnutrition in early childhood years such as lack of iron, zinc, B vitamins as well as being protein deficient leads to the 3 aforementioned things. As I have shown in the previous paragraph, the lack of the same nutrients during fetal development causes the same problems.

Now that I have touched on how prenatal nutrition is important for the fetus, I will talk about parasitic load.

According to a paper by Eppig et al, the prevalence of parasites is the cause of worldwide differences in cognitive ability. They state that from an energetics standpoint, that a developing human would have a hard time developing a brain while fighting infectious disease, as both are very metabolically demanding. They go through all of the theories of differences in cognitive ability, such as the cold winter hypothesis of Lynn, Rushton and Kanazawa, to studies of inbreeding depression by Saadat and Woodley. They state that Lynn has argued that nutrition is important to high degrees of mental development, that nutrition is the cause of the ‘Flynn Effect’ and that he showed that undernourished children have smaller heads, smaller brains and lower cognitive function than adequately nourished children. They end up concluding that as nations develop, they should be monitored for a decrease in parasitic infection to see if it correlates with a rise in IQ and whether any gain would be able to account for the ‘Flynn Effect’ (which the rate is 3 points per decade, no matter what population you look at).

To touch quickly on what Lynn said about undernourished children having smaller heads, smaller brains, and, therefore, lower cognitive function, all 3 of those variables are related. Brain size is correlated with cognitive ability at .44. So, we can see there is a pretty good relationship with brain size and IQ. So, those who don’t get adequate nutrition will, in turn, have a smaller head size and a smaller brain, which both lead to depressed intelligence.

There is evidence that Sickle Cell Anemia leads to a decrease in IQ. The authors conclude with MRI scans, that those with SCA have a decrease in total brain volume, which of course has a negative effect on cognitive ability. Though, that happened due to an increase in age. It’s known that brain size and the amount of neurons in the brain decrease with age. I won’t discount that SCA lowers cognitive ability, it’s a good hypothesis, along with the paper by Eppig et al, but I still think that Rushton, Lynn and Kanazawa’s Cold Winter Theory is the best evolutionary model for differences in intelligence found across the globe.

malariamap1

In the map above you can see the rate of malaria in the world. It’s concentrated around the equator as mosquitoes are the main transmitters of the parasites. Though, is it the parasitic load that causes low IQ or evolution in hot climates, which lead to low IQ and, in turn, makes them able to not be able to figure out how to cure the diseases due to low intellect? I believe it’s both, leaning more to the side of evolution in hot climate obviously, but I won’t discount that malaria, and therefore, SCA, has something to do with lower cognitive ability in those populations with higher rates of malaria.

So with all of the above factors, let’s talk about Africa.

We know they have the lowest IQs in the world (IQ 67 to 70), and we know they have the highest rates of malaria in the world, and also some of the worst nutritional standards of any geographic region in the world.

What is the cause? IQ? Disease? Parasitic load? Nutrient deficiencies?

All of the above. The last 3 are environmental effects that retard IQ. IQ drives most all development for a country, so with the last 3 points being there, obviously since they retard IQ, the QoL in the country will suffer.

Lynn states that with better nutrition that Africans will be able to reach their phenotypic IQ of 80. There is some good evidence for his claim as he also states that blacks with low to no white admixture have an IQ of 80. Rushton and Jensen also say that since psychologists don’t venture into the lowest income neighborhoods in the South, that the black IQ may be 78 in America, and not 85. Right there by the African phenotypic IQ of 80. So, that would mean that those with the highest amount of African ancestry have an IQ of around 80, plus or minus a few points. So if those African-Americans with low amount of white admixture have an IQ of 80, then it’s a good bet to take that if Africans themselves had proper nutrition that they would hit 80 as well, just as Lynn has stated.

Satoshi Kanazawa also said this back in 2006. Of course the media made him out to be someone who just said that without any backing of his claims. He compared IQ scores with indicators of ill health in 126 countries. He found that those countries with the lowest IQs have higher rates ill health. They accuse him of attempting to ‘revive 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’. We know that poverty goes out the window because of the relationship between IQ and poverty. But as seen above, disease does have an effect on IQ. They only threw buzzwords at him and, of course, didn’t attempt to say anything meaningful to him.

The link between life expectancy and IQ is well studied. Those with lower IQs live shorter lives and those with higher IQs live longer lives. The studies and information I cite in that article corroborate what Kanazawa says about IQ and ability to fight disease.

IQ is affected by environmental factors such as disease, nutrition and parasitic load. I have given good evidence that with better nutrition, Africans can reach their phenotypic IQ of 80. But, they can’t learn how to farm because of their low IQ. They can’t get a higher IQ because they can’t learn how to farm.

The cause of this is evolution. When they say, as seen in Kanazawa’s article, that poverty (malnutrition) and disease are the causes of low IQ, low IQ causes those 2 things because those with lower IQ don’t have the abstract ability to think into the future that what they’re doing to their bodies can and will have negative effects in the future, which leads to decreased life span as I have noted in the article I have linked. It also leads to them not being able to farm, due to not having a high enough intellect due to evolving in the hot climates of the sub-Saharan desert. The only thing that holds wight, in my opinion, for the case for an environmental effect for lowered IQ is the case for parasitic load. So, I posit that if Africans were to some how to get it in to shape on their own and take care of those things on their own, they will be able to reach their phenotypic IQ of 80. We also know that immigrants from European countries with lower IQs, their descendants in America have IQs closer to average to the white average (100). 33 million people in Europe are at risk for malnutrition, so those who do come to America who are at risk for malnutrition, get the IQ boost due to living in America with better nutrition. This is also supported by African immigrants to America having a higher rate of collegiate attainment than white Americans, though that may be due to super-selection, only the smartest African populations coming here.

In conclusion, those African-Americans with low to no white admixture have an IQ of around 80, so it’s well supported that, with better nutrition, lower parasitic load and lower disease rate, Africans, and all other low IQ countries for that matter, can get a boost of around 10 to 15 points with all 3 things I have noted in this article taken care of.

Race Realism: Modern Day Galileos

December 27, 2015 2:01 am / Leave a comment

3000 words

This will be the first in a long series of posts on who I think are Modern Day Galileos and their contribution to the study of racial differences/intelligence and all that good stuff. People who get shunned because their views aren’t ‘PC’.

Why do people deny race realism? Why do people deny that there are mental and behavioral differences between races, but acknowledge physical differences among races when science acknowledges it, but not when they mention IQ or other behavioral differences?

People deny it because people HATE hearing that they are wrong. Actually, telling someone facts on something when they are ignorant on the matter INCREASES misperceptions.

They’re scared. I find it funny that hundreds of years ago, even as recent as the early 1900s, that we knew that there are differences. What changed? Marxism. Communism. Some wacky belief that we are all the same even though races spend tens of thousands of years isolated from each other. These same people point to science when it goes against their beliefs, not when it goes against them. My brother told me that his CCD teacher said to him one day that there are Christians called “cafeteria Christians.” Meaning, that they read the Bible and cherry pick what they like and fits their views but omit the stuff that doesn’t or say it’s irrelevant. I’m pretty sure a lot of these people have differing levels of cognitive dissonance, because it’s so illogical to believe that we are all the same.

Where did this idea originate from? As far as my research indicates, the earliest was from Marxism. Anyone know if this is right or not? They need everyone to “be the same.” Racial differences don’t allow that to happen as we are all different and different groups of people, on average, some will be better than others, others not as good. People can say superiority and inferiority, but it’s just their buzz words they say so people cry racist and no further research gets done.

Let’s get to some of the leading people in this field. Let’s start with Rushton.

Rushton spent his life studying differences in races, intelligence and other factors. He got heckled as a racist and people gave character attacks in place of rebuttals to his claims. See some of this video. Start at 31 minutes to hear the end of Rushton’s part, then at 34, Suzuki gets up.

Skip to 31 minutes to get the part.

Suzuki didn’t refute not one of his points at until 3 minutes into his turn. Just ad hominems and character attacks. Sound familiar? Even well learned people still give illogical arguments to facts. Suzuki says IQ can be changed. It can be changed in children, because heritability is low but as you age, heritability increases. The way he puts his statement, makes it seem like you can make your IQ higher at any point in life. Wrong. Most people here know the reality of heritability of IQ. He says IQ doesn’t test intelligence. Why? What makes people give ad hominems in place of facts? They have been conditioned to accept these false truths from people who are scared to learn exactly how different we are.

When people do give rebuttals on why we differ in intelligence and other mental and behavioral traits, they are usually poor arguments that are easily refutable. Systemic racism, environment, which is influenced by IQ, as is culture, poverty and other easily refutable arguments. Silly arguments that quickly crumble when presented with facts.

Now Charles Murray and Richard Hernnstein, co-authors of The Bell Curve.

They also received much criticism on their book which the main topic is that human intelligence is influenced heavily by inherited and environmental factors and are indicators of success in life, income, job performance, crime involvement, out of wedlock births, parental socioeconomic status and education level.

Criticisms of the book are as follows.

Similarly, anthropologist C. Loring Brace in a review wrote that The Bell Curve made six basic assumptions at the beginning of the book. He argued that there are faults in every one of these assumptions

Human Cognitive ability is a single general entity, depictable as a single number.

It is called the g factor.

Cognitive ability has a heritability of between 40 and 80 percent and is therefore primarily genetically based.

Twin studies put heritability at .85.

IQ is essentially immutable, fixed over the course of a life span.

Yes. Only possible to raise in children as heritability is lower, as you age, heritability increases.

IQ tests measure how “smart” or “intelligent” people are and are capable of rank ordering people in a linear order.

Yes, they do measure this accurately.

IQ/g is the best single predictor, mental or non-mental. IQ/g usually predicts major life outcomes better than does any other single predictor in broad samples of individuals.

Results indicate an expert consensus that g is an important, non-trivial determinant (or, at least, predictor) of important real-world outcomes for which there is no substitute, and that tests of g are valid and generally free from racial bias.

“IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measureable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes … Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical and social importance”

IQ tests are not biased with regard to race, ethnic group or socioeconomic status.

They aren’t biased. Whites and blacks get taught the same things. When they culturally load IQ tests with stuff blacks know, they score highly. For the people who say they are biased, we have Raven’s Progressive Matrices, tests based on picking the next matrice in the order. “Culture free IQ tests.”

Arthur Jensen is another great man in this field. Both him and Jensen have written great papers together. They refuted the Flynn Effect, which has stopped since the early 90s. His and Rushton’s twin studies prove IQ to be heritable at .85.

Jensen’s most controversial work, published in February 1969 in the Harvard Educational Review, was titled “How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?” It concluded, among other things, that Head Start programs designed to boost African-American IQ scores had failed, and that this was likely never to be remedied, largely because, in Jensen’s estimation, 80% of the variance in IQ in the population studied was the result of genetic factors and the remainder was due to environmental influences.

This is true. Headstart does really nothing for children.

Seems like Jensen has flipped from an environmentalist to the hereditarian position over the course of his career. Of course. Because as you attain new knowledge on a subject, you begin to reevaluate your views.

See some criticisms about Jensen.

What of the latest currents of thought? Are they likely to lead to, or at least encourage, further distortions of social policy? The indications are not all encouraging. Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray published a book in 1994 clearly directed at policy, just as Jensen and others had in the 1960s and 1970s. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (New York: Free Press 1994) teamed a psychologist with a conservative policy advocate to try to prove that both the class structure and the racial divide in the United States result from genetically determined differences in intelligence and ability.

We know there are genetically determines differences in intelligence and ability. As I have said earlier, tens of thousands of years separated have resulted in mental as well as behavioral differences.

Their general assertions about genes and IQ were not very controversial, but their speculations on race were something else again.

How is that? Because they come to find that the truth, obviously, is not what people want to hear, because in the back of their minds, it makes them question what they’ve been taught their whole lives.

Jensen actually started off his career as an environmentalist, meaning he thought IQ was dictated fully by environment. He only looked in to the genetics of intelligence so he can say he looked at it and that there was no relationship between intelligence and genetics.

He wasn’t even mad at the people who attacked him for his research, he just wanted to them to look at the data. Someone who goes from an all environment outlook on IQ, to a mostly hereditary outlook on IQ, who actually follows where the data leads him, switched his position on the subject because the evidence was overwhelming. The point to bringing up Jensen’s past views on this subject are to show that even someone with a full on egalitarian mindset when it comes to this can and will switch their views when the data piles up enough, and look what came out of that. The most important psychologist of this generation, with the most cites and most papers.

This is the paper that reignited the firestorm on race/IQ and just IQ as a whole. A paper that never would have gotten written had he not looked where any and all data sent him. This is why all of our detractors should look at all of the evidence, then weigh it out themselves and not just listen to other non-experts on the subject, but actually, read it for themselves and attempt to digest all of the information and data so that they fully understand it. Even the most diehard egalitarian, if they are completely science-minded and not driven by emotions and politics will change their position.

You have people like Tim Wise putting all of this Marxist dribble into people’s heads. A class struggle, a race struggle. Those hierarchies are wrong and that everyone should be the same. Well, we know that in nature, hierarchies naturally exist. Why should humans be any different?

We all know that when people like us give facts like we give, they immediately cry racist as an attempt to stifle discourse. They think that ad hominem attacks end the conversation. We know that reality still exists whether these people want to admit it or not. They just look really ignorant denying facts.

People’s favorite ad hominem to use when we use our facts is to cry Stormfront. Like that changes the reality of facts. Because they know they can’t refute them so they do that and all of the other SJW jump in and berate the person’s accused character, all the while ignoring the facts. We all know who looks the most intelligent.

Let’s get to Guns, Germs, and Steel. For those of you who haven’t seen it, here’s the link.

Such a ridiculous argument.

So different levels of civilizations can be traced to environmental differences and not innate differences in races? Because physical environment can explain civilization differences does that mean all human brains are the same on average? Horrible strawman. Noone says environment doesn’t matter.

We can look at 2 countries within Sub-Saharan Africa. Look at South Africa. Still one of the wealthiest countries in Africa. Economic freedom isn’t the only source of wealth, human capital and natural resources are important. The lack of proper resources for civilizations in the past isn’t why Africa is poor today since we can see actual African countries that are better of by simply having more economic freedom.

The poverty today in Congo isn’t dated back to the dawn of time. Diamond says New Guineans are probably smarter then white Europeans. So does he accept that all races are the same in the brain except New Guineans? So does he then accept that human brains can differ in environments? Jared Diamond’s work is irrelevant and does nothing to explain why the various race performs differently in Europe. You can say racism or lingering effects of oppression, but the reasons for Africa’s poverty is not relevant to the racial gaps in Europe and America.

If you think it’s caused by environmental poverty in the past, you still have to argue the facts on racial differences today, the evidence still exists.

Jared Diamond is a man who spent a lot of time in Papua New Guinea. I guess he grew to like the natives there and befriended some of them so he makes ridiculous leaps in logic to actually say they may be more intelligent than Europeans. Hilarious. Any intelligent person can see the ridiculousness of what he claims. I can’t even begin to think how, when faced with all of this evidence of differences, that you can possibly believe in some warped view of equality or egalitarianism.

The same people who cry racist want to use racist policies to shoehorn minorities into places they don’t deserve to be in all in the favor of “equality and justice.” More intelligent whites and Asians lose out on a chance to get a good education all because they have to shoehorn minorities into places they don’t belong, because their, IQ simply doesn’t allow for it.

Rushton gives a great review of Diamond’s book here.

In Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond joins the debate over racial differences in IQ. In a few ex cathedra pronouncements, Diamond brands the genetic argument “racist” (pp. 19-22), declares Herrnstein and Murray’s (1994) The Bell Curve “notorious” (p. 431), and states: “The objection to such racist explanations is not just that they are loathsome but also that they are wrong” (p. 19). He summarises his solution to one of philosophy and social science’s most enduring questions in one credal sentence: “History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among people’s environments, not because of biological differences among peoples themselves” (p. 25).

The book grew out of an attempt to answer “Yali’s question.” Yali, a New Guinea native, allegedly asked Diamond, an evolutionary biologist, “Why is it that you white people developed so much cargo and brought it to New Guinea, but we black people had little cargo of our own?” “Cargo” refers to all that technology — airplanes, guns, steel axes — European whites brought to New Guinea, whose dark-skinned inhabitants were still using stone tools. Diamond’s answer, is that the peoples of the Eurasian continent were environmentally rather than biologically advantaged. They had the good fortune to have lived in centrally located homelands that were oriented along an east-west axis, thereby allowing ready diffusion of their abundant supply of domesticable animals, plants, and of cultural innovations.

As a card-carrying “race-realist” (Rushton, 1995), I should register my objection to Diamond’s claim that Guns, Germs, and Steel is a good faith effort to solve one of the most controversial and enduring controversies in the history of philosophy and social science. However well written, however encyclopedic in scope, and however much truth there may be in this book about 10,000 years of human history, Diamond does not give his readers the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In fact, he gives them much less. Inexcusably for an evolutionary biologist, Diamond fails to inform his readers that it is different environments that cause, via natural selection, biological differences among populations. All of the Eurasian developments he described created positive feedback loops selecting for increased intelligence and various personality traits (e.g., altruism, rule-following, etc.).

In recent years, the equalitarian dogma has been hit hard by some bad karma. In the wake of the success of The Bell Curve and other recent books about race (including my own) to provide race-realist answers to the question of differential group achievement, there has been an intense effort to get the ‘race genie’ back in the bottle, to get the previously tabooed toothpaste back in the tube. It is in such times that Diamond provides an answer that, just coincidentally, shores up the walls of the politically correct fortress, when they are being threateningly undermined by scientific research.

Rushton, as usual, gives a great review and discredits most, if not all of Diamond’s thesis in the book.

If these trends continue, we can expect to see a huge shift in the climate of America. Because the people who have the intellect and grades to get into good colleges get passed up for minorities. I don’t even need to explain how this will degrade society by putting people in a place where they don’t belong.

We all know of the SAT scores and how they correlate at .81 with intelligence. We all know how blacks consistently score lower than whites, even blacks from high socioeconomic status homes and whites from a poor socioeconomic situation. The leap in logic to say that forces are actively holding down blacks is ridiculous. The IQ gap has held consistent and there are 100 years of studies to back this up. We know it is mostly heritable.

America will go through a paradigm shift soon. A country doesn’t stay the same for too long. It was only 100 years ago that people understood the realities of race. We are due for a paradigm shift in consciousness soon. I can feel it. To actively deny things, especially when presented with well-sourced facts, is very ignorant. These same people who claim to be so intellectual show how unintellectual they are when they don’t look at evidence that differs from their own beliefs or even attempt to refute facts.

These 4 men, among many others, will be recognized as modern-day Galileos. No country can scoff at facts and reality for so long before it finally becomes accepted. It’s simply illogical to ignore facts for so long. As we all know, just because you ignore something, doesn’t make it not real.

In conclusion, the denial of race realism is simply illogical and a stupid belief based on ignorance to facts and inability to be able to refute the facts because their mind won’t let them because of their set beliefs. I used to be like that. I used to think everyone was the same, that we are all equal. Then reality hit me. Like it will hit everyone in the country soon. As black Americans continue to riot for people, when they get killed by police when police have a right to protect their lives when they feel threatened, more Americans will wake up to the fact that we are all different and that multiculturalism doesn’t work. Black people have basically been babied for the past 50 years with trillions of dollars spent to try to make them equals, yet they all failed. All waste money. Just think, if we were to recognize these differences how much greater of a society America would be. A paradigm shift is coming, and it’s coming soon.

These and many more reasons are why these men, along with others, will be known as modern day Galileos.

I close with this video, Modern-Day Galileo: J. Philippe Rushton (1943-2012) – A True Man of Science

Genetic Reasons for Human Migration

December 2, 2015 6:17 am / 2 Comments on Genetic Reasons for Human Migration

800 words

It’s always talked about in race realist circles what caused the migration Out of Africa and  what gives us an urge and sense of wonder for adventure. Well, like with most things in life, there is a genetic reason behind it.

So I use this website called StumbleUpon and I was Stumbling in the Genetics section, and I came across this article, and as I was reading it, I knew that it was going to be rare in Africans.

And what do you know, I was right.

Seems like the gene developed around 40,000 years ago. It’s obviously not just a coincidence or ‘correlation doesn’t equal causation’ argument, as a whole bunch of research backs this gene, and specific alleles, to certain traits in humans, compared to migration, or lack thereof, around the world.

From some research, I found that the abstract of the article says: it’s linked to hyperactivity, novelty-seeking and risk-taking behaviors. Consistent with findings in animal studies was: having more exploratory behavior as well as increased speed and locomotion. Populations with a history of migration in the past 1 to 30,000 years will show the highest instance of having the DRD4 alleles. Those that migrated more miles have a higher rate than those that migrated less. Sedentary populations show a lower instance of the DRD4 allele.

The abstract also says “After compiling existing data on DRD4 allele frequencies of 2,320 individuals from 39 populations and on the migration pattern of these groups, we found that, compared to sedentary populations, migratory populations showed a higher proportion of long alleles for DRD4.”

A correlation of .85 was found with km traveled and rate of DRD4 allele frequency distributions, which support the hypothesis. Nomadic populations had a 10.4 percent higher rate of DRD4 long alleles than sedentary ones.

Here is a blog post talking about the DRD4-7 genes and how they are involved with dopamine levels in the brain and have to do with motivation and behavior.

It cites a researcher saying that the gene occurs in populations that migrated first and furthest out of Africa are more likely to have the gene.

Another blog  talks about how Africans with the 4R allele stayed in Africa whereas those with the 7R left and explored the world.

Research has found that it’s easier for the 2R allele to mutate into a 7R allele than for a 7R allele to mutate back to a 4R allele.

So it’s thought that those who emigrated but remained closer to Africa, such as Asia, lost the behavior to explore and settled rather than explore the Americas (which Siberians did do, who eventually became Indians. I would assume that they would have a higher prevalence of this gene, being as they migrated to the Americas while the Africans stayed in Africa, as well as Indians being the furthest genetically from Africans, it also makes sense there). Also saying that those who emigrated to Asia had the 7R, but stayed and it mutated to the 2R over time.

It says looking at the global prevalence of certain allele frequencies, the 4R is more common in Africa, the 2R in Asia, the 7R in the Americas (mostly South), supporting the theory for the 7R allele being the cause for global expansion and positive selection.

Found this article talking about how the DRD4 allele is a role “in the escalation of substance use during adolescence and potential for an enhanced understanding of early-onset substance use.” and those with the 7R allele “Supporting the differential susceptibility to parenting hypothesis, the results suggest a greater preventive effect for youths carrying a 7-repeat allele”.

This NatGeo article says “Most provocatively, several studies tie 7R to human migration. The first large genetic study to do so, led by Chuansheng Chen of the University of California, Irvine in 1999, found 7R more common in present-day migratory cultures than in settled ones. A larger, more statistically rigorous 2011 study supported this, finding that 7R, along with another variant named 2R, tends to be found more frequently than you would expect by chance in populations whose ancestors migrated longer distances after they moved out of Africa. Neither study necessarily means that the 7R form of the gene actually made those ancestors especially restless; you’d have to have been around back then to test that premise with certainty. But both studies support the idea that a nomadic lifestyle selects for the 7R variant.”

All in all, this shows a genetic reason WHY the migration OoA began. It’s very telling that the DDR7 allele first arose when we migrated OoA.

Response to Daily Stormer article “Black Africans are Genetically Closer to Bonobos Than to White Humans”

November 28, 2015 10:56 pm / 7 Comments on Response to Daily Stormer article “Black Africans are Genetically Closer to Bonobos Than to White Humans”

UPDATE:

I emailed one of the researchers and I got this response:

Hello,

you are of course absolutely right. Bonobos are equally distant to
people from Africa, Europe or anywhere else in the world.

The X/A ratio measures something completely different: It compares
individuals from a certain group (bonobos, chimpanzees, or human
populations) and compares how different the X autosomes in this group are from the autosomes (the non-sex-chromosomes, i.e. everything that is not X and Y). Since each generation you have three X chromosomes per four autosomes (XX for the mother + XY from the dad = three X), you would
expect that the ratio should be 3/4 (thats why there is a dashed line at
0.75 in the plot). But there are many ways in which this measure could be nudged off this expected value. That Europeans look different in this measure could for instance be explained by later waves of primarily male migrants out of Africa that mixed with people in Europe, but there are other ideas as well.

I am really sorry to see that the plot is misconstrued as evidence for racist ideas. Hope this helped to clear up what is meant with this plot.

Cheers

 

 

lolindeed

‘lol’ indeed. Learn how to read scientific papers

800 words

Seems to be a bit of misinformation going on because of this piece so I thought I’d clear it up.

Andrew Anglin claims that the Nature article says that blacks are genetically close to bonobos than to Europeans.

That couldn’t be more wrong.

First off, the article doesn’t talk about any type of actual genetics being closer to anything that is mentioned in the article. What the article is talking about is social and sexual behaviors.

Although they are similar in many respects, bonobos and chimpanzees differ strikingly in key social and sexual behaviours and for some of these traits they show more similarity with humans than with each other.

It also says:

We find that more than three per cent of the human genome is more closely related to either the bonobo or the chimpanzee genome than these are to each other.

And? Is that supposed to mean anything? Cats have 90 percent homologous genes with humans; 82% with dogs; 80% with cows; 79% with chimpanzees; 69% with rats and 67% with mice.

90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome.

99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans.

We  share 97.5 percent of our DNA with mice.

So we see here that we share a lot of DNA with other animals, as well as animals also sharing similar amounts of DNA, which shows that it comes down to how genes are expressed and not the amount of genetic distance between the 2 animals being tested.

Looking to the image on top of the article, it shows the X/A ratio between Europeans, Africans, the Pan Ancestor and Bonobos.

The X/A ratio is the ratio between the number of X chromosomes and the number of sets of autosomes in an organism. It’s used primarily to determine sex in some species, such as the drosophila flies.

A simple reading of the text above and below this chart that was referenced to supposedly show that Africans are genetically closer to Bonobos will show you that it’s talking about the X/A ratio, not about genetics.

 

Differences in female and male population history, for example, with respect to reproductive success and migration rates, are of special interest in understanding the evolution of social structure. To approach this question in the Pan ancestor, we compared the inferred ancestral population sizes of the X chromosome and the autosomes. Because two-thirds of X chromosomes are found in females whereas autosomes are split equally between the two sexes, a ratio between their effective population sizes (X/A ratio) of 0.75 is expected under random mating. The X/A ratio in the Pan ancestor, corrected for the higher mutation rate in males, is 0.83.

Similarly, we estimated an X/A ratio of 0.85 (0.79–0.93) for present-day bonobos using Ulindi single nucleotide polymorphisms in 200-kb windows.

Under the assumption of random mating, this would mean that on average two females reproduce for each reproducing male. The difference in the variance of reproductive success between the sexes certainly contributes to this observation, as does the fact that whereas bonobo females often move to new groups upon maturation, males tend to stay within their natal group.

Here’s the main point:

Because both current and ancestral X/A ratios are similar to each other and also to some human groups (Fig. 4), this suggests that they may also have been typical for the ancestor shared with humans.

Talking about the X/A ratio, not genetics.

Here is the text below Fig. 4:

The X/A ratios for Ulindi (bonobo), an African human and a European human were inferred from heterozygosity, and that for the Pan ancestor was inferred from ILS. The low X/A ratio for the European has been suggested to be due to demographic effects connected to migrating out of Africa30. Errors, 95% confidence interval

I hope this clears up anything about this article.

What it’s saying is, is that the X/A ratios for the bonobo, African and European were gathered from heterozygosity, for the Pan ancestor is was gathered from incomplete lineage shortages (ILS).

Low X/A ratio for the European doesn’t mean more genetic distance from Africans or bonobos.

Response to Daily Stormer article on the Paleo Diet

November 22, 2015 7:38 pm / 5 Comments on Response to Daily Stormer article on the Paleo Diet

1700 words

So I came across this Daily Stormer article a while ago and had a nice laugh. The article is full of misconceptions, half-truths and other things that will have the person who is not knowledgeable about nutrition think that what he says in that article is right. This will be a pretty lengthy article, and I will also touch up on 5 reasons why the Paleo diet is pathetic.

For those who do not know, the paleo diet comes from the word “paleolithic.” The idea is that our bodies are evolved to eat the hunter-gatherer diet, and that the introduction of grain (though necessary for the development of civilization) was a negative health development which our bodies have never fully adapted to.

Nothing really wrong here, except where he says “our bodies are evolved to eat hunter-gatherer diet”. As far as I know, there is no literature that Europeans “evolved to eat a hunter-gatherer diet” and to say that a certain group of people needs to eat these types of food has no foundation in science. Actually, there is WAY more variability in the way that individuals process healthy and unhealthy foods. 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

In today’s issue of Cell, two groups led by Eran Elinav and Eran Segal have presented a stunning paper providing startling new insight into the personal nature of nutrition. The Israeli research teams have demonstrated that there exists a high degree of variability in the responses of different individuals to identical meals, and through the elegant application of machine learning, they have provided insight into the diverse factors underlying this variability.

This right here refutes what he says, but I’ll just go through the article and pick it apart.

In particular, grains contain gluten and antinutrients which can irritate your digestive system.

This is so wrong that I don’t even know where to start.

According to this RD (someone who I would listen to, over some blogger), she says that they have “incredible health benefits” and “In many cases, they’re the very same components that are thought to give beans, lentils, whole grains, vegetables, and fruits their well-documented disease-fighting powers. In fact, you may know these “antinutrients” by another name – “phytonutrients,” the highly-prized, health-boosting compounds that we celebrate in whole foods.”

In the end, she says you don’t need to worry about antinutrients as long as you eat a varied diet of nutrient-rich whole foods.

Now on to gluten. In this study, it was found that each treatment diet, whether it contained gluten or not, prompted subjects to report a worsening of gastrointestinal symptoms to similar degrees. Even when the placebo diet was identical to the baseline diet, the people still reported a worsening of symptoms. They could find absolutely no specific response to gluten.

Basically, you want to think if something would have been available to you in the natural habitat of Europe, where we are tuned to live.  Or if it is nutritionally identical or very similar to something that would have been in our natural environment in Europe.  If it is not, it is probably no good.

Source?

There is no limit to how much you can eat.  You should eat until you are full, even if you are overweight.

Asking for eating disorders and weight gain here.

If you are using this diet to lose weight and so are going very low carb, you still must once a week eat carbs to let your body know you are not in a state of starvation. If you go more than a week without eating any carbs, your metabolism will slow drastically, which causes you to keep the weight on.

Half right. No idea where he gets “you still must once a week eat carbs to let your body know you are not in a state of starvation”, but you do need to have a carb refeed once a week.

Lowering carb intake does lower leptin, which is a fat-burning hormone. But it won’t be enough to cause “your metabolism to slow drastically, which causes you to keep the weight on.”

The number one thing here is to avoid all grains.  These include bread, pasta, cereals and so on.  Even if you believe I am too extreme in believing these things are negative, there are, even based on nutritional information everyone agrees on, options far better than these.

Good advice, but you don’t need to consistently avoid them. Pareto Principle (80/20 rule). Just be on point 80 percent of the time and you’re fine.

Pork is the second worst, but also the most delicious.  I eat a lot of pork.  It is a solid meat.  One thing to beware of is that sausages often contain filler which contains gluten.  As you become more natural in your eating habits, even small amounts of grain can cause a serious reaction, so one should be aware of traces.

No.

One can also live on cold cuts alone, though this could get pricey.

Please. Talks about health, yet tells people to eat processed cold cuts.

Fish is good, though larger fish can contain mercury, which you may or may not be concerned about.

“May or may not be concerned about.”

You should be concerned about it. A 200-pound man should eat no more than 3 cans of tuna per week.

Beans are not a vegetable even though some of them get called vegetables, and in my opinion there is no reason to eat them, ever. They are difficult to digest and can cause stomach complications which cause your body to use up energy dealing with them. Energy that would best be spent elsewhere. They also contain antinutrients which leach nutrients from other foods in your digestive system.

Already went over antinutrients above, but he says they “leach nutrients from other foods in your digestive system” which is bullshit. Beans are not difficult to digest (because of fiber). Good thing his “opinion” doesn’t mean anything.

Black beans are a super food and cooking beans remove most of the supposedly bad antinutrients.

To quote Dr. John Berardi:

Research suggests that the benefits of legumes outweigh their anti-nutrient content.Cooking eliminates most anti-nutrient effects, and some anti-nutrients (like lectins) may even be good for us.

Benefits far outweigh the (supposed) negatives of beans.

And there is no reason to eat them.  Yes, they do contain protein, but it is a protein much inferior to meat protein, so there is just no logical point in indulging in beans. 

Seriously? By “inferior to meat protein” I assume that he means that beans aren’t a complete protein. Combining beans and rice makes a complete protein, complimenting the other food with the missing essential amino acids to make the complete protein.

Currently, our markets are filled with fruits which are imported from tropical climates, and are thus not natural to us.

No basis in science.

something that Southeast Asians and Americans Indians are adapted to but we are not.

What?

I suppose it should go without saying, but I will say it anyway: all processed foods should be avoided completely.  This includes not only grain-based processed foods such as breads, cereals and pastas, and obviously sugary or salty processed snacks, but also processed meats such as hot dogs and processed “microwave dinners.”

>Eat cold cuts

>Don’t eat processed foods

What?

Alcohol is generally unhealthy if consumed in high amounts, but I understand well that for most men a certain amount is necessary.

Consuming alcohol once a week is fine. See here.

For the same reason it makes you tired, it also have a devastating effect on your metabolism and testosterone levels.

Nope. From the above link:

In a 3 week study, which had men and women consume 30-40 grams of alcohol per day showed a 6.8 percent test reduction in men and none for women. That’s 3 beers a day for 3 weeks, one night of drinking is not harmful.

120 grams of alcohol (10 beers) will lower test levels by 23 percent for 16 hours:

For alcohol to significantly lower testosterone, you need to do some serious drinking. ~120 g alcohol, the equivalent of 10 beers, will lower testosterone by 23% for up to 16 hours after the drinking binge. If you drink so goddamn much that you are admitted to the hospital, you get a similar effect with a reduction of about -20%.

By “have a devastating effect on your metabolism”, I assume he means that when you consume alcohol, your body takes priority to metabolize the alcohol (alcohol is the 4th macronutrient, which the general public doesn’t know about) and fat burning is put on hold until all alcohol is metabolized from the body.

On the Paleo Diet as a whole, I trust John Berardi, Ph.D. and CSCS (Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist). He says that the Paleo diet “has some flaws”, such as the evolutionary arguments not holding up. He says that incorporating the foods that Anglin is telling you not to eat would likely be a big improvement.

For most people to be on a strict diet where they are barred certain foods, they will most likely not stick to it.

I could have just linked that PNAS article along with the individualized diets are best and supported by the study that came out the other day, but debunking most of the stuff he said had to be done, because people see things like this and automatically think it’s right (I noticed he included no references in his article).

Listening to people who have no background in nutrition is a recipe for failure. Listening to what he says as a basis for dietary habits is ignorant. His reasoning is ignorant. If you want to eat Paleo, go ahead, but if it’s for the reasons included in his article, his main argument does not hold up as seen in the PNAS and Cell articles.

IQ defines culture culture doesn’t define IQ

August 18, 2015 8:17 pm / 1 Comment on 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

The Bell Curve

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.

Europeans are closer to Neanderthals than Africans are: Ancient DNA in humans is due to species interbreeding after man left Africa

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.’

Ancient DNA shows earliest European genomes weathered the Ice Age: Neanderthal interbreeding clues and a mystery human lineage

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.

Why Am I Neanderthal?

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.

Surprise! 20 Percent of Neanderthal Genome Lives On in Modern Humans, Scientists Find Two new studies suggest that the contribution from Neanderthal DNA was vital.

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

IQs of African Nations

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.

IQ, socioeconomic status, success in life and criminality

July 29, 2015 2:09 am / 6 Comments on IQ, socioeconomic status, success in life and criminality

1700 words

Lower IQ people can’t work in the same jobs, or do the jobs they can get better than lower IQ people. This is a huge part of the reason why blacks talk about ‘oppression’ because they are too dumb to see that they are the reason for their downfall so they blame it on imaginary forces such as ‘white privilege’ or ‘white supremacy’. They don’t even know that 1) whites are the majority in this country and, therefore, have a majority of the jobs and 2) lower IQ people don’t succeed as much or do as better than higher IQ people.

To begin, IQ, along with height are 2 of the most heritable things for humans. IQ is malleable in children, seeing as the heritability of IQ is 22 percent at age 5, 40 percent at age 7, and 82 percent at age 18. So IQ is malleable in children when they are younger so you can change their IQ through the environment, but as they age to adulthood, to quote Jensen, their genes ‘turn on’ and fall to the average for that racial grouping. So in effect, the environment does nothing for IQ in adulthood as it did in childhood. Some people say that IQ is 100 percent environmental, and that is a really stupid position to hold as, through sub-tests and seeing the g loading in them, we can see that the most g loaded tests are highly heritable. People who say that IQ is 100 percent environmental are intellectually dishonest and are true ideologues.

Let’s talk about IQ in relation to job potential. Job performance can be measured in a lot of different ways. Sometimes through how many units per day per hour someone produces, or structured ratings by supervisors or peers or sometimes by analyses of a work sample. With that being said, the correlation between IQ and job performance is .4, with the correlation being higher on for more complex jobs. (pg 72)  It is known that the higher someone’s IQ is, the better they perform at jobs and are better than people who have a lower IQ at that same job. They may be able to memorize more things, be more productive in the workplace or just have better motivation due to being more intelligent and knowing that his skills are being applied correctly in the workplace.

With the above being said, can you think of how that relates to blacks and how they cry oppression that whites hold them down because of ‘white supremacy’? It’s completely nonsensical and sounds completely baseless to anyone with a brain. Now that we know that IQ is highly heritable and is modestly correlated with job success, let’s see what it looks like in regards to getting a job and job applications.

According to The Bell Curve by Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein, IQ tests are a better predictor of job success than compared to a job interview. They state that, while it may be surprising to many, IQ tests are a better predictor of job performance than any other single measure. This conclusion is drawn from a meta-analysis on the different predictors of job performance which are: (pg 80 and 81):

Predictor                                                                                Validity Predicting Job Performance

Cognitive test score .53
Biographical data .37
Reference checks .26
Education .22
Interview .14
College Grades .11
Interest .10
Age -.01

Source: Hunter and Hunter 1984

As you can see, the job interviews correlation is extremely low. That means that the relationship between the two are not highly correlated, meaning the relationship between them don’t have a good relationship. The cognitive test score (IQ test) is correlated at .53 with job performance. In social sciences, that is a pretty high correlation. A .6 correlation in social sciences is said to be a very high correlation. Think about how blacks act and then think about how they may act at a job interview. With that correlation, .14, being so low, it’s safe to say that they will not get a job based on that job interview. Even education has an extremely low correlation. Yes, your IQ is a great predictor of college success, but according to the table, which was found in a study of 23,000 civilian employees at 3 levels of mental ability (high, medium and low) using supervisor ratings as the measure of performance which also extended out to job tenures of 20 years or more, we see that the correlations that we believe are a good predictor of job success don’t have as high of correlations as we thought they did. We see that cognitive test scores are the best predictor of job success from that table, so with that being said, is it really ‘white supremacy’ or ‘white privilege’ being used to hold down blacks?

Now let’s get on to success in life. I pretty much covered that above, but let’s get more in-depth. According to Linda Gottfredson, the correlation for scores that are averaged has a correlation with job performance at .90. (pg 106) IQ is correlated with increased income, increased wealth, economic growth, livability in a US state, cooperation and life expectancy. IQ correlates negatively with socially undesirable outcomes such as crime, welfare dependence, and illegitimacy. Why people deny IQ having anything to do in life is crazy. All you need to do is look at your local down and out people and see how they act and how that comes to their ability to find and keep a job. You don’t even need to see these correlations and information to see this in real life, all you have to do is observe your surroundings and draw your own conclusions and if you are intellectual, you will see these things and draw the correct conclusions on the matter that don’t involve ‘white supremacy’ or ‘white privilege’.

Now let’s get to crime and how it is correlated with IQ. According to Arthur Jensen in The g FACTOR The Science of Mental Ability, IQ has a well-established correlation between a number of social variables such as poverty, crime, illegitimacy and chronic welfare status. He also states that verbal test scores are somewhat highly correlated with delinquent and criminal behavior than are nonverbal (spatial) suggests that other cognitive factors, in addition to g are most likely responsible for the correlation of IQ with the most common forms of antisocial behavior. (pg 294) Lower IQ is also known to be correlated with a lack of abstract thought and thinking into the future. Thinking of blacks, with an average IQ of 85 (Rushton and Jensen say that some data says 78) we can see how criminality is correlated with low IQ and how  blacks have, on average the lowest IQ and commit the most crimes per capita in America. People may point to that data and say “Whites commit the most crime in America”, and while true, they don’t think of per capita rates as well as the population percentage in the country, which is 63 percent white and 13 percent black. That is what really matters.

The average IQ for a criminal is 84 in America right by the average IQ for blacks in America which is 85. That can not be a coincidence. We see how much crime they commit and how it has an effect on American life in regards to how the media portrays them as Saints in a crusade against ‘white supremacy’ and ‘white privilege’. We see that the problem in the black community isn’t whites “holding them down”, it’s due to their own biology, which they don’t have the average IQ to grasp that it’s them and not the people they blame for their downfalls.

Skin color is also correlated at .92 with IQ in a study of IQ and the countries populations. Skin color was used as a proxy for ancestry and the correlation was .92 for skin color and the rho was .91.

A correlation is a mutual relationship between 2 things. So if the correlation was 1.00, then that would mean there is a relationship between the 2 things being tested. With that number, .92 being so close to the perfect correlation of 1.00, it’s safe to say, that the darker someone’s skin is, the less intelligent they are. You may point me to some outliers, but that is perfectly explained by the relationship not having a perfect correlation. If the correlation were perfect, then that would mean every dark-skinned person’s IQ would be low, but that’s not the case so you get some people who don’t fall into that category.

Rho is a population coefficient or the population Pearson correlation coefficient. It’s a measure of a linear correlation (dependence) between two variables, X and Y, giving a value of +1 and -1 inclusive where 1 is a total positive correlation, 0 is no correlation, and −1 is a total negative correlation. It is widely used in the sciences as a measure of the degree of linear dependence between two variables.

In Rushton’s last paper before his death, he wrote that melanin has been linked to behaviors in species. He conceptualized 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.

So we can see that the darker someone’s skin is, the more likely all of the above variables are to be seen in those with darker skin pigmentation. We can see that skin color DOES matter and anyone who says otherwise has no idea what they are talking about.

So the people harping on about how skin color doesn’t matter, it does and as you can see through this whole post, with IQ being THE best predictor of success in life, we can see how skin color matters as well.

In conclusion, what white SJWs and blacks say in regards to blacks being held down by the rich white men in America is clearly hogwash as I have shown to you in this thread. The black community will not succeed until segregation is put back into place. During segregation, they actually “succeeded” in their own lives because there was a clear separation of whites and blacks. Today, the single mother rate in the black community is 72 percent. 50 years ago it was 24 percent and in the 20s, it was 5 percent. The downfall of the black community is not white people.

“Differences in brain structure development may explain test score gap for poor children” Maybe not….

July 23, 2015 7:58 am / Leave a comment

1500 words

Summary: They would have to explain why whites in poorer families score higher than blacks in all other income brackets except blacks in families making over 200,000 dollars per year, which even then blacks only score 3 points higher in the 200,000 dollar plus per year income bracket. They say that frontal and temporal lobes are smaller in poorer children, which whites have bigger frontal and temporal lobes on average as well as having more activity in the frontal lobes, which is thought to be the seat of intelligence. Blacks having smaller brains than whites on average explains the size differences between the differences in the different parts of the brain mentioned.

Low-income children had atypical structural brain development and lower standardized test scores, with as much as an estimated 20 percent in the achievement gap explained by development lags in the frontal and temporal lobes of the brain, according to an article published online by JAMA Pediatrics.

If true, only 20 percent of the achievement gap affected by poverty. I doubt it seeing as poor whites in families making less than 20,000 dollars a year still have 180 points over blacks in the same income bracket and blacks in families making more than 200,000 dollars per year have a 981 score, only 3 points higher than whites in families making less than 20,000 dollars per year. Whites in families making less than 20,000 dollars per year still outperform all negro families in all other income brackets except in negro families making over 200,000 dollars per year by only 3 points. Not even worth talking about.

20 percent of the achievement gap is apparently explained by developmental lags in the front and temporal lobes of the brain. Blacks have a smaller PFC (prefrontal cortex) which may explain it.

Socioeconomic disparities in school readiness and academic performance are well documented but little is known about the mechanisms underlying the influence of poverty on children’s learning and achievement.

It’s well documented that even in poor whites and poor blacks, poor whites are still on average more intelligent and have higher standardized test scores than do blacks.

Seth D. Pollak, Ph.D., of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and colleagues analyzed magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of 389 typically developing children and adolescents ages 4 to 22 with complete sociodemographic and neuroimaging data. The authors measured children’s scores on cognitive and academic achievement tests and brain tissue, including gray matter of the total brain, frontal lobe, temporal lobe and hippocampus.

I wonder what the breakdown was. Will revise when the full paper comes out. Hippocampal differences are also explained by whites having larger brains than blacks as well as the other parts they state.

The authors found regional gray matter volumes in the brains of children below 150 percent of the federal poverty level to be 3 to 4 percentage points below the developmental norm, while the gap was larger at 8 to 10 percentage points for children below the federal poverty level. On average, children from low-income households scored four to seven points lower on standardized tests, according to the results. The authors estimate as much as 20 percent of the gap in test scores could be explained by developmental lags in the frontal and temporal lobes.

On frontal lobes from this Rushton paper decimating Gould’s garbage *Mismeasure of Man*, which also states they have smaller frontal lobes than whites:

“Bean also reported that the 103 Negro brains were less convoluted than were 49 White brains and that Whites had a proportionately larger genus to splenium ratio (front to back part of corpus callosum), implying that Whites may have more activity in the frontal lobes which were thought to be the seat of intelligence. Consider the following statistically significant comparisons (sexes combined) from recently conducted studies using the four techniques mentioned above. Using brain mass at autopsy, Ho et al. (1990) summarized data for 1,261 individuals. They reported a mean brain weight of 1,323 grams for White Americans and 1,223 grams for Black Americans. Using endocranial volume, Beals et al. (1984) analyzed about 20,000 skulls from around the world and found that East Asians, Europeans, and Africans averaged cranial volumes of 1,415, 1,362, and 1,268 cm3 respectively. Using external head measurements from a stratified random sample of 6,325 U.S. Army personnel, Rushton (1992) found that Asian Americans, European Americans, and African Americans averaged 1,416, 1,380, and 1,359 cm3, respectively. Using external head measures from tens of thousands of men and women from around the world collated by the International Labour Office, Rushton (1994) found that Asians, Europeans, and Africans averaged 1,308, 1,297, and 1,241 cm3, respectively. Finally, an MRI study in Britain found that people of African and of Caribbean background averaged a smaller brain volume than did those of European background (Harvey et al., 1994). Contrary to most purely environmental theories, racial differences in brain size show up early in life. Data from the U.S. National Collaborative Perinatal Project on 19,000 Black children and 17,000 White children showed that Black children had a smaller head perimeter at birth and, although Black children were born shorter in stature and lighter in weight than White children, by age 7 ‘catch-up growth’ led Black children to be larger in body size than White children. However, Blacks remained smaller in head perimeter (Broman et al., 1987). Further, head perimeter at birth, 1 year, 4 years, and 7 years correlated with IQ scores at age 7 in both Black and White children (r = 0.13 to 0.24).”

On temporal lobes, from the scientist that Rushton cited above:

“The size of the pole of the temporal lobe is less in the Negro than in the white, and less in the Negro female than in the Negro male…The shape of the pole of the temporal lobe is different in the two races, being slightly more slender in the Negro, and almost the same size in the two races antero-posteriorly. The differences are not only absolute but are also relative to the to the weight and size of the entire cerebral hemispheres.”

.”Development in these brain regions appears sensitive to the child’s environment and nurturance. These observations suggest that interventions aimed at improving children’s environments may also alter the link between childhood poverty and deficits in cognition and academic achievement,” the study concludes.

“Appears sensitive”. I doubt it. See the table on test scores and income above.

In a related editorial, Joan L. Luby, M.D., of the Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, writes: “Building on a well-established body of behavioral data and a smaller but expanding body of neuroimaging data, Hair et al provide even more powerful evidence of the tangible detrimental effects of growing up in poverty on brain development and related academic outcomes in childhood. … In developmental science and medicine, it is not often that aspects of a public health problem’s etiology and solution become clearly elucidated. It is even less common that feasible and cost-effective solutions to such problems are discovered and within reach. Based on this, scientific literature on the damaging effects of poverty on child brain development and the efficacy of early parenting interventions to support more optimal adaptive outcomes represent a rare roadmap to preserving and supporting our society’s most important legacy, the developing brain. This unassailable body of evidence taken as a whole is now actionable for public policy.”

I’m assuming they have never seen the SAT score gaps and how whites in families making less than 20,000 dollars a year score the same as blacks in families making over 200,000 dollars a year.

Source

It’s well-known that IQ is the best predictor of success in life. Blacks have a lower a lower average IQ, and smaller brains than whites and Asians which explains the achievement test score gaps. I would like to see a study that separates rich blacks, rich whites and poor blacks and poor whites with controls and see how they differ. I’m assuming it’ll be the same as the SAT score gaps which I have linked above.

The difference in brain size between blacks and whites perfectly describe what is being shown above. More blacks live in poverty because they have lower IQ. IQ is correlated with poverty, crime, illegitimacy, and chronic welfare status. G, or general intelligence, is highly correlated with most things in life. Excerpt from THE g FACTOR The Science of Mental Ability by Arthur Jensen:

The well-established correlation of IQ and similar cognitive measures with a number of social variables, such as poverty, crime, illegitimacy, and chronic welfare status, makes it almost a certainty that g itself is the major cognitive component in the relationship. However, I have not found a study that directly addresses the extent to which just g itself, rather than IQ or other highly gloaded measures, is related to social variables. The repeated finding that verbal test scores are somewhat more highly correlated with delinquent and criminal behavior than are nonverbal performance tests (generally loaded on the spatial factor) suggests that other cognitive factors in addition to g are probably responsible for the correlation of IQ with these most common forms of antisocial behavior. pg 294

In conclusion, they need to have studies that have poor whites and poor blacks, rich blacks and rich whites, rich whites and poor blacks, poor whites and rich blacks and controls to see what the differences really are, and we know there will be differences between the above-mentioned groups, and that poor whites still perform better academically than poor blacks.

Post navigation

← Older posts Newer posts →