Recent Comments
“Differences in brain structure development may explain test score gap for poor children” Maybe not….
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:
On temporal lobes, from the scientist that Rushton cited above:
.”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.
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:
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.
Dailymail: Mixed-race relationships are making us taller and smarter: Children born to genetically diverse parents are more intelligent than their ancestors.
1600 words
The Dailymail came out with an article today about how mixed race relationships are making us taller and smarter. It also says that children born to genetically diverse parents are more diverse. While this is true, they fail to realize certain other things when it comes to mixed race relationships/mixed race kids.
A study has found humans today are taller and more intelligent than their ancestors, and the cause has been linked to the rise in more genetically diverse populations.
Wrong. People are taller and more intelligent today because of better nutrition. That has NO link to genetically diverse populations. Of course they’re more intelligent than their ancestors. Back in 1945, only 70 years ago, in America the average white IQ was 85. We are smarter than out ancestors back then, is it genetic diversity? No, it’s not.
Miscegenation lowers IQ in the white but highers it for the black. It’s a net loss for whites to miscegenate but a net gain for a lower race to miscegenate with whites. People don’t realize the host of problems that come with being mixed-race which I will explain later in this post.
And those born to parents from different races and cultures also tend to have higher levels of education.
I don’t know where they got their information from so I can’t quite comment on this part of the article. I’m assuming it’s in the paper, but I can only find the abstract, not the PDF. With some anecdotal examples, I know some mixed race black and whites with a white mother, they both were high achievers in high-school as well as in sports. The brother plays for the NFL while the sister plays pro women’s basketball in Europe. That’s just one anecdote, though, I live in a small rich town so of course we would have a few outliers. I wouldn’t use that as a basis to say emphatically that yes, mixed race kids do tend to have higher levels of education. We know that Asians have a higher level of education slightly more than whites who have a level of education way more than blacks. As said in the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, mixed black and white kids have a better prenatal environment.
According to Rushton and Jensen in THIRTY YEARS OF RESEARCH ON RACE DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY, at the end of the study the researchers came to the conclusion that in their breakdowns of the children at age 17, that the mother’s IQ was the single best predictor of the adopted child’s IQ when all other variables are accounted for, but then go on to say:
“the social environment maintains a dominant role in determining the average IQ level of Black and interracial children and that both social and genetic variables contribute to individual variations among them” [pg 259]
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]
So we have evidence of mixed race children being better with IQ as well as school achievement tests than full black children. That’s all I’ll say on this matter for now until this full paper comes out.
Where few instances of this occur in a person’s genes, it indicated greater genetic diversity in their heritage and the two sides of their family are unlikely to be distantly related.
Sure, that’s right. But I don’t believe it’s worth the downsides to doing it.
The team found that greater genetic diversity is linked to increased height. It is also associated with better cognitive skills, as well as higher levels of education.
Funnily enough, they just described mono-racial children. As I said earlier, miscegenation lowers IQ, so along with that, it would lower education levels as well.
The only traits they found to be affected by genetic diversity are height and the ability to think quickly.
Yes. “Height” doesn’t really have to do with genetic diversity. Intelligence is negatively affected, if it’s not a white mother. White mother’s have a better prenatal environment than minority mother’s which leads to a higher IQ, as well as the white mother’s IQ being one of the best tells for a child as I said earlier in the piece. “Ability to think quickly” is directly linked to cognitive ability.
However, genetic diversity had no effect on factors such as high blood pressure or cholesterol levels, which affect a person’s chances of developing heart disease, diabetes and other complex conditions.
Wrong. Let’s take a mixed race black and white. Blacks have a higher propensity to have hypertension (elevated blood pressure), diabetes and heart disease. That’ll obviously be passed on to a mixed race kid.
The findings suggest that over time, evolution is favouring people with increased stature and sharper thinking skills but does not impact on their propensity for developing a serious illness.
But it’s not mixed race people who this is talking about, it’s mono-racial people. Talking about the propensity for developing serious illness, it’s true that mixed race people are more heterozygous than non-mixed, but the small boost to disease immunity isn’t worth the slew of health effects.
In Brazil, there’s evidence that ancestry is becoming independent from skin color due to so much mixing. Rio de Janeiro is one of the most dangerous cities in the world with its murder rate. The article, of course, doesn’t mention that, nor does it mention this.
For years now, the Brazilian city of Rio de Janeiro has made just about every short list for the world’s most violent and dangerous cities. Plagued by violent gun crime, assassinations and drug-trafficking, nearly 50,000 people have died of crime-related violence in Rio between 1978 and 2000.
The city’s crime problem was put on display once again this year for the entire world to see during the annual Carnaval celebration in Rio. Despite the deployment of nearly 10,000 police officers, the festivities were still marred by unusally high instances of robbery, assault and violence. Crime has been an embarrassment for Rio, placing the city’s bid to host the 2016 Summer Olympics in jeopardy. Source
Let’s get to some health problems that plague mixed race kids, which along with for instance the dangers of so much mixing as seen in places like Rio De Janerio, that this article didn’t mention.
Why things like this weren’t put into the article and only one side was shown, the “good side” of mixing races, beats me. Oh, yea, they have an agenda they’re pushing and want all of us to believe that there are no racial differences.
It’s funny. Far leftists will adamantly say that race doesn’t exist or IQ isn’t real or that IQ tests are biased, yet when things come out that are “positive” for minorities, these same people who were saying so much that those things don’t exist, they all of a sudden start to say things like that. I thought race doesn’t exist, why would they point to examples like this? Things like that boggle my mind how you can say somethings like that so much but then switch up your tune when the opposite is shown to be proven. We need to recognize racial differences.
Without doing so, we will lose our country. I hope we realize this soon before it’s too late and we lost the land we call home. I have hope though that a paradigm shift is coming soon and it will be a rude awakening to those cultural Marxists. The lies they spread in the name of “equality” and “egalitarianism” are simply lies to any intelligent person willing to educate themselves and always ask questions no matter what they’re told. Everyone should always ask questions. That’s how you learn and how you to not become like the mindless drones who just repeat like a parrot what they’re taught.
Always ask questions, especially about issues such as this. The fact that the author of this article didn’t even put one mention of the negatives of being mixed race shows that there is an ideological bias behind the piece and that they don’t want you to know any more than what they’re telling you.
The “Blank Slate”
1700 words
I see a lot of people talking about how there’s not such thing as certain behavior for different races and how we basically, without saying these words, are “blank slates”. People recognize physical differences between races, but not behavioral and cognitive ones? If you say to someone that peoples descended from West Africa have a certain gene, which 70 percent of them have, that give them fast twitch muscle fibers, which fire quickly but tire faster which allows them to win the 100 meter dash and reign over it in the Olympics, no one will call you a racist. A white man has won the World’s Strongest man every year from present day since 1974. Whites and Asians have slow twitch muscle fibers which allow them to be better in strength sports than African descended peoples. Here are the differences between the 2.
Type I fibers are different than type IIb fibers for many reasons. You can think of them as opposites. Type I is for long endurance activities while type IIb is for short fast bursts. Type I fibers are highly oxidative and are not likely to hypertrophy as much. Type IIb fibers are highly gycolytic and tend to hypertrophy more than type I fibers. Type I fibers are also known as red fibers due to their abundant supply of blood. Type IIb fibers have little blood causing them to be white in appearance. source
With that being said, why do people accept physical differences, such as those listed above, and not cognitive and behavioral differences? Why do people believe that “we are all the same” and that we are “blank slates” that are to be molded by our environment when that’s simply not true?
We get lied to from a very early age that we are all the same and that the differences between us only come down to environment, meaning the environment you’re raised in and grow up in, and not talking about the real reason, which is the type of environment that your ancestors evolved in for tens of thousands of years. They deny it because it goes against their liberal narrative of egalitarianism, which is basically a religion to the left. But, if that’s the case, then why do they push forward literal racist programs, such as Affirmative Action, if we are all the same and malleable to our environments? Why not put blacks and other “misfortuned” groups into high SES homes where they can get the correct environment they need to be successful and get high IQ, so they can be successful as IQ is one of the best descriptors for success and outcomes in life? It’s been tried already. It didn’t work.
In 1976, a study was conducted called the Minnesota Transracial Adoption study where they took children of different races who were adopted into different families and tested their IQs at age 7 and again at age 17. A follow-up study was published in 1992. What was found, was that IQs of transracially adopted children didn’t differ at all from children raised by their biological parents in the same area.
According to Dr. David Duke in his book My Awakening: A Path to Racial Understanding, he says that the authors waited about 4 years to publish these findings. They were most likely scared of the backlash they were going to get when they released these findings, which, to be frank, is ridiculous. Why should we walk on egg shells when we have a good study that shows these differences? As said in the study, blacks raised in white families hardly did any better than blacks raised in black families. If the differences supposedly were environmental in the way they say it is, how come blacks raised in rich white families didn’t reach the IQ of whites if “IQ is malleable by the immediate environment”? Because the differences are genetic.
The heritability of IQ is between .75 (as said by the APA) and .90. I like to say .85. So if the heritability is that high, then only a few points of the B-W IQ gap can be explained by environment, with the lion’s share being attributed to genetics.
People may try to point to lead lowering IQ, well, for that to be the case they would have to test the IQ of all racial groups and then test the levels of lead in each subject, which have not been done yet. That throws that out the window.
People may also tout other studies, such as the Eyferth study, which supposedly says a “100 percent environmental cause” for the B-W IQ gap, which is preposterous. First, the mothers were white, which according to the MTRA, white women and black fathers have generally higher IQ children. This is attributed to prenatal factors. One of the single best predictors of IQ is the mother’s IQ. The soldiers in the study were also pre-screened for IQ, which is another flaw in the study. Three percent of white applicants failed compared to 30 percent of black applicants. They also didn’t retest the children again at age adulthood, as did the MTAS.
Another one people like to use is the Tizard study which studies young black, white and mixed-race children in a nursery setting. They were given tests to determine cognitive abilities. The white and black children both had IQs at 102.6 and 106.3 respectively. They also did not test again at adulthood.
Another is the Moore study, which tested 23 black adopted children and 23 black children adopted by middle-class black families. Their findings indicated that blacks adopted to black families scored at 104 compared to the blacks adopted by white families who scored at 117. People may point to this and say “Well, they didn’t differ in their environment and not their genes, so therefore the B-W IQ gap is 100 percent environmental.” Ridiculous. As with the other 2 studies, they were not tested again at adulthood. To say that any of these 3 studies mentioned above prove a 100 percent environmental cause is intellectually dishonest.
Egalitarians love pointing to these studies saying that blacks grow up in bad neighborhoods and don’t get the same things that whites growing up in poor neighborhoods do. Again, ridiculous. It’s just pure wishful thinking by egalitarians to point to these studies to say that there the gap is 100 percent environmental. As I said earlier, it technically is, but not in the way egalitarians think it is. They think we stopped evolving at the neck and that everyone is the same both cognitively and behaviorally which is ridiculous.
There is also what’s known as the “Flynn Effect” (should be the Lynn-Flynn Effect) in which IQ gains have consistently occurred over the decades egalitarians use this data to say that IQ tests test something not genetic in nature
Let’s say Flynn is right. The average black now is as intelligent as the average white in 1945. That’s supposed to show that the race difference in IQ is environmentally caused because there hasn’t been that much genetic change in the white population and the IQ has allegedly gone up 15 points. So, you can have a 15 point difference created by just an environmental change, no one knows why. Some think better nutrition or malnourished brain, etc. That’s also a fallacy. Just because a change in one group over time is due to an environmental change, doesn’t mean, or even make it probable, that a difference between 2 groups at the same time is due to an environmental change. The Flynn Effect make’s that highly unlikely and here’s why.
The Flynn Effect, assuming it’s real, has been acting completely uniformly in every population. Any country you ask, the rate of increase is 3 per decade. That means it’s an environmental factor that affects whites and blacks the same way as well as the whole world. And as a result of this uniform environmental factor, you have a difference in IQ that’s being preserved. That would suggest that the response on the parts of blacks and whites is due to some non-environment factors, a genetic factor, which is making the difference in IQ remain constant as the Flynn Effect goes into effect.
What makes it even more unlikely, in the last 60 years, their environments have become very similar since segregation. These differences don’t exist now, they go to the same schools by court order, same TV shows, same movies, basically same environment for both, and yet, that increasing similarity in the environment, the Flynn Effect, the IQ gap has remained intact. Which means whatever counts for the gap is genetic and not environmental. The more and more similar the environment, the less and less of the difference can be due to the environment and the more and more it must be due to genes. So this 15 point gap surviving these changes in the environment, seems more and more likely to be genetic in origin.
So because this ‘Effect’ is the same across all populations and the gap didn’t close, that means it’s genetic. If the gap persisted even when IQs were rising 3 points per year, the B-W gap has still persisted, proving that it’s genetic.
That is why the Flynn Effect is irrelevant. This “Effect”, has been a slight upward trend in IQ, around 3 points per decade, which, in my opinion, has to do with the advent of better nutrition and an industrialized society. The rise in IQ started around 1880, almost perfectly coinciding with the industrial revolution in America. Along with a more industrialized society, it’s possible to give most citizens in the country good enough nutrition to where they are not iodine deficient (adding iodine to our salt boosted Americans IQs), as well as being deficient in zinc, iron, protein and certain B vitamins which the effects of not getting enough leads to the brain not growing to its full potential, which in turn leads to a lower IQ.
It’s also worth noting that the Flynn Effect is, mostly just better nutrition. Rushton also stated that the Flynn Effect wasn’t on the g factor.
In conclusion, the “blank slate” hypothesis is complete rubbish. We need the truth to come out and come out soon as it has serious implications on policy and the direction that our country is headed due to programs like affirmative action and the like. They need to be ended now.
The Purpose of This Blog
500 words
The purpose of this blog is to unveil the lies that we are told every day. The lies we are told since we are children. I will be showing the truth, and then how the truth is lied about. Since we are lied to every day of our lives, when you say truths to people, they don’t believe you because they’ve been conditioned that what they see is their reality, what they’re told on the news is the actuality of the world without once thinking for themselves.
I will be talking about race (and all of the lies that go along with denying the actuality of race and the devastating consequences that will befall us if we don’t start to talk about the actuality of race), IQ, racial IQ differences, feminism, homosexuality, transgenderism and everything encompassing cultural Marxism and how it’s being used to subjugate our culture.
The lies we are told are monumentous. Here, I will be bringing to you nothing but the truth, as I only want the truth to get out. We have been lied to for too long in America. The lies will end soon, and a paradigm shift will occur before long as things happen in cycles.
I mainly will be talking about race and IQ, as they have very serious implications on how our society works. Shoehorning less capable blacks and Hispanics into areas that more capable whites and Asians, what do you think the implications will be on our country if we don’t see the actuality of race? Just the mention of race, especially racial IQ differences gets people uncomfortable. Maybe it’s because they don’t believe it at all, maybe it’s that they are given cognitive dissonance when given conflicting beliefs contrary to what they believe in. Whatever the case may be, the Left in America lies right to our faces every day.
All in all, cultural Marxism is slowly decaying our society. Ever since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, our country has been in a downward spiral. That, I believe, is the cause of it happening. In a truly free market, which is what The Founders wanted, everything is based on ability, not skin color, race, religion creed and so on. What we have now, is a system based on how “oppressed” the minority group in question was. You have blacks and Hispanics getting gifted points on the SAT while Asians get penalized. That’s ridiculous.
We should have it based on merit. A black person is capable of going to Harvard? Cool, you deserved it. A Hispanic can go to Yale? You earned it. But to do what’s being done now in our country is ridiculous. What kind of things could happen if we don’t fix our system?
I’ll leave that for you to think about.
NotPoliticallyCorrect 
