Home » Posts tagged 'IQ' (Page 10)

Tag Archives: IQ

North/South Differences in Italian IQ: Is Richard Lynn Right?

January 31, 2016 7:17 am / 80 Comments on North/South Differences in Italian IQ: Is Richard Lynn Right?

2300 words

Richard Lynn has stated that there are differences in Northern and Southern Italian IQ scores. Is he correct?

Lynn claims Italian IQ is 100 in the North and 90 in the South, with the lowest being IQ 89 in the Southern most part of Sicily.

Richard Lynn is of course, extremely controversial in his research areas of interest, mainly with his views on IQ and how it relates to the wealth of nations.

In his paper which talks about the North/South differences in IQ which predict differences in education, infant mortality, stature, and literacy.

Lynn’s methods were to take samples of the Program for International Student Assesment (PISA) which administers tests gauging the abilities of students in math, reading comprehension and science understanding. IQs were calculated by averaging science understanding, reading comprehension and mathematical ability, which the averages are expressed in SD unit deviations from the British PISA mean (n=502, SD 99). Figures are then converted to conventional IQs by multiplying them by 15. So the regional Italian IQs are expressed in comparison to the British IQ and SD (100 and 15 respectively).

His 10 data points are as follows:

First, the IQ in the northern regions of Italy measured by the PISA data is approximately 100 and therefore about the same as in Britain and other countries of northern and central Europe given in Lynn and Vanhanen (2002, 2006). This confirms the results of the standardization of the Colored Progressive Matrices in northern Italy reported by Prunetti (1985) and shows that IQs measured by the PISA data and by the Colored Progressive Matrices data are consistent. Regional IQs in Italy decline steadily through the central regions and into the south and reach a low of 89 in the most southerly region of Sicily. The first hypothesis of this study that there may be a north–south gradient of IQs in Italy is supported and quantified by the correlation of 0.963 between regional IQs and latitude.

First, the PISA data from 2013 shows Southern Italians scoring higher, and Northern Italians scoring around the same. Is that an increase in intelligence that happened in only 3 years? Did the genetics of Southern Italy change in 3 years? No.

Italian IQ

The table above shows the changes in PISA scores for Southern Italy in only 3 years for all 3 subjects tested in PISA. Southern Italy increased by 26 points in reading, and Southern Italy and islands increased by 30 points. For math, 25 for the South and 34 for South and the islands. For science, 18 for the South and 22 for the South and the islands. The presence of non-native students may also be a factor in these score differences. You can see the differences from 3 years, and how even in 3 years, there was a slight decrease in scores in Northern Italy. Migrants, after coming in from the South of the country, then continue to go into the Northern part of the country. This could also explain a huge part of the differences, seeing as they may be counted as Italian citizens, yet aren’t native to the country.

ItalianIQ

The above table shows mean PISA scores for 2006 and 2009, showing a huge increase in scores from Southern Italy, and hardly any increase in Northern Italy. Any genetic changes in 3 years to show that big of an increase?

Source: Problems in deriving Italian regional differences in intelligence from 2009 PISA data

Two, the second hypothesis of this study is that the north–south gradient of IQs in Italy may explain much of the difference in economic development between the north and south of Italy

Wrong again. Southern Italy has a huge underground economy, that isn’t noted on the books. The GDP in Southern Italy is far from accurate and employment figures do not match reality.

These raw figures require a closer look, because one economist’s analysis of Calabria found low pay, high unemployment, and a very high level of consumer spending. In 1994, the government insurance agency placed the number of business enterprises in Calabria at 23,758, while Istat, carrying out the 1996 census, found about 90,000 businesses in the same region.The economist Domenico Marino concluded, on the basis of 4,000 interviews in Calabria, that 75 percent of the Calabrian work force would refuse a fairly low-paying job, despite a very high official level of unemployment. In Calabria, with its dire employment figures, 84 percent of the families own their own home. What such anomalies must mean is that real income in Calabria is far higher than what is “on the books.” Many among the vast numbers of officially unemployed are, in fact, partly or fully employed. They are earning no social benefits, but they are earning the daily lire that keep their families afloat.

This massive sector skews all the statistics. It means that the GDP for the Italian South (and for Italy as a whole) is far from accurate. And the unemployment figures do not reflect reality.

LOOKING TO 2007: ITALY TIMES TWO

Three, the third hypothesis we set out to examine is that regional IQ differences in Italy are also manifest in variables that can be regarded as correlates or effects of IQs, including stature, infant mortality, literacy, and years of education

When historical data on those variables are used, a different picture emerges. Correlations are insignificant and in the case of infant mortality, do not the supposed link of regional differences in intelligence and socioeconomic development.

Four, per capita incomes are also highly negatively correlated with rates of infant mortality in 1954–57 (r= −0.652), and 1999–2002 (r=−0.823).

When the years 1911, 1891 and 1871 are averaged in, there is no difference.

Lynn didn’t consider the data from the 1860s to average it in with the rest of his data.

Five, the ability of populations with high IQs to give their children better nutrition makes them healthier, more resistant to disease and reduces the risk of mortality, and also improves their children’s stature

Right. But there is no mortality difference, as seen above.

Five, the ability of populations with high IQs to give their children better nutrition makes them healthier, more resistant to disease and reduces the risk of mortality, and also improves their children’s stature

There is a 1.7-inch difference between Northern and Southern Italian height. Which is explained by differences in nutrition between the regions, with the South having a more grain-based diet. Those effects are explained by a grain-based diet, and those Italians from America (which a huge majority are from the South of the country), actually show better educational attainment as well as more monetary success than their Northern counterparts.

Six, regional IQs in 2006 are highly correlated with the years of education of adults in 1951 (r=0.929), 1971 (r=0.871) and 2001 (r=0.886)

At the regional level, average IQs and current per capita GDP are highly related: for the year 2012, the correlation is 0.86. The link between IQ and regional development is, instead, much weaker when data for the years 1871, 1891 and 1911 are considered. Regional IQs and infant mortality rates in 1863–66 are positively correlated, contrarily to that which would be expected based on Lynn’s assumptions;

Two Italies? Genes, intelligence and the Italian North–South economic divide

This is explained simply. When Italy became unified in 1861, there were literacy differences in the country. 87 percent of the Southern population was illiterate in comparison to 67 percent of the Northern population.

The likely explanation for this high correlation is that the percentages of the population that were literate in 1880 was a function of IQs and therefore that the regional differences in IQs were present in 1880 and have been stable over the period 1880 to 2006.

Literacy and average years of schooling are better predictors of income levels than regional IQs.

ITALYIIQ

The above table shows this.

Eight, it is an interesting question whether the differences in Italian regional IQs were present in earlier historical periods. Some useful data bearing on this question have been assembled by Murray (2003, pp. 303–5) who has compiled the numbers of “significant figures” (i.e. those who have made significant contributions to science, literature, music and art) and their places of birth for the whole of Europe from the year 1400 to 1950. His figures for the north, center and south of Italy are shown in Table 3.

MURRAY2003

Pretty damning right? Wrong.

More than half of the country is put into the ‘North’ section of what he is talking about, and how he did the dividing, it looks like this.

Lynn-Italy

Murray also said that achievement happened in a few places in Italy, with Southern Italy being one of the many areas in Europe with ‘low achievement’, which includes a big part of Northern Italy as well. The achievements in Italy were mainly found in Tuscany, which the literacy rate wasn’t too high in 1880. Again, refuting Lynn on his thesis.

Nine, Putnam (1993, p. 159) and Tabellini (2007) have proposed that “civic trust” is a determinant of regional differences in economic development in Italy and in western Europe.

There are hardly any regional differences in economic development, as seen above.

A possible explanation for the northern regions having had higher IQs than the southern regions at least from 1880 and possibly from 1400 to 1600 is that the populations of the north and south are genetically different and these genetic differences are related to differences in intelligence.

Not at all. I touched on this in my Refuting Afrocentrism: Are Italians Black? article.

They write of the population genetics of Italy that “northern Italy shows similarities with countries of central Europe, whereas central and southern Italy are more similar to Greece and other Mediterranean countries.

See above. They are genetically the same:

Italian clusters

Comparison with Germany and Italy, Germans are spread out farther on the graph than are Italians, are there huge genetic differences with Germans as well?

They write of the population genetics of Italy that “northern Italy shows similarities with countries of central Europe, whereas central and southern Italy are more similar to Greece and other Mediterranean countries. This corresponds to the well-known differences in physical type (especially pigmentation and size) between the northern and north-central Italians on the one side and southern Italians on the other”.

Pigmentation is explained by getting the same UV rays as Northern Africa:

UV rays

Size differences explained by slight differences in nutrition.

Subsequent studies have confirmed the genetic impact of immigration from the Near East and North Africa into southern Italy. For instance, the Taql, p1 2f2-8-kb allele has a high frequency in the Near East and North Africa (Morocco, 81.8; Lebanon, 43.7; Tunisia, 34.1). The allele is also present but at a lower frequency (26.4) in southern Italy, including Sicily.

Using a single, or small number of loci will lead to you finding the same loci in different populations? Who knew!!

The diffusion of genes from the Near East and North Africa may explain why the populations of southern Italy have IQs in the range of 89–92, intermediate between those of northern Italy and central and northern Europe (about 100) and those of the Near East and North Africa (in the range of 80–84) (these IQs are given in Lynn, 2006). This also explains the north–south gradient of IQ in Italy in which the regional IQs do not show a clear dichotomy between north and south but rather a gradient in which IQs decline steadily with more southerly latitude.

Nope. I’ve covered this in my ‘Black Italians’ article:

Combined data from two large mtDNA studies provides an estimate of non-Caucasoid maternal ancestry in Italians. The first study sampled 411 Italians from all over the country and found five South Asian M and East Asian D sequences (1.2%) and eight sub-Saharan African L sequences (1.9%). The second study sampled 465 Sicilians and detected ten M sequences (2.2%) and three L sequences (0.65%).This makes a total of 3% non-white maternal admixture (1.3% Asian and 1.7% African), which is very low and typical for European populations, since Pliss et al. 2005, e.g., observed 1.8% Asian admixture in Poles and 1.2% African admixture in Germans. (Plaza et al. 2003; Romano et al. 2003)

Similar data from the Y-chromosome reveals Italians’ even lower non-Caucasoid paternal admixture. Both studies obtained samples from all over the mainland and islands. No Asian DNA was detected anywhere, but a single sub-Saharan African E(xE3b) sequence was found in the first study’s sample of 416 (0.2%), and six were observed in the second study’s sample of 746 (0.8%). The total is therefore a minuscule 0.6%, which decreases to 0.4% if only Southern Italians are considered and 0% if only Sicilians are considered.Again, these are normal levels of admixture for European populations (e.g. Austrians were found to have 0.8% E(xE3b) by Brion et al. 2004). (Semino et al. 2004; Cruciani et al. 2004)

An analysis of 10 autosomal allele frequencies in Southern Europeans (including Italians, Sicilians and Sardinians) and various Middle Eastern/North African populations revealed a “line of sharp genetic change [that] runs from Gibraltar to Lebanon,” which has divided the Mediterranean into distinct northern and southern clusters since at least the Neolithic period. The authors conclude that “gene flow [across the sea] was more the exception than the rule,” attributing this result to “a joint product of initial geographic isolation and successive cultural divergence, leading to the origin of cultural barriers to population admixture.” (Simoni et al. 1999)

One of the most important citations is the Simoni et al. 1999 cite. Which says that gene flow across the sea was more the exception than the rule. Those 3 studies above refute any ‘racial differences’ between Northern and Southern Italians.

There are problems deriving Italian IQ from PISA test scores. You cannot take PISA data and infer a group’s IQ from it!! Moreover, on purer measures of intelligence, such as Raven’s Progressive Matrices, there is no significant difference between North and South children. These are differences in achievement, not intelligence. None of the studies cited by Lynn were aimed at comparing Italian IQ across regions and none of them used the same age groups!! This is why his data on Italian IQ is wrong.

To conclude, we don’t know the true IQs of all of the regions of Italy. Lynn used faulty measures to make his theory (which doesn’t need fluff) of north/south disparities in IQ more palatable. He’s been refuted multiple times on this matter. I may do another in the future.

Italianthro source: Refuting Richard Lynn’s IQ Study

Italianthro source: Italian vs German Clustering

Italianthro source: Italians

Italianthro source: Sicilians

Black Crime, Black Physical Attractiveness and Testosterone

January 28, 2016 2:33 am / 21 Comments on Black Crime, Black Physical Attractiveness and Testosterone

I touched on black crime a bit a few months ago. I will now go more in depth on reasons for black crime.

First, what is the caused of all crime, no matter the race?

People have always said that parental socialization was the cause of black crime. But, genetic confounding was never considered in those studies. Kevin Beaver et al found in an analysis of adoptees that once genetic confounds were properly controlled, the effects of parenting on criminal justice measures were nonsignificant. That’s weird. I thought parental socialization was the cause of a kid turning out bad or good.

What is the cause of rape?

In a 37 year nationwide study in Sweden, it was found that sex offending runs in families. They reported strong evidence of familial clustering of sex offenses, mostly accounted for by genes and NOT shared environmental influences (ie, the same thing happening to both people in the family, therefore being the environmental cause of rape).

It’s of course genetics. We know that there is huge variation between individuals of the same race/ethnicity, how about between races? It also follows Rushton’s Rule of Three, Asians on top, whites intermediate and blacks on the bottom.

There are testosterone differences between blacks and whites. On top of those testosterone differences, men who stay and raise children have, on average, lower testosterone. This was noted in the West, but non-Western samples gave differing numbers. The study was conducted in two East African populations from Tanzania, Hadza foragers and Datoga pastoralists. They predicted that high levels of paternal care by the Hadza fathers would be associated with lower testosterone and that no difference would be found in non-fathers and fathers of Datoga men, who provide direct paternal care. The measurements in both populations confirmed the hypothesis, as well as adding further support that decreased testosterone leads to more paternal care.

What does that have to do with crime? Not having a father is detrimental to a young child, studies have shown in the UK that those from broken homes are more likely to commit crime than those from stable families. Also, seven out of ten offenders come from broken homes.

In this paper by Steven Ruggles, he says that analysis confirms that the high incidence of black Americans of single parenthood and children residing without their parents is not a recent phenomenon. Data shows that from 1880 through 1960, black children were two to three times more likely to reside without one or both children than white parents. This directly goes in the face of what liberals say is the cause of the demise of the black family structure. Ever since blacks have been free from slavery has this begun to happen.

Why did black father rates jump so much after the Civil Rights Movement?

I have my own theories.

Today, the black single mother rate is at 72 percent. In 1965, 24 percent of black infants were born without a father. What is the cause for that?

Blacks weren’t allowed to marry whites, and the CRA changed that. So with them being legally allowed to court white women, they obviously shied away from attempting to court black women. We can see that the trends show huge changes in 50 years. The cause is desegregation obviously, but what exactly is that environmental cause? Being able to court white women.

So with those men who DO stay around to raise children who show a decrease in testosterone, it’s extremely safe to say that those men who leave, regardless of race, have higher testosterone than those men who stay. This is reflected in racial single parent stats that show, again as for many more variables, Rushton’s Rule of Three.

What is wrong with black women? How come when segregation got lifted, black single motherhood rose exponentially?

Satoshi Kanazawa knows why. He noted in this study on why black women are not as attractive as other races, that women, on average are more physically attractive than men. EXCEPT BLACK WOMEN. The data shows black women as not being statistically different from the average, and far less attractive than whites, Asians and Native American women.

The cause is higher testosterone. Kanazawa says that the cause for this is due to the mean BMI of black women being 28.5 among black women and 26.1 among non-black women. Though he says that’s not the reason why black women are less physically attractive. Black women have lower levels of intellect net of BMI. Even the racial differences in intelligence don’t account for these differences. Black women are STILL less physically attractive, net of BMI and intelligence. Kanazawa says: “Net of intelligence, black men are significantly more physically attractive than nonblack men.”

Why is that? He says the reason is testosterone. He ends up concluding that testosterone differences are the only cause for these differences. With blacks having the highest testosterone out of all the races, black women obviously have higher rates of testosterone than white women. Those women with higher levels of testosterone have more masculine features, therefore making them less attractive.

Previous research has suggested that perceived attractiveness and personality are affected by the race such that White faces are more attractive but less masculine than Black faces. Such studies, however, have been based on very small stimulus sets. The current study investigated perceived attractiveness and personality for 600 Black, White and mixed-race faces. Many of the investigated personality traits were correlated with race when rated by White participants. Attractiveness specifically was greater for Black male faces than White male faces and among mixed-race faces. Blackness correlated with increased attractiveness. A reverse pattern was found for female faces with Whiteness being associated with attractiveness. The results are discussed in terms of the sexual dimorphism demonstrated in skin color. (Lewis 2010)

That’s the same as was noted in the Kanazawa paper. Darker-skinned males were more attractive, lighter-skinned women were more attractive.

Rushton wrote, in his last paper before his death, that skin color as a multi-generational adaptation to differences in climate over the past 70,000 years. He proposed life history theory (formerly known as r K selection theory) to explain the covariation found between human and non-human pigmentation and variables such as birth rate, infant mortality, longevity, the rate of HIV/AIDs and violent crime.

Dark skin is correlated with these things because of evolution.

High testosterone is linked to crimes of violence and sex. Men who gave saliva samples in prison were shown to violate more rules in prison, especially rules involving overt confrontation. Dabbs et al say: “the variety of rule violations suggests the behavior of high testosterone individuals reflects intractability, unmanageability, and lack of docility as well as aggression and violence.” Higher testosterone levels were associated with more violent crimes, parole board decisions against release, and more prison rule violations. This same thing was noticed in women, high-testosterone women had more crimes of unprovoked violence, increased number of prior charges, and decisions against parole.

For chronic adult offenders, the average IQ is 85, 1 SD below the mean of 100. Why do criminals have low IQ? Lack of abstract thought for one. Those with low IQ have a lack of ability to think of what their actions will do. Along with the lack of ability to delay gratification, paired with high testosterone and low IQ, that is the cause for higher than average crime in the black community in America.

Men with lower intelligence may be more likely to resort to evolutionarily familiar means of competition for resources and mating opportunities, and not to fully comprehend the consequences of their criminal behavior.

Even just a few points of IQ matter to criminality. There is a lot of data on the link between crime and low IQ. Who just so happens to have the lowest IQ in America on average?

It was noted in this study that states with lower IQs have more property crime and violent crime.

The sons of fathers with criminal records tend to have lower IQs than sons of fathers with no criminal history.

High testosterone lowers IQ.

Increased intelligence is also linked to lower sex drive. I would reason that as shown above, those with higher IQs will be able to resist natural urges better than those with lower IQs. This shows in NLSY data with lower IQ people having more kids, higher IQ people fewer kids.

All of this data piles up, and the only thing that jumps out, is that lower IQ people have more testosterone, lower IQ people commit more crimes, therefore, high testosterone and low IQ is the cause of black criminality.

Refuting Richard Nisbett

January 21, 2016 4:33 am / 12 Comments on Refuting Richard Nisbett

3100 words

The environmental model on IQ in the debate on not only IQ as a whole, but in racial differences in intelligence has led to horrible policies throughout the world. Thinking that we are all equal and everyone is the same and has the same potential as the next person has really hurt us as a society.

Richard Nisbett is of the egalitarian (nurture) side of the debate on the black-white IQ gap. His main research has focused primarily on how laypeople reason and make presumptions about the world. His more recent work has focused on comparing East Asians and Westerners, and how and if they think differently. He says that the arguments have been made that Westerners learn analytically, focusing on the object and its attributes, use its attributes to categorize it and apply rules based on the category to explain and predict behavior. He says that East Asians reason holistically, focusing on the object in its surrounding field. There is little concern with categories or universal rules and behavior is explained on the basis of the forces presumed to be operative for the individual case at that particular time. This goes with white’s higher verbal IQ, as well as going with East Asian’s higher visio-spatial IQ. He says that his lab has found evidence for both.

Now that there is some background on Nisbett and his research interests, let’s turn to the B-W IQ gap.

Rushton and Jensen have refuted him multiple times. In their paper Race and IQ: A Theory-Based Review of the Research in Richard Nisbett’s Intelligence and How to Get It, they provide more than sufficient evidence that the B-W IQ gap, as well as other racial differences in intelligence, are genetic in origin. They propose that the hereditarian model (50/50 genetics/culture) better explains group differences than the culture-only model (0/100 genetics environment). They review 14 topics of contention which are: (1) data to be explained; (2) malleability of IQ test scores; (3) culture-loaded versus g-loaded tests; (4) stereotype threat, caste, and “X” factors; (5) reaction-time measures; (6) within-race heritability; (7) between-race heritability; (8) subSaharan African IQ scores; (9) race differences in brain size; (10) sex differences in brain size; (11) trans-racial adoption studies; (12) racial admixture studies; (13) regression to the mean effects; and (14) human origins research and life-history traits. They conclude that the preponderance of evidence concludes that differences in intelligence, as well as other life-history traits between the races, are genetic (50 to 80 percent) in origin.

I will be quoting from this article Nisbett wrote for the New York Times, All Brains Are the Same Color.

JAMES WATSON, the 1962 Nobel laureate, recently asserted that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” and its citizens because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really.”

Ah yes. What a great day that was when Watson said that. It needed to be said. The conversation on exactly why Africans are starving needs to be had. No, the answer is not colonialism. It’s intelligence. I’ve touched on how Kanazawa got attacked for stating that Africa’s woes are due to low intelligence, where the average is 70. Just as how Watson got attacked. Except since Watson is more well-known than Kanazawa, the PC crowd attempted to run him out of town. Watson is 100 percent correct with that statement.

Dr. Watson’s remarks created a huge stir because they implied that blacks were genetically inferior to whites, and the controversy resulted in his resignation as chancellor of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. But was he right? Is there a genetic difference between blacks and whites that condemns blacks in perpetuity to be less intelligent?

Blacks are genetically inferior to whites in intelligence, on average, just as West African blacks and their descendants are genetically superior in sprinting competitions and East Africans and their descendants are superior in distance running (the same as whites as both have the same muscle fiber type that allows for endurance running). Are we really to think that East Asians are superior nowhere? Clearly ridiculous. We know of Rushton’s Rule of Three, which holds through most all of the variables between races. Yes, there is a genetic difference in intelligence that will condemn blacks in perpetuity to be less intelligent.

The first notable public airing of the scientific question came in a 1969 article in The Harvard Educational Review by Arthur Jensen, a psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Jensen maintained that a 15-point difference in I.Q. between blacks and whites was mostly due to a genetic difference between the races that could never be erased. But his argument gave a misleading account of the evidence. And others who later made the same argument — Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray in “The Bell Curve,” in 1994, for example, and just recently, William Saletan in a series of articles on Slate — have made the same mistake.

One of my favorite papers, the one that reignited the B-W IQ debate. Titled How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement, he argues that scholastic achievement and IQ can’t be boosted to any meaningful level. He says prenatal effects such as nutrition, the length of pregnancy, maternal stress and environment within the uterus has an effect on IQ, whereas any postnatal (environmental) explanations have not been found to show a lowered IQ, except those kept in isolation. Let’s see what the ‘misleading account of the evidence’ he is talking about.

In fact, the evidence heavily favors the view that race differences in I.Q. are environmental in origin, not genetic.

See the Rushton and Jensen paper, as well as the Jensen paper I linked above. Any environmental explanation for racial differences in IQ can easily be explained away due to bad study design, or simply not testing the children again at adulthood, as any instances where blacks showed they had higher IQs than whites, they were never tested again at adulthood. Just so happens, that around age 10-12, where most of these tests get administered, is when the racial gap starts to become extremely noticeable. To think that race differences in IQ are environmental and not genetic is laughable.

The hereditarians begin with the assertion that 60 percent to 80 percent of variation in I.Q. is genetically determined. However, most estimates of heritability have been based almost exclusively on studies of middle-class groups. For the poor, a group that includes a substantial proportion of minorities, heritability of I.Q. is very low, in the range of 10 percent to 20 percent, according to recent research by Eric Turkheimer at the University of Virginia. This means that for the poor, improvements in environment have great potential to bring about increases in I.Q.

Rushton and Jensen state in the refutation of Nisbett I linked that non-white samples show the same heritabilities as white samples.There is little evidence of any cultural, or hardship differences, such as being raised as a visible minority, in one group and not the other. If blacks had heritabilities that were consistently lower than white heritabilities, then we could conclude that racism and poverty were responsible for a lower IQ in blacks. Though when a researcher compared black and white IQs on 3 tests, he found that heritabilities were 50 percent in each group. “The heritabilities in the Basic, Primary, and Cattell tests were, respectively: Whites—.61, .37, and .71; Blacks—.75, .42, and .19.”

On Turkheimer, they say that he was right that he did find gene x environment interactions that made genetic influences weaker and shared environment stronger for those from poorer homes in comparison to those from more affluent homes. Though most studies show no interaction effects, or interactions vary significantly.

Other studies have shown that heritabilities are the same both within as well as between white and black samples. That led Jensen to label this the ‘default hypothesis’. Researchers analyzed full and half siblings from the NLSY on three Peabody Achievement Tests. 161 black full siblings, 106 pairs of black half siblings, 314 pairs of full white siblings and 53 pairs of white half-siblings. with measures in math and reading. The best fitting model for all of the data was by which the sources of the sources of the differences between those within race and the differences between races were the same, at 50 percent genetic and environmental. The combined model (50/50) best explains it, whereas the culture-only and genetics-only models are inadequate.

In any case, the degree of heritability of a characteristic tells us nothing about how much the environment can affect it. Even when a trait is highly heritable (think of the height of corn plants), modifiability can also be great (think of the difference growing conditions can make).

Skewed perception on only working with young children. Heritabilities range from 20 percent to 90 percent from the time someone is a toddler to adulthood. He wouldn’t see the same in adult populations.

There is, for example, the evidence that brain size is correlated with intelligence, and that blacks have smaller brains than whites. But the brain size difference between men and women is substantially greater than that between blacks and whites, yet men and women score the same, on average, on I.Q. tests. Likewise, a group of people in a community in Ecuador have a genetic anomaly that produces extremely small head sizes — and hence brain sizes. Yet their intelligence is as high as that of their unaffected relatives.

Men and women don’t score the same on average. Rushton and Jackson found that on average, men had an edge on IQ tests, scoring 3.63 points higher than women. The people from Ecuador are dwarfs, encephalization quotient explains that, as well as brain size to non-fat mass being most important. Back to Rushton’s Rule of Three, East Asians have bigger brains and more neurons, whites intermediate and blacks last.

About 25 percent of the genes in the American black population are European, meaning that the genes of any individual can range from 100 percent African to mostly European. If European intelligence genes are superior, then blacks who have relatively more European genes ought to have higher I.Q.’s than those who have more African genes. But it turns out that skin color and “negroidness” of features — both measures of the degree of a black person’s European ancestry — are only weakly associated with I.Q. (even though we might well expect a moderately high association due to the social advantages of such features).

Funny. Rushton and Jensen refuted this 2 years before Nisbett wrote this article. Rushton and Jensen say that in certain areas of the Deep South, black IQ is around 70, consistent with the hereditarian explanation of effects of hybridization. An average IQ of 71 was found for all black children in one district, whereas it was 101 for whites (Jensen, 1977). Also, Lynn (2002) and Rowe (2002) analyzed IQ scores for those that are mixed black and white and found scores in between 100 and 85, around 93. Though they do say that evidence isn’t conclusive on the matter. They say Cape Coloreds and African Americans may have better nutrition, or are treated better in society. The Minnesota Study held many variables constant, and still the mixed race children had higher IQs. That supports the genetic hypothesis.

During World War II, both black and white American soldiers fathered children with German women. Thus some of these children had 100 percent European heritage and some had substantial African heritage. Tested in later childhood, the German children of the white fathers were found to have an average I.Q. of 97, and those of the black fathers had an average of 96.5, a trivial difference.

Nope. Doesn’t work that way, Nisbett.

If European genes conferred an advantage, we would expect that the smartest blacks would have substantial European heritage. But when a group of investigators sought out the very brightest black children in the Chicago school system and asked them about the race of their parents and grandparents, these children were found to have no greater degree of European ancestry than blacks in the population at large.

Strawman. No one says there aren’t any smart blacks.

Most tellingly, blood-typing tests have been used to assess the degree to which black individuals have European genes. The blood group assays show no association between degree of European heritage and I.Q. Similarly, the blood groups most closely associated with high intellectual performance among blacks are no more European in origin than other blood groups.

Correct. Though, the studies failed to choose genetic markers with large allele frequencies between Europeans and Africans (Jensen, 1998b pg 480).

A superior adoption study — and one not discussed by the hereditarians — was carried out at Arizona State University by the psychologist Elsie Moore, who looked at black and mixed-race children adopted by middle-class families, either black or white, and found no difference in I.Q. between the black and mixed-race children. Most telling is Dr. Moore’s finding that children adopted by white families had I.Q.’s 13 points higher than those of children adopted by black families. The environments that even middle-class black children grow up in are not as favorable for the development of I.Q. as those of middle-class whites.

“Superior”. I touched on Moore here in my ‘Blank Slate’ article:

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 therefor 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.

Not worth talking about either.

Important recent psychological research helps to pinpoint just what factors shape differences in I.Q. scores. Joseph Fagan of Case Western Reserve University and Cynthia Holland of Cuyahoga Community College tested blacks and whites on their knowledge of, and their ability to learn and reason with, words and concepts. The whites had substantially more knowledge of the various words and concepts, but when participants were tested on their ability to learn new words, either from dictionary definitions or by learning their meaning in context, the blacks did just as well as the whites.

Nothing strange here. Blacks have a high verbal IQ in comparison to their visio-spatial. Rushton thought that black rappers and entertainers had high verbal IQs.Also, people from the same Community College would have, on average, around the same intelligence.

Whites showed better comprehension of sayings, better ability to recognize similarities and better facility with analogies — when solutions required knowledge of words and concepts that were more likely to be known to whites than to blacks. But when these kinds of reasoning were tested with words and concepts known equally well to blacks and whites, there were no differences. Within each race, prior knowledge predicted learning and reasoning, but between the races it was prior knowledge only that differed.

That environment can markedly influence I.Q. is demonstrated by the so-called Flynn Effect. James Flynn, a philosopher and I.Q. researcher in New Zealand, has established that in the Western world as a whole, I.Q. increased markedly from 1947 to 2002. In the United States alone, it went up by 18 points. Our genes could not have changed enough over such a brief period to account for the shift; it must have been the result of powerful social factors. And if such factors could produce changes over time for the population as a whole, they could also produce big differences between subpopulations at any given time.

In fact, we know that the I.Q. difference between black and white 12-year-olds has dropped to 9.5 points from 15 points in the last 30 years — a period that was more favorable for blacks in many ways than the preceding era. Black progress on the National Assessment of Educational Progress shows equivalent gains. Reading and math improvement has been modest for whites but substantial for blacks.

Nope. The data that Murray uses only shows those of the same age, which is the accurate model. Others use those from all age groups, skewing the findings due to different heritabilities at different ages.

Most important, we know that interventions at every age from infancy to college can reduce racial gaps in both I.Q. and academic achievement, sometimes by substantial amounts in surprisingly little time. This mutability is further evidence that the I.Q. difference has environmental, not genetic, causes. And it should encourage us, as a society, to see that all children receive ample opportunity to develop their minds.

Yes, interventions from infancy all the way to the end of grade school help, as genes explained only 22 percent of the variance in those at age 5, 40 percent at age 7 and 82 percent at age 18. IQ differences can be changed in younger children, as they are more malleable at younger ages as I have just noted. But as they age, to quote Jensen, their genes “turn on” and fall to the average for that racial grouping.

People like us need to refute these lies that attempt to say that we are all the same and that any and all intelligence and scholastic achievements are environmental in origin and not largely genetic, as Rushton and Jensen have argued vehemently over the years. I will close with the final paragraph of the paper that Rushton and Jensen refuted Nisbett on sums up this situation perfectly:

There is no value in denying reality. While improving opportunities and removing arbitrary barriers is a worthy ethical goal, we must realize that equal opportunity will result in equitable, though unequal outcomes. Expanding on the application of his “default hypothesis” that group differences are based on aggregated individual differences, themselves based on both genetic and environmental contributions, Jensen [59] proposed “two laws of individual differences”—(1) individual differences in learning and performance increase as task complexity increases, and (2) individual differences in performance increase with practice and experience (unless there is a low ceiling on proficiency). We must recognize that the more environmental barriers are ameliorated and everybody’s intellectual performance is improved, the greater will be the relative influence of genetic factors (because the environmental variance is being removed). This means that equal opportunity will result in unequal outcomes, within-families, between-families, and between population groups. The fact that we have learned to live with the first, and to a lesser degree the second, offers some hope we can learn to do so for the third.

People like us need to defend men who are no longer here to defend their work, in Rushton and Jensen. The environmental explanation for IQ, as well as racial differences in IQ, is preposterous. To think that a full environmental causality actually means anything to intelligence is clearly a pipe dream.

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 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

Higher IQ Means Longer Life

December 23, 2015 3:24 am / 5 Comments on Higher IQ Means Longer Life

1200 words

I’ve been reading a few articles recently on how intelligence is correlated very highly with life expectancy. Researchers have found that the link between life expectancy and IQ is 95 percent. That makes a lot of sense. Those with higher IQ’s are able to think further into the future and predict outcomes based on previous events that took place, which manifests itself with a longer life expectancy. It also shows the reverse, those with lower IQ’s live shorter lives, which is because of not thinking of future actions due to a lack of abstract thought due to lower IQ, as well as all things that come with a low IQ, such as disease treatment, nutrition, etc.

Many studies have taken a look at this relationship, and each time, the correlation is a positive correlation. Which obviously signifies that IQ (even if we don’t exactly know what IQ tests test), that a higher IQ obviously leads to more favorable outcomes than if that same person were to have a lower IQ.

Looking at some high IQ countries and their life expectancies, we see that the relationship between IQ and life expectancy is very large and worth taking note of.

Taking the top 5 countries in IQ, we have Hong Kong (IQ 108, average life expectancy 83.48 years), Singapore (IQ 108, average life expectancy 82.14 years [though Singapore has a Chinese super majority of 76 percent]), South Korea (IQ 106, average life expectancy 81.37 years), Japan (IQ 105, average life expectancy 83.10 years), Taiwan (IQ 104, average life expectancy 79.84 years), and Italy (IQ 102, average life expectancy 82.94 years).

Now, from the same link in the previous paragraph (ignoring Equatorial Guinea’s numbers, since that was the average IQ of developmentally disabled children in Spain), Saint Lucia (IQ 62, average life expectancy 74 [anomaly here, HUGE anomaly, from some quick searching, I see that a majority of their hospitals are US-owned.]), Mozambique (IQ 64, average life expectancy 49.84 years), Gabon (IQ 64, average life expectancy 52), Cameroon (IQ 64, average life expectancy 54.59 years), and The Gambia (IQ 66, average life expectancy 58.61 years).

Now, the only anomaly was St. Lucia, which is explained by US-owned hospitals. So we can see, from the top as well as bottom 5 countries in IQ, that the trend holds true for the top 5 intelligent, as well as bottom 5.

We know how lower IQ came to be in peoples in the equator, so I won’t even go there.

Of course, with lower average IQ’s, come increased aggression, lack of thought into the future, as well as a myriad of other things negatively correlated with a long life span. That, obviously, like most things in life, is due to evolution and genetics. We see the same impulsivities where ever low IQ peoples go, in whichever countries they choose to live in, proving that it’s not ‘Magic Dirt‘, but genetics and intelligence which dictate life expectancy.

For a lot of those countries (most undeveloped countries I would say), they are nutritionally deprived. Having better nutrition obviously increases IQ (a lack of B vitamins, iron, zinc and protein deficiencies is partly the cause for lower IQ in regions where nutrition is horrible is part of the reason why there is lower IQ in these regions), but obviously, they don’t have the intellect to know, or even learn how to farm to make their standing better. That’s the rut that these peoples in these countries are in. They are too stupid to learn how to farm, and they can’t learn how to farm because their IQ is depressed due to bad nutrition, which is due in part to their low IQ etc. It comes down to a which causes which, and I say that the climate causes the low IQ, which leads to them not being able to adequately feed themselves to give their brains proper nourishment and development.

For instance, Richard Lynn says that with better nutrition that Africans could go from average 70 IQ to 80 (he says 67 to 80, so a 13 point boost). He also says that blacks in America with no white admixture still have an IQ of 80, so that proves that nutrition is part of the cause of lower IQ in African blacks. He claims the ‘Flynn Effect’ to be driven mainly by nutrition, which I am inclined to agree with him there as I love studying nutrition, and other than race differences, IQ and HBD, I also study that on my free time.

We have many examples, from Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, where the white farmers were kicked out. The more intelligent black farmers knew that without whites there, they wouldn’t be able to survive. So they tried to get the white farmers to teach them how to farm, but Mugabe found out and stopped it.

But now they want the farmers to come back. They know that they can’t survive just on their own, so they are now begging for what they had before they drove out the farmers who gave them their food.

Now for a fun thought experiment. What do you think the average life expectancy of Africa could be with that IQ 80? Let’s look at average life expectancies of countries with that IQ.

Barbados life expectancy, 75.13 years, IQ 80. El Salvador, life expectancy 72.10 years, IQ 80. Sri Lanka life expectancy 74.07 years, IQ 79. It’s clear that those with IQ’s in the 80’s have an average life expectancy of low to mid 70’s.

In this article, which is just an attack on racialist IQ researcher Satoshi Kanazawa, it’s of course just said that “‘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.'”

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.

He’s 100 percent right. I love how no rebuttal was put out, and feelings were used in place of a good, solid retort to the facts.

Fragile? Yes, scores that can be duplicated time and time again, and even when retesting of IQ tests have a correlation of .87, it’s still ‘fragile’. Got it.

The Chairman of the Kenyan Society (totally unbiased opinion there) said ‘lack of education was probably one reason why many Kenyans die young. Aids, tuberculosis and malaria were key factors too.’ Yes, lack of education. How educable you are is down to how intelligent you are, not the other way around.

The same person also stated ‘[Kanazawa’s paper is a] misrepresentation of the true causes of ill health in Kenya. It portrays a bad picture of Kenya because not everyone in Kenya has an IQ of 72. If there was more education, Kenyans would be wiser about their health.’

Yes, not everyone in Kenya has an IQ of 72, half fall below it. =^) Again, what do you think you can teach to a person with an IQ of 70? How about in comparison to a person with an IQ of 110?

So, we can see with that boost to African IQ, their life expectancy will increase along with their IQ, further proving the positive correlation between IQ and life expectancy.

Ethnicity and Obesity Rates

December 20, 2015 1:59 am / 15 Comments on Ethnicity and Obesity Rates

1400 words

Figured I would take some time to talk about some Racial-Ethnic Disparities in obesity, and for as of right now (while the populations still show differentiation, it will be way different for all ethnic groups in 20 years with 9 out of 10 people being obese or overweight, and I would assume it would show the same levels of it in all populations), the ethnic-racial differences in the pattern as they apply to HBD.

To quote from the Food, Research and Action Clinic, which just did an overview of studies from the last year on the percentage, as well as racial-ethnic disparities on obesity:

Recent national data show that 82.0 percent of Black women and 77.2 percent of Hispanic women are overweight or obese compared to 63.2 percent of White women (Ogden et al., 2014).

Women as a whole are more likely to carry more fat mass than men, especially in their hips and around their waste, as estrogen distributes fat more around hips and the lower body, as it’s better for childbearing.

In addition, over half of Black women are obese (versus 37.1 percent of Black men and 32.8 percent of White women) (Ogden et al., 2014). Extreme obesity continues to be higher among women (8.3 percent) than men (4.4 percent), especially among Black women who have more than double the rates of extreme obesity as White and Hispanic women (16.4 percent versus 7.4 percent and 7.6 percent) (Ogden et al., 2014).

Black women have a higher rate of super obesity (over 40 percent BMI) due to EBT and other programs where they are able to buy high fat, high carb foods, which obviously leads to more weight gain. Double the fact that they are women and genetically predisposed to carry more fat than men, and you have your answer.

There is also a genetic component, which I will get in to later.

Rates of overweight or obesity are higher for Hispanic men (78.6 percent) compared to Black men (69.2 percent) and White men (71.4 percent) (Ogden et al., 2014).

Definite genetics at play here, with Hispanic men having a higher rate than black or Hispanic men. Studies show that Hispanics have fat-hoarding genes left over from their ancestors, genes that were required to live through cycles of feast and famine, which obviously have deleterious effects today. (Type 2 Diabetes goes hand in hand with obesity, which I will cover in a future post.)

This also goes to people who say that there are no genetic causalities for obesity, sure kcal in and kcal out are king, but it’s ignorant to think that there are no genetic causes for obesity.

There is a gene that is associated with waist circumference, as well as insulin resistance. Asian Americans have that, which also is a cause for obesity. Also, that same MCR4 sequence has been linked to binge eating.

Now to talk about some genes associated with obesity in African Americans.

In a study published back in 2013, researchers were looking for obesity genes in African Americans. The study, which involved more than 70,000 men and women of African descent, they were able to identify 3 SNPs that were associated with obesity and BMI in the sample population. What was also found, was that those same genetic sequences also heighten rates of obesity in peoples with no African ancestry, all of the genetic variants associated with obesity were also found in European populations. The same genes found in African populations did the same in European populations, and vice versa.

obesity_map_7_black_people.0

The map shown above shows obesity rates among black adults. Of course, where blacks are most prevalent, the southeast shows higher concentrations of obesity, of course, environmental factors are at play here (with ‘soul food’ being super high in fat and carbs, which make you hungry sooner).

obesity_map_6_white_people.0

This map shows the obesity rate of whites in America. Notice how most of the concentration of obese whites is in the southeast of America, which correlates with the lower IQ average of those states as seen in the map of IQ by State.

brfss-2014-ob-hispanics

The above map shows obesity rates for Hispanics in America, again, matching up to where the majority of Hispanics in America are, furthering the causality of low IQ (see map).

Notice how there is no Asian obesity map? That’s because of their higher average IQ. Asian countries have some of the lowest prevalence of obesity and being overweight worldwide. Though, that is changing with a more ‘Americanized’ Asia, us bringing our shit lifestyle habits to other countries will increase the overall prevalence of obesity in the world, as well as America.

maxresdefault

You can see the average IQ scores by State that it roughly matches up with all 3 maps. It’s not a coincidence. Lower IQ people don’t grasp what they are doing to their bodies by eating so much, leading to higher rates of obesity. I have already touched on how high fat diets slow microglia, which eats neuron connections in the brain, which is, yet again, another cause for lower IQ in obese/overweight people.

On top of some genetic reasons for obesity and predisposing populations to obesity, there are also environmental effects which cause differing levels in the populations. Socioeconomic status has a say as well (which is one of the only times this is applicable).

With differing levels of government assistance in groups, the more people who get government assistance are, for the most part, on the left side of the Bell Curve, which in turn means that they have a higher chance of being obese or overweight, due to low intellect. Low intelligence is correlated with abstract thought, so the low IQ person won’t be able to see what they are doing to their bodies in the now as well as into the future. That is the relationship between IQ and obesity.

Kanazawa also found, looking at a nationally representative sample of white Britons, (n=10,000), that IQ measured in childhood predicts obesity by age 51. (I will make a longer post on IQ and obesity in the future.)

Also, in a study that came out last month, when diets make us overweight/obese, it prompts normally active cells in our brain called ‘microglia’ to stop moving around so much and actually consume pathways to our neurons, which of course can sap intellect.

Percent of population on Food Stamps by Race:
White: 8.6%
Black: 43.8%
Hispanic: 17%

As you can see here, blacks have the highest rate of receiving food stamps in the country. The above quote is taken from the link.

It doesn’t follow the obesity trends of 67.3% for whites, 75.6% for blacks, and 77.9% for Hispanics, genetic factors take care of the rest for Hispanics to show their numbers in the obesity statistics. Obviously, we are being bombarded with tons of ads a day, telling us to eat all of this unhealthy food, and who is more likely to be home and not at work? Blacks and Hispanics. So that propaganda from the TV effects them more, to eat this or drink that, and they give in, due to their low IQ (which I have linked 2 Kanazawa studies to show reasons why).

In a meta-analysis of 140,525 people, they found the heritability of BMI was .75 to .82. So we can see that heritability of BMI is pretty large.

The causes for race/ethnic differences in obesity are partly genetic and partly environmental (socioeconomic), one would reason, in equal environments, that we would see Hispanics take the top spot, with blacks following behind and finally whites.

The greater your IQ, the lower your weight. Researchers found that people with a BMI of 20 or less were able to recall 56 percent of words in a vocabulary test while those with a BMI over 30 could only recall 44 percent. This directly goes hand in hand with my other link about microglia.

In this study, the cohort members who became obese had low IQ, as expected. Obese cohort members showed no excess decline in IQ, they instead had lower IQ since childhood. Further proving the low IQ/obesity correlation.

By 2020, 75 percent of Americans will be obese or overweight and by 2020, 80 percent of men are going to be overweight or obese. Now, the cause of these trends going up are due to more illegal/legal immigration from the south of the border. Though, without that, we would still be on our way to being a super obese country, because of the dysgenic effects in all populations, which cause a drop in IQ, which causes a gain in weight. Not to mention the propaganda that gets put to kids to want to eat sugary, unhealthy things.

IQ, Inbreeding and Clannishness

December 14, 2015 5:38 am / 7 Comments on IQ, Inbreeding and Clannishness

1300 words

The effects of inbreeding have an effect on IQ, as well as the amount of clannishness that leads to more inter-group violence.

According to one of my favorite researchers, Linda Gottfredson, in this article she wrote for the New Scientist:

Not only that, as more people travelled and married outside their local group, populations may have benefited genetically from hybrid vigour.

Inbreeding is known to lower intelligence, and outbreeding can raise it.

“Marrying outside their local population” means not marrying the immediate people in their local group, not other races.

So inbreeding (up to first and second cousins) is the cause of lower IQ. According to Razib Khan, inbreeding can lower IQ by 2.5 to 10 points. Outbreeding meaning breeding with others with less similar genes (not race-mixing). Talking about inbreeding and lowered IQ, we have to talk about Islam.

In a paper on the mean IQ of Muslims and non-Muslim countries, Donald Templer states that the Muslim world, which used to have great intellectual achievements from the 7th to 12th centuries, has seen an underrepresentation in highly creative contributions in science journals. This is because of the inbreeding effect (2.5 to 10 point drop in IQ) of close cousin marriage. He ends up saying that genetic factors are more important than social/cultural/religious values (back to the inbreeding, causing defects and lowering IQ) in regards to IQ.

In this great article by hbd chick, her definition for clannishness is:

“a set of behaviors and innate behavioral traits and predispositions which, when found in a population, result in the members of that population strongly favoring, in all areas of life, themselves, their family members — both near and extended, and even closely allied associates (esp. in clannish societies which are not arranged into clans), while at the same time strongly disfavoring those considered to be non-family and all unrelated, non-allied associates.”

Which you can obviously see in populations that are more inbred than others.

Those innate behaviors which result in the favoring in all areas of life, themselves and their family, is a result of genetic similarity because of the closely related genes they share (the father’s brother’s daughter type is the most common in the Muslim world). Also, first and second cousin marriages are more common, which also result in increased altruism for their own family because of the close genetic similarity, but also those in their own group, which is mediated by the brain hormone oxytocin. I would assume that all of these clannish/inbred groups would have higher levels of oxytocin in the brain. The same chemical is also known as the ‘love chemical’, which would make sense with ‘love for your own group or family’.

That same drop in IQ also made them more susceptible to the dominant religion (Islam) in the region. Causing more fanaticism (which is already there from the low IQ, as well as the between group strife with other ‘clans’), this also leads to more strife between groups in the region.

chalabi-datalab-cousins-1

In the map seen above, you see the consanguinity rates for the world. The rates with the highest amount in the world, are in the Middle East and North Africa, as well as South East Asia, the majority Muslim parts of the world, which leads to depressed IQ, group violence, and violence against others not like themselves (as mediated through oxytocin).

That same clannishness is being brought to Europe, and with more increased cousin/brother/sister marriages, clannishness/genetic defects will increase, causing more strain (as well as violence due to that clannishness) that is already currently put on them through the ‘migration’.

Whites in Europe, as well as America, need that same clannishness. But obviously breeding too closely with those related to you (having genes that are too similar, which lead to a multitude of effects of inbreeding depression, lower IQ included) leads to a slew of negative effects.

Let’s see this article where a Muslim says “Why Ban Cousin Marriage?”.

The risk of birth defects in children born to first cousins is increased from a baseline of 3-4 percent to 4-7 percent according to the National Society of Genetic Councilors (NSGC). In this modern age, this risk could be mitigated by mandating — as the State of Maine has done — pre-marital genetic testing. The NSGC, however, considers the risk to be so insignificant that it does not recommend additional testing or screening.

31 percent of all anomalies in Pakistani children could be contributed to consanguinity. Really solid case of trying to keep first-cousin marriage alive. Also, just see how IQ drops when first-cousin marriage is done as well as the birth defects.

As you cross the scientific hurdles, you will be confronted with a mountain of taboo cloaked in words like “gross,” “icky,” “yucky.” But where do such taboo feelings originate from? Not a single verse in the Torah, Bible or Quran — books revered by three billion followers of the three Abrahamic religions — prohibits cousin marriage, which were common in Jewish, Christian and Islamic history. The Bible even mentions various accounts of cousin marriages, such as Jacob and Rachel, Milcah and Nahor, and Jacob and Leah, in the book of Genesis. And please don’t quote the incest prohibitions listed in Leviticus 18. It never mentions first cousins.

Third cousins have the greatest number of kids. Also, third cousin marriage doesn’t seem to affect IQ being that Iceland’s average IQ is 101. I don’t even think anyone brings up a religious basis for first cousin marriage, just the deleterious effects of it are the reason why not to mention it’ll be someone you’ve most likely grown up with your whole life. Your family has a unique smell, which obviously evolved to make you not want to mate with your family. This shows that nature made it so that we don’t inbreed too closely, and that for fertility, third cousin marriage is best.

This is the ultimate argument made in support of banning cousin marriages. It’s so obviously wrong that “You don’t have to be an Einstein to figure it out.” In the evidence driven societies we have a different word to describe such claims: myth. Myths are best broken by data. The fact that 20 percent of global marriages take place between first cousins and most societies, including Europe and Canada, consider cousin marriages to be legal should give us a pause.

It’s fine guys!!! Einstein did it too!! I’m sure this is a logical fallacy though it escapes me at the moment. Just because someone who is extremely intelligent does something, doesn’t mean that it’s OK to do.

To conclude, the cause for the constant strife (not even getting in to any other external factors) in the Middle East is due to constant inbreeding depression, which dropped IQ, which led to more clannishness due to more cousin marriage, and more inter-group violence.

Third cousin marriages, as seen in Iceland, are fine, it has no negative effects on IQ and they are more fertile because of it.

individualism-map-2

I personally think a huge part of the reason for the current situation in Europe is obviously the high European altruism and a high rate of individualism. As you can see from the map above, the countries with the highest amount of individualism have the most problem with the ‘migrants’ and are also the most liberal and atheist. The collectivist countries obviously have a stronger religious component, which in Eastern Europe you see them pushing back harder against Islam. The same in Spain, and Southern Italy (also the Mafia said they will take care of IS). Those collectivist countries (or regions) push back harder because they have something to fight for, their religion as well as people, being that they are more collectivist than the individualist countries. This map roughly matches up to this situation in Europe.

Collectivist countries are clearly more religious than the clearly atheistic, liberal, socialistic and individualist Northern European countries.

The more collectivist countries are more clannish, due to religion. Those countries will push back the hardest, even harder than the individualist countries.

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.

NotPoliticallyCorrect