Home » Posts tagged 'Race' (Page 6)
Tag Archives: Race
Gene Expression By Race
1150 words
Since all humans are less than 1 percent different, many people take this to mean that “Race is a social construct“. The stranglehold that race-denying individuals have had on our society for the past fifty years has had huge implications for our society. This egalitarian notion that “we are all the same” together with affirmative action has already begun its devastating effects on our society with this “Blank Slate“, “ghost in the machine” way of thinking.
However, when they engage in this fallacious reasoning, they fail to realize that we are 96 percent genetically similar to chimpanzees. They also don’t know that cats have 90 percent homologous genes with humans; 82% with dogs; 80% with cows; 79% with chimpanzees; 69% with rats and 67% with mice. 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome. 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans. We share 97.5 percent of our DNA with mice (which is why lab tests get carried out on them). All of this data makes it clear: what causes phenotypic differences between species that are so genetically similar is not how much genetic distance (Fst) is between them, but how those genes that differ are expressed between these populations. Knowing this, it doesn’t seem so crazy now that with less than a 1 percent difference in the genome on average between the races that there are ways to see that race exists genetically. Moreover, the fact that geneticists estimate that there is a difference of 3 million base pairs between two humans on average, shows that there are enough genetic differences between human populations to produce phenotypic differences to be able to differentiate human populations and that since genotype is the cause for the phenotype, due to the physical diversity between human populations that it doesn’t matter how “small” these differences are, but, as mentioned previously, how those differing genes are expressed is the proof that race exists.
Cheung and Speilman collected the gene sequence of a particular white blood cell in 82 Asians and 60 Europeans. They found that the amount of genetic differences was minute, though the two races had differing amounts of gene expression. 25 percent of the overall genes tested showed differing expression between the Asians and Europeans in the sample. It was noticed on one gene that Europeans expressed it at 22 times the strength that Asians did! Since Asians and Europeans split off around 40 kya, I wonder what a study done on Europeans and Africans would show in regards to gene expression strength along with overall differing genetic expression between those two races.
Hicks et al (2013) compared gene expression levels in 4 populations (whites, blacks, Asians and ‘Hispanics’). The gene expression data consisted of 126 whites, 51 ‘Hispanics’, 13 blacks and 8 Asians. They discovered that there were 300 significantly identified genes that showed differing expression in the four populations tested. Some of the genes were: PHF6 (“Mutations affecting the coding region of this gene or the splicing of the transcript have been associated with Borjeson-Forssman-Lehmann syndrome (BFLS), a disorder characterized by mental retardation, epilepsy, hypogonadism, hypometabolism, obesity, swelling of subcutaneous tissue of the face, narrow palpebral fissures, and large ears.”, BRD3 (observed to be implicit in some forms of leukemia, as well as performing cell overlapping functions), CRLF2 (“. . . which control processes such as cell proliferation and development of the hematopoietic system. Rearrangement of this gene with immunoglobulin heavy chain gene (IGH) on chromosome 14, or with P2Y purinoceptor 8 gene (P2RY8) on the same X or Y chromosomes is associated with B-progenitor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and Down syndrome ALL.”) and finally RNF135 (known to be involved in protein-protein and protein-DNA interactions). All though this study had an extremely small sample size for Asians and blacks, with further study in the future, we will see bigger sample sizes to better test these predictions.
Analysis of 639 tumor samples (270 black, 369 white), showed that 95 genes were overexpressed involving prostate cancer from blacks relative to whites and 132 were overexpressed in whites relative to Asians. This seems like testosterone is correlated with this as well. Since blacks are twice as likely to get prostate cancer than white men, this shows another reason why there is a disparity in disease acquisition between races: genetic differences, not any allegations of racism people attempt to use.
Still, there are differences in gene expression that account for more disease rate differences between blacks and whites. Huang et al (2011) observed gene expression differences between blacks and whites that lead to atherosclerosis. They discovered 409 differently expressed genes. Genes expressed lower in black Americans also tended to express lower in blacks with lower CAC. Ontological analysis also verified that of the 409 race-associated genes, a significant amount of them “revealed significant enrichment in mobilization of calcium and immune/inflammatory response”.
With differences in testosterone, estradiol and other hormones between the races, as well as looking at disease rates between human populations and studying what genes correlate with what disease, we can better understand human evolution as well as develop new and specific drugs for individuals based on their genotype.
The gene ACTN3 has been linked to athletic performance, specifically sprinting. Those descended from West African populations have it, i.e., Jamaicans and other Caribbean Islanders along with West Africa. 70 percent of those individuals have this gene variant, so, due to this, the all-time record holders in sprinting are all descended from West African populations. This holds true for Europeans as well. This is seen in World’s Strongest Man (WSM) competition wins by country, seeing as the countries with the most wins have majority white populations. A white man has also won the WSM every year since its inception, which is yet another example of gene expression in action. Whites and Asians have more slow twitch fibers (along with Kenyans) and West African descended blacks have more fast twitch fibers, accounting for these genetic differences which then manifest themselves in our athletic competitions.
Race does exist, and average phenotypic variation is the proof that there is a biological reality to race. The races differ in disease acquisition, as well as muscle fiber typing, which then accounts for disparities in professional championships won along with racial differences in the racial mix of certain sports. As we begin to fully understand the human genome, we will then begin to understand how and why the races differ genetically. The fact that the races differ, on average, on genetic expression shows that there is a reality to what we call “race”. Yes, race is a “social construct”, but it is a social construct of a biological reality. To put it simply, everything is a social construct, and if race doesn’t exist because it’s a social construct then nothing exists, since everything is socially constructed in our minds. But, we know this is not the case. There is a reality, and we use science to test that reality and confirm it with the scientific method.
Strong Evidence, Strong Argument: Race IQ and Adoption
2450 words
Commenter Salger brought this article to my attention, Weak Evidence, Weak Argument: Race, IQ, Adoption in which an environmentalist in the B-W IQ debate regurgitates the same old and boring long-refuted studies and the same long-refuted researchers, to attempt to prove that the gap in IQ is purely environmental in nature. I have written on this before, so his reasoning that there is “weak evidence” and “a weak argument on race and IQ” is clearly wrong, as we know the studies and researchers he cites have been disproven. Steele then references another discussion he had on the black-white IQ gap, speaking about people being “uninformed” about a position while arguing it.
My problem with this kind of data is as follows. It isn’t overly useful data in proving much of anything: small sample sizes, lack of effective controls and control groups, abundance of confounding factors, difficulty of replicability, etc.
Since he’s saying that there is a “difficulty of replicability” with IQ tests in transracial adoption studies, he hasn’t read the ones for the hereditarian argument and seeing how they show the biological origin of IQ or he’s just being willfully ignorant. I’ll go with the first one.
We know through other research that racial biases are immense in our society, and this other research tends to be of a higher quality than the adoption (and twin) research. Studies have found various forms of racial biases in a wide variety of areas, from education to policing. It’s well supported that this is systemic and institutional.
There are no racial biases in education nor policing. Police arrest less black offenders than are reported by the NCVS and affirmative action getting blacks ahead shows that the racial bias is for them, not whites. Saying that it’s “systemic and institutional” is a cop out since you know he doesn’t want to even entertain the idea of the hereditarian hypothesis.
It is also well supported that it is often internalized, and typically unconscious. Studies have shown that even minorities show prejudice against other minorities and that this is worse toward those with darker skin. Plus, studies show an internalized racial bias by way of stereotype threat, where the framing of a situation apparently causes the person to in a sense unintentionally sabotage themselves (because of added stress and cognitive load).
Stereotype threat, my favorite. ST can only be replicated in the lab. “Prejudice” doesn’t matter.
For any of these adoption (and twin) studies to be useful, it would require taking into account all the known confounding factors. I don’t know of a single study that does this or even attempts to come close to doing this. It would be ludicrously counterintuitive to presume that these endemic and internalized racial biases weren’t effecting the results.
All this leaves us is to speculate based on weak and probably misleading data. This means interpretation inevitably will follow ideology, as long as we limit ourselves to this data and ignore the larger context of data.
What other confounders could be controlled for that you think had a negative impact on the mean IQ of blacks at adolescence throughout adulthood? “Internalized racial biases” don’t matter since blacks have a higher self-esteeem about their physical attractiveness (Kanazawa, 2011), so “internalized racial biases” (which includes things such as one’s thoughts of one’s self physically) do not matter as they are more confident than are whites. This is due to testosterone, which makes blacks more extroverted than whites who are more extroverted than Asians (Rushton’s Differential-K Theory). If these racial biases were really to manifest themselves to actually sap 15 to 18 (1 to 1.2 SDs) IQ points from blacks, this would show in their self-confidence about themselves. Yet they are more confident, on average, than the other two major races.
All this leaves us is to speculate based on weak and probably misleading data. This means interpretation inevitably will follow ideology, as long as we limit ourselves to this data and ignore the larger context of data.
It’s been discussed ad nasueam. The data attempting to say that blacks are just as intelligent are whites are wrong, as I will show below. The data for the hereditarian hypothesis is not weak, as I have detailed on this blog extensively.
This is highly problematic, for the issues involved are complex. That is just the way reality is. If you want to deal with complex reality, you better find sophisticated ways of dealing with it. On that account, these studies fail in various ways. Still, they give us some possible insights in new directions to take with better research.
IQ has been tested for 100 years, and every time, whites outscore blacks 1 to 1.2 SDs.THAT is reality, not some made up, contorted view of reality for some egalitarian dogma.
In conclusion, my basic point is that all of this demonstrates how weak is the argument being made by hereditarians. As for those who prefer environmental explanations, they don’t need this data at all, since there is already plenty of other data that supports their position. Given what we know, all of the racial disparities, IQ or otherwise, can be explained without recourse to genetic determinism.
My basic point is that all of this demonstrates how weak the argument being made by environmentalists really is. What other data supports the environmentalist position that “they don’t need any data at all”? I’d love to see it. The gap is 80/20 genetics and environment respectively. From averaged correlations on subtests that correlate highest with g, we can say that the gap is around 80 percent genetic and 20 percent environment. Genetic determinism in terms of IQ, save extreme environmental factors, will always beat any environmental model.
This is an obvious statment, for the simple reason that race itself is a social construct, not a scientific fact. Social constructs and their social consequences need social explanations of social causes. The debate of the racial IQ gap is about as meaningful as attempting to compare the average magical intelligence of those sorted into each Hogwarts Houses by the magical sorting hat, if one were to base a society on such strange notions.
Race is not a social construct, but a biological reality. If this debate is “about as meaningful as attempting to compare the average magical intelligence of those sorted into each Hogwarts Houses by the magical sorting hat”, why waste youre time writing this post with tons of misinformation?
Steele cites Block (2005), a “philosopher of science”. Rushton and Jensen (2005, p. 279) say that those (Block) who say that gene-environment interactions are so hard to entangle, why then, do identical twins raised apart show identical signs of intelligence (among many other heritable items)?
Eyferth comes out, of course, which the study has been discredited. To be breif, 20 to 25 percent of the fathers to German women’s children weren’t sub-Saharan African, but French North Africans. 30 percent of blacks got refused in military service in comparison to 3 percent of whites due to rigorous testing for IQ in 70 years ago. One-third of the children were between the ages of 5 and 10 and two-thirds were between the ages of 10 and 13. Heritability estiamtes really begin to increase around puberty as well, so if the Eyferth study would have retested in the following 5 to 8 years to see IQ scores then, the scores would have dropped as that’s when genetic effects start to dominate and environments effects are close to 0.
He then cites Richard Nisbett, who I have discussed here, on the Moore study.
The study conducted by Elise Moore (1986) compared IQ scores of 23 7 to 10-year-old black children raised by middle-class white families and the same number of black children but raised in black families (normal adoption).The findings indicated that traditionally adopted black children raised by black parents had normal IQ scores (85), whereas those black children who were adopted by white families had IQs 1 standard deviation (100) above the black mean. Moore states that multivariate analysis indicates that the behaviors of black and white mothers were different in regards to how the black children were treated. She states that white adoptive mothers reduced stress by joking, laughing, and grinning. Whereas black adoptive mothers reduced stress in less positive ways including coughing, scowling and frowning. She also says that white adoptive mothers gave more positive reinforcement to their adoptive child’s problem solving whereas black adoptive mothers gave less (as I am arguing here, these traits are mostly genetic in origin, driven by IQ). She concludes that the ethnicity of the rearing environment exerts a significant influence on intellectual ability as well as standardized test scores. The sample sizes, however, are extremely small and to infer that the black-white IQ gap is environmental in origin because of a study with a small sample size is intellectually dishonest.
He cites a study of black children in the UK, but this is a case of super-selection, as only the most intelligent Africans emigrate.
Steele then cites this article:
These results make some common sense. We know that intelligent people tend to have intelligent children— but not always. Some studies have also suggested that intensive programs may make a large difference in disadvantaged children’s intelligence quotient (IQ) scores.
Headstart gains are temporary, and there is a fadeout over time.. Arthur Jensen was writing about this 50 years ago. IQ and scholastic achievement gains only last for a few years after Headstart, then genetics starts to take effect as the child grows older.
The article then mentions how European ancestry can be measured in American black populations. However, the studies fail to choose genetic markers with large allele frequencies between Europeans and African Americans (Jensen, 1998, p. 480).
He cites Lee Willerman and his colleagues who found that children with white mothers and black fathers scored higher on IQ tests than children with black mothers and white fathers. This is due to the mother being the best predictor of intelligence of the child. White mothers have a better prenatal environment than do black mothers.
He cites the Wikipedia article on Race and Intelligence, which brings up all the usual, Moore, Tizard (will address below) and Eyferth. The article cites Nisbett (2009) as claiming that Rushton and Jensen’s (2005) claim that the three aforementioned studies did not retest at adulthood, and that “heritability between ages 7 and 17 are quite small, and that consequently this is no reason to disregard Moore’s findings.”
That’s a lie. IQ heritability jumps from 40 percent at age 7 to 82 percent at age 18, with some studies showing heritabilities up to 90 percent.
From the same Wikipedia article:
Another study cited by Rushton & Jensen (2005), and by Nisbett et al. (2012), was Moore (1986) study which found that adopted mixed-race children’s has test scores identical to children with two black parents – receiving no apparent “benefit” from their white ancestry
As shown above, since the mother’s IQ is the best predictor of intelligence and the black-white IQ gap being 80 percent heritable, this means that the amount of white ancestry an American black has, the higher his IQ score will be.
Tizard (1972) observed 2 to 5-year-old black and white children in a nursery setting. The white and black children both had IQs at 102.6 and 106.3 respectively. She found no significant gap in the three groups tested (white, black and West Indian). However, she did note that the single significant difference was in that of non-white children. But that doesn’t mean anything as genetics doesn’t take full effect until around 18, where the IQ gap will be the largest.
Levin and Lynn (1994) 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.
He then cites a bunch of quotes from Nisbett’s book Intelligence and How to Get It, yet Ruhston and Jensen have refuted this too.
Even with equalized environments these gaps still persist. Your allegations of supposed racism or any other factor you want to bring up for the racial gap in intelligence are unfounded. Environmental differences do not account for the 1.2 SD gap between blacks and whites; environment accounts for, at best, 3 IQ points, so you’ll need to explain what environmental effects cause that kind of IQ drop. In America, blacks don’t have the same environmental factors, i.e., parasitic load, bad nutrition and the high disease rate, so they can hit their phenotypic IQ, plus a bit more due to 22 percent white ancestry on average. Why you cite discredited studies and researchers to help prove your point is beyond me.
Stereotype Threat is false. Non-replicable studies outside of a lab setting, as well as a meta-analysis that looked at 55 published and unpublished studies that showed that Stereotype Threat is discredited. As shown above, blacks have higher self-confidence than do whites, so this imaginary “stereotype threat” doesn’t affect blacks taking real tests; it only affects them in a lab setting. Steve Sailer has covered stereotype threat as well.
This debate is meaningful, and environmentalist who thinks that they can attempt to explain everything away by environmental factors are being extremely disingenuous. Even giving blacks everything they want in a school system with having one of the highest budgets at 430 million dollars did nothing to close the IQ gap or do anything for integration. Why do we have to deny reality, all for egalitarian dogma based off of philosophical musings then taken by Franz Boas to deny the biological validity of race?
To quote the concluding paragraph in Rushton and Jensen’s refutation to Nisbett:
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 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.
Arthur Jensen’s Method of Correlated Vectors
1200 words
Arthur Jensen developed the Method of Correlated Vectors in the 1980s and presents a great explanation and analysis in his 1998 book THE g FACTOR: The Science of Mental Ability. Since IQ is correlated with g, it’s not presumable that the correlation between IQ and physical variable X does not involve g. More sufficient evidence would come from the correlation between X and the g factor’s scores. So Jensen proposed the method of correlated vectors that can determine whether there is a correlation between X (or any other factor other than X) and g. Still, it doesn’t tell us about the numerical correlations between g and X, but it can prove that there is a correlation between factor X and g and show if there are any other factors independent of g that are not correlated with X (pg 143).
When a significant correlation is observed between g factors and factor X using the method of correlated vectors, which Rushton (1999) calls the “Jensen Effect”, it demonstrates that the test’s g loading is the best predictor of that correlation with a given variable. Basically, a Jensen Effect arises when there is a correlation between a large number of biological and psychological variables and the g factor. Jensen did say in his interviews with Frank Miele for the Book Intelligence, Race, and Genetics: Conversations with Arthur Jensen:
. . . it involves what I have called “Spearman’s hypothesis.” In his book The Abilities of Man, Spearman made a casual observation that the size of the average W hite-Black difference on ten diverse tests was directly related to his subjective im pression of how much each test reflected the g factor— the more g, the greater the Black-White difference. I turned Spearmans offhand conjecture into an empirically testable hypothesis by calculating the average Black-W hite difference for a number of diverse mental tests, obtaining the g loading for each test (that is, how much each test measures g), and ranking the average W-B differences and the g loadings. If the rank order of the Black White differences and the g loadings are pretty much in the same order, Spearman’s hypothesis is confirmed.
I’ve now tested Spearmans hypothesis on 25 large independent samples and it has been confirmed on every one. It has held up for many different test batteries, and at every age level from three-year olds to middle-aged adults. Nor did matching Blacks and Whites for SES diminish the effect. It even shows up in reaction-time tests that have different g loadings but require no cultural knowledge and can be performed in less than one or two seconds by elementary school children. Based on all these studies, the overall probability that Spearmans hypothesis is false is less than one in a billion! (emphasis mine)
There is less than one in a billion chance that Spearman’s hypothesis is wrong. Which brings me to the Black-White IQ gap.
Using the MCV, Dragt (2010) had his prediction confirmed when the psychometric meta-analysis of IQ batteries showed a correlation of .91, based on a large N. Their study on language bias showed a small underestimate of 2.71 points. They conclude that Spearman’s hypothesis is an empirical fact:
Spearman’s hypothesis can now be considered to be an empirical fact. Mean differences in intelligence between ethnic groups can be largely explained by the complexity of the subtests in an IQ battery. So, the present study shows clearly that there is simply no support for cultural bias as an explanation of these ethnic group differences. Apart from subtests with a strong language component, IQ batteries appear to be excellent measures of intelligence for all groups studied in our meta-analysis.
…
Conclusion: Mean group differences in scores on cognitive-loaded instruments are well documented over time and around the world. A meta-analytic test of Spearman’s hypothesis was carried out. Mean differences in intelligence between groups can be largely explained by cognitive complexity and the present study shows clearly that there is simply no support for cultural bias as an explanation of these group differences. Comparing groups, whether in the US or in Europe, produced highly similar outcomes.
This proves the hereditarian hypothesis 100 percent. Since the black-white differences on subtests are greater the more the g factor is involved (complex tasks, etc), that shows that a magnitude of the black-white difference in IQ is genetic in origin. IQ tests are also not “flawed” or “biased“, as all of the variables that continually get brought up have been controlled for, and genetic confounding wins out every time. Since testing blacks and whites both in America and Europe produces the same outcome, there is a clear genetic component in IQ between blacks and whites.
However, as with most statements and theories by Rushton and Jensen, Jensen’s MCV doesn’t come without any detractors.
Ashton and Lee (2005) state that the MCV produces spurious results as well as non-g sources of variance, producing a vector correlation of 0, even when the item is strongly correlated with the g factor. However, Nijenhuis et al (2007) state that by performing a psychometric meta-analysis on the MCV would alleviate some of the limitations with MCV. Rushton and Jensen (2010) state:
For example, Dolan et al [59] and Ashton and Lee [60] argue that the method of correlated vectors (MCV) lacks specificity so that Jensen Effects might occur even when differences are not on g, and so more powerful statistics are needed, such as multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA). However, this criticism misses the point because there is no absolute claim that the g effects have been proven, only that what is observed is what would have been expected if an underlying g did in fact exist (see Bartholomew [61] for the logic of g inferences). Thus, the onus is on the critics of g to identify whether some other factor is operating
Which the critics cannot do. That is because the g factor encompasses all mental abilities and the lower one’s g, the lower one’s overall intelligence. The MVC shows that the black-white IQ difference is largely biological in nature, seeing as the black-white IQ gap is 80 percent genetic and 20 percent environmental (Rushton and Jensen, 2005, p. 279):
. . . is that genetic and cultural factors carry the exact same weight in causing the mean Black–White difference in IQ as they do in causing individual differences in IQ, about 80% genetic–20% environmental by adulthood.
Blacks are ahead of whites at young childhood (around 4 years of age), but at around the age of 5, whites catch up and that’s when the significant racial differences in intelligence are noticed between the races. The fact that we have this debunked “blank slate” notion on the nature of not only race and intelligence but intelligence as a whole in this era of scientific knowledge is mind boggling. Changing all variables to where environments are as close as possible still produces the same occurrence: a clear 1 to 1.2 SD difference between blacks and whites.
Methods like factor analysis and the method of correlated vectors help us to understand the magnitude and heritability of the black-white difference in IQ. Since the differences are the highest on those subtests that are correlated with g, along with correlations from the MCV, with an 80/20 (Pareto Principle in action) genetic/environmental difference in black-white IQ, we can most definitively say that the 1 to 1.2 SD (the equivalent of 15 and 18 IQ points respectively) gap in IQ between whites and blacks is genetic in origin.
Can You “Hear” Race?
650 words
I’ve been wondering about this for a while now. Whenever you hear a black speak, nine times out of ten, you can tell whether or not it’s a black who is speaking. The differences come down to testosterone and morphological differences in vocal cords.
This study compared vocal tracts in 140 white, black and Asian speakers who were divided amongst the three races. The researchers controlled for age, gender, height and weight. They measured six dimensions in vocal tracts with acoustic reflection technology. They discovered that significant gender and racial differences exist in certain vocal tract dimensions. These findings will help researchers with a new anatomical database of those from different races and how their voice tracts differ for more study into it.
In this study, they measured volumetric differences in males from different races. They investigated vocal tracts, such as length differences in them, to see which would contribute to racial differences in acoustic characteristics. The findings help to support the hypothesis that those from different races may possibly have morphological differences when it comes to vocal tract dimensions. Those same dimensions could also be responsible for differences in vowel sound of specific dialect/speech.
People use everything from their throats to noses when they speak, and since there are morphological differences there, one would reason that there would be differences in the voices between races, on average. Basically, those with different facial features should have different voices. Since the races have different facial features, as well as morphological differences in vocal tracts and larynx and everything in between, then there are obvious differences in voices.
Taking 50 blacks and 50 whites and having them say an ‘a’ sound which was then recorded. The researchers paired one black subject with one white subject and the individuals in the study were able to guess the correct race 60 percent of the time. The researchers then gave an acoustic analysis of the voices. What was then discovered was that all though the voices for the black subjects was within normal ranges, the black subjects had “greater frequency perturbation, significantly greater amplitude perturbation, and a significantly lower harmonics-to-noise ratio than did the white speakers.” The listeners were most successful in distinguishing voice pairs when the differences in vocal perturbation and additive noise were greatest (obviously) and least successful when those differences were minimal or absent (again, obviously). Since there was no fundamental difference in the mean fundamental frequency and format structure of the samples, it’s extremely likely that the listeners relied on spectral noise to differentiate black and white speakers.
Even blind people “see” race!! Yet more proof that the races differ in speech as well as have morphological differences between them.
I’ve always noticed that, on average, you can tell a black from a white and a white from an Asian. Testosterone also plays a part. In Rushton’s debate with Joseph Graves, he says that testosterone differences are the cause for racial differences in voice. Testosterone mediates a lot of things in the human body. Testosterone levels also mediate the deepness of an individual’s voice. Those with more testosterone have a deeper voice, and those with less testosterone have a higher voice. East Asians have the least testosterone out of the three races, and they have the highest-pitched voices. Conversely, blacks have the highest testosterone and have the deepest voices, as well as the most distinct voices between the races. Whites, as usual, fall in the middle.
Black males have a smaller overall size gradient, Asians the biggest, and of course, whites fall in the middle. The sound of voices doesn’t just vary between races, but by gender within races as well.
Can we “hear” race? The answer is yes!! Whether it’s morphological differences in the voice tract or larynx or testosterone differences between races, we definitely can discern someone’s race on average when speaking to them.
Ashkenazi Jews are not Khazar
1900 words
Many people in the alt-right say that “the Ashkenazi Jews are Khazar”. This is not true. This is based on an autobiography by a Jew who thought that if Europeans thought the Jews were European, they wouldn’t want to kill them. This is also based on one study, where all the rest of the literature says they derive from the Levant and the Middle East. I will go through the myth and then tell the truth of the origins of the Ashkenazi Jews.
In this research paper by Eran Elhaik, he says that the rise of European Jewry is explained by the rise of Judeo-Khazars. Though contribution of Khazar genetics can only be estimated by empirically, but the absence of genome-wide data precluded the Khazar hypothesis. The findings by Elhaik, he says, support the Khazarian hypothesis and it represents the European Jewish genome as an amalgamation of Caucasus, European and Semitic ancestry.
Razib Khan has this to say about it:
In general I have to say that the historical framework of the paper is very skeletal, verging on incoherent (at least to me).
Setting aside the historical fuzziness of the paper, the major issue I have is that though the methods are totally kosher, so to speak, the data you put into them strongly shape your outcomes. Dienekes and Maju both anticipated my own key concern. The “Middle Eastern” aspect of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry might in fact be most well represented by populations in the zone of the northern Fertile Crescent and Eastern Anatolia; rather near or overlapping with the homelands of several of the Caucasian populations used in the above study as a proxy for Khazars. Additionally, modern Palestinians (the HGDP data set) are used as a reference to the Middle Eastern ancestors of Jews. I now believe that the Arabian contribution to the ancestry of Levantine and Iraqi Muslim population which dates to after the 7th century, and differentiates Muslim Arabs from their local non-Muslim Arab* co-ethnics, is significant. Perhaps on the same order of Germanic ancestry in modern England which dates to the 6th century and later. In plainer language the Caucasian component that is being detected in this paper may simply be a indigenous Middle Eastern ancestral element which has now been somewhat displaced northward in its modal frequency due to the expansion of the Arabs, and later the admixture of some Sub-Saharan admixture among Muslim Arabs.
Finally, despite the fact that I praise the author’s utilization of a wide array of contemporary statistical genetic methods, one can’t just do away with a thick and sturdy historical framework and reasonable questions derived from this superstructure.
And Dr. Kevin Macdonald’s thoughts on the matter:
The new findings were seen as support for the idea that there was significant admixture with non-Jews in Greco-Roman times. This is based on the clustering of the European/Syrian Jews and the fact that these groups have been separated since ancient times. The authors argue that the data are consistent with historical accounts of proselytism and large-scale conversions to Judaism in ancient times. When I reviewed the historical data in A People That Shall Dwell Alone (Ch. 4, pp. 62-78), I ended up rejecting this theory, coming down on the side of historians who doubted how important conversion really was. One thing that convinced me was that there was a lot of evidence for biases against converts. For example, once they converted they were regarded as very undesirable marriage partners and that a pure Jewish genealogy was a very big asset in the marriage market. Families keep their genealogies for generations, and there is a lot of evidence for hostility toward converts. Contrary to Atzmon et al., conversion is not required to explain the large numbers of Jews in the ancient world.
Though, this theory, before this one singular study came out, was first put forth by Arthur Koestler in his book The Thirteenth Tribe. He became interested in the founding of the Hungarian empire, and how the Khazars were at the center of that. He then makes a huge jump in logic to say that all of European Jewry are descended from those from Khazaria who then converted to Judaism.
This theory was quickly latched on to by the alt-right when it first was published and used as ammunition to say that the Jews weren’t the rightful bearers of Canaan (modern-day Israel/Palestine). However, we know that Jewish populations are more closely related to each other than to outside populations:
Livshits, Sokal and Kobylianskyt investigated the genetic affinities of Jewish populations. They concluded that Jewish populations are more like one another than they are to non-Jews and that pairs of Jewish populations from different locations are more alike than pairs of non-Jewish populations. They maintained that the most economical explanation of their findings is that the modern Jewish population throughout the world was derived from a common original gene pool which underwent few changes during the dispersion of the Jewish people. They also reported that it was highly likely that the common origin of the Jewish populations was more recent than that of the non-Jews.
Which, if Ashkenazi Jew were Khazar, we wouldn’t see this coming up in genetic testing.
Even the world’s foremost researchers on the Jews like Dr. Kevin Macdonald and Dr. David Duke say that the Khazar Hypothesis is long refuted.
In Ted Sallis’ article on the Occidental Observer, More Jewish Genetics: The “Weak Khazar Hypothesis” he cites a study which says that there may be a minute component in the Ashkenazi Jewish genome which is Khazar, which that part is from a North Caucaus population. Though, that might just be showing genetic similarity and not that some of the Ashkenazi Jewish genome derives from those populations.
David Duke even accepted the Khazar theory as true for years as he admits, however, he says that it wasn’t until he thought of the hypothesis both scientifically and logically that his doubts on the theory became aroused.
He says that Koestler, who he didn’t know was a communist Jew, bragged in a Jewish magazine that he made the hypothesis to fight anti-semitism. He believed, and cited the Gospels as evidence, that if he could get Europeans to believe they are related by blood to Jews, that anti-semitism would be lessened. Dr. Duke then goes through many studies which show that, in fact, the Khazar hypothesis is long discredited.
In my own articles on this website, I have written about the origins of Ashkenazi Jews.
A few thousand years ago, male Jews migrated from the Middle East and mated with beautiful Roman women who then converted to Judaism. The four major founders of the Ashkenazi Jew population have ancestry in prehistoric Europe, and not the Caucus or the Near East. The four minor founders share a deep European ancestry. So with genetic testing, we can see that the majority of the Ashkenazi population didn’t have its origins in the Caucus or Levant, but through assimilation of Roman women who converted to Judaism.
Male Jews migrated from the Levant to Rome during Greco-Roman times, which mass conversions led to 6 million Roman women who then began to practice Judaism. The genetic proximity of Ashkenazi Jews and Syrian Jews to Northern Italians, Sardinians and French populations suggest that there is non-Semitic ancestry in Ashkenazi Jews. The findings also say that any theories of Ashkenazi Jews having ancestry in Khazaria or from Slavs are incompatible with genetic studies. The close genetic similarity of Ashkenazi Jews and Southern Europeans has been noted in many studies.
So we have male Jews from the Levant who trekked to Rome around Greco-Roman times. They took beautiful Roman women as wives, who then converted to Judaism.
These two new studies from within the past few years again corrobarate that Ashkenazi Jews are not Khazarian, but derive from the same four founder populations; ancient European women and are not descended from Turkish populations.
Blogger Diversity is Chaos believes so. He says:
Persian Jews converted Turks to Judaism to create the rump of what would become today’s Jewish population, DNA research has revealed. The fascinating insight, which shows that most Ashkenazi Jews descend from Turkey, was made possible by state-of-the-art computer modelling and genetic techniques. The project, led by Israeli-born Dr Eran Elhaik, even pinpointed Iskenaz, Eskenaz and Ashanaz – three Turkish villages an ancient Silk Road route which still exist today – as part of the original Ashkenazi homeland.
As shown above, this is wrong. No idea why he wrote this article the other day, seeing as this debate has been put to rest for years.
He said that the word Ashkenaz likely derives from Ashguza, the ancient Assyrian and Babylonian term for Iron Age Eurasian steppeland people known as Scythians.
No. It is Biblical:
from modern Hebrew, from Ashkenaz, son of Japheth, one of the sons of Noah (Gen. 10:3).
Concurrent analysis of Yiddish suggests that it was originally a Slavic languagewhich the researchers think was developed by Jewish tradesmen travelling along the Silk Roads linking China and Europe 1,200 years ago.
…
The prevalent view claims Yiddish has a German origin, whereas the opposing view suggests a Slavic origin with strong Iranian and weak Turkic substrata,” they say. “One of the major difficulties in deciding was the unknown geographical origin of Yiddish speaking Ashkenazic Jews,” they say, but their analysis “demonstrates that Greeks, Romans, Iranians, and Turks exhibit the highest genetic similarity with Ashkenazic Jews”.
They show genetic similarity to those populations due to population migration. I have touched on and already linked to the origins of the Roman component in the Ashkenazi Jewish genome, and the same applies for those other populations. Genetic similarity does not mean that those populations were a founder population, or even that there is ancestry from those peoples.
Yiddish and modern German are both derived from the same source, which is Middle High German. Why, if they were Khazar, would it be derived from Middle High German? Why would the Ashkenazic travelers speak Old French, Hebrew and Aramaic? Yiddish is an amalgamation of languages with an extremely heavy German component. As the Jews traveled, they picked up new languages and began to integrate them into their language and eventually Yiddish formed.
To conclude, those who still believe and push the Khazar hypothesis are ideologically blinded. They let their bias cloud their judgement to the facts. Just because one singular study came out that says the Jews are Khazar is meaningless…. Since all other studies have shown that Jews, all Jews no matter where they live in the world, show affinities with the Middle East. Even the world’s foremost scholars on the Jewish people say that the Khazar hypothesis is wrong. One study on this doesn’t show that “all Jews descend from Khazars”, as we have to take a look at all studies as a whole and see where they point. All studies do not point to an origin like this, so it’s safe to say that this one study be thrown in the trash where it belongs. It’s intellectually dishonest to believe the Khazar hypothesis when it has been discredited time and time again by the newest genomic studies.
In Defense of Jason Richwine
3900 words
I came across two articles today, one from The Atlantic and the other from judgybitch.com. Both have attacked Jason Richwine’s dissertation in which he calls for a change to the US immigration policy to turn away low IQ immigrants and only accept high IQ ones. I agree fully with this (if it’s completely controlled, of course). This would drop crime as well as save us more money in welfare and other government programs that low IQ peoples take.
By 2050, 9 out of 10 people in the US will be obese or overweight and by 2020 80 percent of US men will be obese or overweight. This is due, in part, to an influx of those with lower IQs from South of the Border. Jason Richwine’s argument for testing immigrants will, in turn, lower obesity rates in America.
Dr. James Thompson noted how continued mass immigration from the South of the Border would decrease IQ, this is a real and pressing issue. A country is only as good as its majority population and by allowing all of these low IQ people into the country, our country will transform into theirs, which is ironic since that’s the exact thing they’re running away from. You cannot run away from genetics. The overall ‘Hispanic’-white gap is 10.2 points or .72 SDs. That will lower the average IQ of the country even more, and in turn, give us all a lowered quality of life. The average IQ of Mexico is 88 (Lynn and Vanhanen, 2002) so by allowing unfettered mass immigration without checking average IQs to see if they’ll be of any use to us as a country will lead to eventual irreversible effects if this isn’t stopped soon.
The first article I’ll look at is the one from The Atlantic:
Let’s start with the fact that there is no such thing as a direct test of general mental ability. What IQ tests measure directly is the test-taker’s display of particular cognitive skills: size of vocabulary, degree of reading comprehension, facility with analogies, and so on. Any conclusions about general mental ability are inferences drawn from the test-taker’s relative mastery of those various skills.
IQ tests test g or the general intelligence factor which encompasses all mental abilities. I guess the author of this piece has never heard of Raven’s Progressive Matrices. It’s a ‘culture free’ IQ test where the test is based on pattern recognition. No bias there.
Even then, if they don’t speak English and speak Spanish, they can get tests in their native language which are not biased. Gottfredson (1994) and 51 other eminent intelligence researchers signed a 25 point statement in which one of the statements was:
Intelligence tests are not culturally biased against American blacks or other native-born, English-speaking peoples in the U.S. Rather, IQ scores predict equally accurately for all such Americans, regardless of race and social class. Individuals who do not understand English well can be given either a nonverbal test or one in their native language.
They will be given the nonverbal test (RPM, see below) or one in their native language, which still test the same underlying concept of the general intelligence factor.
They found that being raised by high-SES (socioeconomic status) parents led to an IQ boost of between 12 and 16 points – a huge improvement that testifies to the powerful influence that upbringing can have.
False. See below.
A study of twins by psychologist Eric Turkheimer and colleagues that similarly tracked parents’ education, occupation, and income yielded especially striking results. Specifically, they found that the “heritability” of IQ – the degree to which IQ variations can be explained by genes – varies dramatically by socioeconomic class. Heritability among high-SES (socioeconomic status) kids was 0.72; in other words, genetic factors accounted for 72 percent of the variations in IQ, while shared environment accounted for only 15 percent. For low-SES kids, on the other hand, the relative influence of genes and environment was inverted: Estimated heritability was only 0.10, while shared environment explained 58 percent of IQ variations.
Turkheimer 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.
IQ tests are good measures of innate intelligence–if all other factors are held steady.
This is wrong. IQ tests are fine all around the world. RPM is one of the best out there and correlates with g between .8 and .9.
But if IQ tests are being used to compare individuals of wildly different backgrounds, then the variable of innate intelligence is not being tested in isolation. Instead, the scores will reflect some impossible-to-sort-out combination of ability and differences in opportunities and motivations. Let’s take a look at why that might be the case.
Intelligence – g – is the same across every population in the world.
Comparisons of IQ scores across ethnic groups, cultures, countries, or time periods founder on this basic problem: The cognitive skills that IQ tests assess are not used or valued to the same extent in all times and places
This is why they get re-standardized.
Indeed, the widespread usefulness of these skills is emphatically not the norm in human history. After all, IQ tests put great stress on reading ability and vocabulary, yet writing was invented only about 6,000 years ago – rather late in the day given that anatomically modern humans have been around for over 100,000 years. And as recently as two hundred years ago, only about 15 percent of people could read or write at all.
Doesn’t matter. See Raven’s Progressive Matrices above. The general intelligence factor is the same in all populations around the world. There are ways to give intelligence tests, such as RPM, to those who don’t read or write.
More generally, IQ tests reward the possession of abstract theoretical knowledge and a facility for formal analytical rigor.
Abstract thought is linked with intelligence. Those with higher IQs are more analytical than those with lower IQs.
To grasp how culturally contingent our current conception of intelligence is, just imagine how well you might do on an IQ test devised by Amazonian hunter-gatherers or medieval European peasants.
I touched on this in my refutation of Robert Sternberg. The concept of g does not change over time. The more intelligent you are, the better chance you’ll have to survive in those places.
Such skills are used more intensively in the most advanced economies than they are in the rest of the world. And within advanced societies, they are put to much greater use by the managers and professionals of the socioeconomic elite than by everybody else. As a result, American kids generally will have better opportunities to develop these skills than kids in, say, Mexico or Guatemala. And in America, the children of college-educated parents will have much better opportunities than working-class kids.
Those skills are used much more in advanced economies because of higher average innate intelligence. The children of college-educated parents have much better opportunities than working-class kids because intelligence is strongly linked to socioeconomics status.
Among the strongest evidence that IQ tests are testing not just innate ability, but the extent to which that innate ability has been put to work developing specific skills, is the remarkable “Flynn effect”: In the United States and many other countries, raw IQ scores have been rising about three points a decade. This rise is far too rapid to have a genetic cause. The best explanation for what’s going on is that increasing social complexity is expanding the use of the cognitive skills in question – and thus improving the opportunities for honing those skills.
Let’s say Flynn is right. The average black now is as intelligent as the average white in 1945. That’s supposed to show that the race difference in IQ is environmentally caused because there hasn’t been that much genetic change in the white population and the IQ has allegedly gone up 15 points. So, you can have a 15 point difference created by just an environmental change, no one knows why. Some think better nutrition or malnourished brain, etc. That’s also a fallacy. Just because a change in one group over time is due to an environmental change, doesn’t mean, or even make it probable, that a difference between 2 groups at the same time is due to an environmental change. The Flynn Effect make’s that highly unlikely and here’s why.
The Flynn Effect, assuming it’s real, has been acting completely uniformly in every population. Any country you ask, the rate of increase is 3 per decade. That means it’s an environmental factor that affects whites and blacks the same way as well as the whole world. And as a result of this uniform environmental factor, you have a difference in IQ that’s being preserved. That would suggest that the response on the parts of blacks and whites is due to some non-environment factors, a genetic factor, which is making the difference in IQ remain constant as the Flynn Effect goes into effect.
What makes it even more unlikely, in the last 60 years, their environments have become very similar since segregation. These differences don’t exist now, they go to the same schools by court order, same TV shows, same movies, basically same environment for both, and yet, that increasing similarity in the environment, the Flynn Effect, the IQ gap has remained intact. Which means whatever counts for the gap is genetic and not environmental. The more and more similar the environment, the less and less of the difference can be due to the environment and the more and more it must be due to genes. So this 15 point gap surviving these changes in the environment, seems more and more likely to be genetic in origin.
So because this ‘Effect’ is the same across all populations and the gap didn’t close, that means it’s genetic. If the gap persisted even when IQs were rising 3 points per year, the B-W gap has still persisted, proving that it’s genetic.
That is why the Flynn Effect is irrelevant. This “Effect”, has been a slight upward trend in IQ, around 3 points per decade, which, in my opinion, has to do with the advent of better nutrition and an industrialized society. The rise in IQ started around 1880, almost perfectly coinciding with the industrial revolution in America. Along with a more industrialized society, it’s possible to give most citizens in the country good enough nutrition to where they are not iodine deficient (adding iodine to our salt boosted Americans IQs), as well as being deficient in zinc, iron, protein and certain B vitamins which the effects of not getting enough leads to the brain not growing to its full potential, which in turn leads to a lower IQ.
One more point on the Flynn Effect. The Flynn Effect does not occur on g, as it is not a Jensen Effect. Rushton defines Jensen Effect as follows:
Significant correlations occurring between g-factor loadings and other variables have been dubbed “The Jensen effect”.
…
Thus the secular increase in test scores (the “Lynn±Flynn effect”) is not a “Jensen effect” nor is this the first time the discriminating power of the Jensen effect has been shown.
The Flynn effect is acutely embarrassing to those who leap from IQ score differences to claims of genetic differences in intelligence.
Not at all, since it’s easily explainable by better nutrition since the beginning of the industrial revolution. It’s also not even on g so why this gets discussed is beyond me.
Specifically, it is based on the ahistorical and ethnocentric assumption of a fixed relationship between the development of certain cognitive skills and raw mental ability. In truth, the skills associated with intelligence have changed over time–and unevenly through social space–as society evolves.
The relationship exists and there is a strong correlation between cognitive skills and raw mental ability. More intelligent people have better functioning societies than less intelligent people. This is an objective fact.
But contrary to the counsel of despair from hereditarians like Richwine, those deficits aren’t hard-wired. Progress in reducing achievement gaps will certainly not be easy, but a full review of the IQ evidence shows that it is possible. And it will be aided by policies, like immigration reform, that encourage the full integration of Hispanics into the American economic and cultural mainstream.
Jason Richwine is correct. Progress in achievement gaps will not close, barring the continued dysgenesis that America is facing. Immigration reform will not change anything. They don’t want to assimilate; they want to come and leech off of our Welfare State. The denial of genetics and scholastic achievement won’t be able to be held for long. In this study in which Robert Plomin was one of the researchers, it was found that 60 percent of the difference between individual 16-year-old students in the UK could be attributed to genetic factors. We know that IQ is linked to academic achievement and since that’s heritable as well, we will soon see that race and ethnic differences in IQ and academic achievement are, without a shadow of a doubt, are real and do not exist because of any economic deprivation or some other kind of non-biologic factors.
For the second article, from judgybitch.com, in which she only says one correct thing in it and it’s:
Here’s a little pet theory of mine I’d like to throw out, just for the hell of it. I think humans prefer lighter skin and hair and eye colors because those tend to be the result of recessive genes. A man with darker tones who has a child with a woman of lighter tones will almost always see his genes expressed in the children. Dark tones tend to be dominant. The preference for lighter skin is a natural paternity test.
This is called sexual selection, which is natural selection which arises for selection of traits in the opposite sex. Selecting for certain traits which the opposite sex found appealing, for example, is how long hair got sexually selected for outside of Africa along with selection for hair, eye, and skin color. Selecting for these traits had them become more prevalent and they eventually stayed due to intense selection for them.
For example, Eurasian women got selected for beauty and Eurasian men who got selected for intelligence as men had to be more intelligent in order to hunt for food. Conversely, African women gathered and hunted for food and became slightly more intelligent than African men who became the more attractive sex (Fuerle, 2008).
But other than this she is wrong.
You know what IS linked very strongly to lower IQs?
Malnutrition.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041117005027.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2628311
http://www.nature.com/pr/journal/v5/n11/abs/pr1971371a.html
The idea is not even the slightest bit controversial. Children who are starved, especially in the earliest years of life, perform very poorly on IQ tests compared to peers who received adequate nutrition. Like, really poorly. IQ’s down around 60 (100 is average).
Let’s look at this world hunger map, shall we?
http://www.geographictravels.com/2008/07/world-hunger-map.html
Oh well now, would you look at that. Looks like it’s mostly black and Hispanic folks who are starving. And all those white folks are living life to the hilt, with full bellies and bright futures.
Must be a coincidence.
It’s not a coincidence. There is no coincidence that if you superimpose an IQ map over the world hunger map, that a super majority of the low IQ countries would have bad nutrition and be starving, whereas those higher IQ populations would have better nutrition and, therefore, higher IQs and lack of malnutrition and starvation. There are environmental factors involved in this, which I have gone through in my article IQ, Nutrition, Disease and Parasitic Load. Yes, those environmental variables decrease IQ; but in the case of Africa, if their full genotypic IQ were expressed in their phenotype, they would have an average IQ of 80, 9 points away from the lowest average European country which is Serbia at 89. They would then be able to have better functioning societies and not have to rely on outside aid. Though, their low IQs are the cause of evolution, those factors only cause about 10 points of difference (depending which of the variables I mentioned exist in those areas).
Let’s look at this map of food insecurity in the United States:
http://www.nextgenerationfood.com/news/food-insecurity-in-the-us/
Highest rates of food insecurity:
Mississippi
Texas
Arkansas
Lowest rates of food insecurity:
North Dakota
Massachusetts
Virginia
Gosh, I wonder where all the black and Hispanic people are? North Dakota, right?
According to the USDA, in a report titled Household Food Security in the United States in 2011, black and Hispanic families are more than twice as likely to experience food insecurity as white families (p. 11).
White 11.4% of families food insecure
Black 25.1%
Hispanic 26.2%
Gosh, I wonder where black and ‘Hispanic’ people are? Mississippi, Texas, and Arkansas right? What is the cause of the food insecurity? Lower intelligence. What is lower intelligence highly correlated with? Obesity.
If you keep in mind the fact that obesity (especially as the result of heavily processed, nutrient deficient junk foods) is also a form of malnutrition, it seems to me that there is an entirely different explanation for why certain racial groups might tend to perform lower on IQ tests.
Sure it is. A big cause for obesity is lowered intelligence (Kanazawa 2007). What he found was that those studies that concluded that obesity causes lowered intelligence only observed cross-sectional studies. Longitudinal studies that looked into the link between obesity and intelligence found that those who had low IQs since childhood then became obese later in life and that obesity does not lead to low IQ. The average IQ for an individual suffering from PWS is 65 (Butler, Lee and Whitman 2006, p. 13), so that is one reason they have a tendency to be obese. He states that those with IQs below 74 gained 5.19 BMI points, whereas those with IQs over above 126 gained 3.73 BMI points in 22 years, which is a statistically significant difference. Also noted, was that those at age 7 who had IQs above 125 had a 13.5 percent chance of being obese at age 51, whereas those with IQs below 74 at age 7 had a 31.9 percent chance of being obese. This clearly shows that those obese individuals who score low on IQ tests, more often than not, are obese because of their intelligence. The lack of ability to delay gratification is also correlated with low IQ (Mischel and Metzner, 1982).
Becoming obese is largely in part related to environmental factors, but there are correlates with obesity and genetic factors, as well as racial and ethnic differences in obesity, which are due, in part, to environmental as well as genetic factors. All of these factors fall back to a) lower intelligence, b) differing physiology and c) differing nutritional habits. Lower IQ is the main reason, though, for these differences which manifest itself as differences in scores of cognitive ability. Those with lower scores than have higher chances of having negative effects in life, such as low SES, higher chance of becoming obese and so on.
Correlation is not causation.
This is the liberals word phrase they use when they cannot contest data and know it so use the same old boring phrase. When you get the same result over and over using the scientific method, then it’s safe to say that the same results and conclusions that get brought up time and time again are real and cannot be explained away by the correlation does not mean causation line.
And furthermore, I haven’t read Richwine’s dissertation, nor do I plan to, so I don’t know if he offered any tentative explanations for his findings.
Didn’t even read it and is giving a critique of it. How does that work?
It looks to me like Richwine is a gigantic racist asshole, because he is using his findings to try and limit the opportunities for Hispanic people to come to the United States, because dumb spics.
Lower IQ people commit more crimes than do higher IQ people. This phenomenon is well-noted that those with lower intelligence commit crime, as the average IQ of a criminal in America, is 85, whereas the average IQ for a juvenile is 92. The average juvenile IQ is higher because more often than not, those who are habitual offenders in childhood become habitual offenders in adulthood, and at adulthood IQ drops from childhood where the environment was able to artificially boost their IQs.
What if I’m right? What if IQ differences are traceable to malnutrition? That would indicate a whole different set of interventions and policies than just turn them away.
You are part right, but that won’t put any big dent in any genetic/phenotypic IQ differences and still, mass immigration from South of the Border still wouldn’t be OK in the first place.
In shutting down the conversation about race and IQ, Harvard students are explicitly saying they don’t WANT to find a reason behind low performance on IQ tests amongst certain racial groups. They don’t CARE why some groups are not reaching their full human potential. They don’t give ONE SINGLE FUCK about anyone other than themselves. It could be as simple as making certain children have access to proper food and nutrition.
I at least give her credit for acknowledging the biological reality of race and the reality of IQ. But she thinks that malnutrition plays too big a part in the ethnic IQ gap than it does in reality.
As I have covered here before, people will do anything they can to deny the validity of IQ tests. However, their explanations cut it.
People who attempt to deny biological differences in intelligence because they strongly predict positive life outcomes will do anything to deny their validity. But that doesn’t change how strong a predictor they are in regards to predicting both positive and negative successes in life.
Those who attempt to deny any differences between races, like Chanda Chisala (I know you can see this Chanda, still waiting for a response to the criticism of your horrible article that “redneck genes” are the cause for the black-white IQ gap), who are wrong in their premises on the cause as well as how to fix the gap. They will do anything to attempt to explain away a gap which is, at least, 50 percent genetic in origin.
The attack on Jason Richwine is because, of course, he’s right. They don’t want to admit he is right so they do whatever they can to discredit his argument, by calling him a ‘racist’. But that doesn’t negate his data, and as seen above, any arguments against Richwine’s dissertation are unfounded.
Germany is going to begin IQ testing their immigrants, why can’t we?
Differential K Theory, GFP, and the Evolution of Conscientousness
There is a link between higher IQ and higher ability to be more conscientiousness, which is then linked to the GFP or General Factor of Personality. Two meta-factors were identified beyond the Big Five Personality Traits and were described as ‘Plasticity’ and ‘Stability’ (Deyoung et al, 2002). To quote from the paper:
Stability subsumes Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability (the reverse ofNeuroticism), and Agreeableness, and refers to the extent to whichan individual is consistent in motivation, mood, and social interac-tions. Plasticity encompasses Extraversion and Openness to experi-ence, and refers to the extent to which a person actively searchesfor new and rewarding experiences, both intellectual and social.
Why did this evolve, especially so closely with high intellect? It evolved due to conscientiousness, which is defined as being thorough, careful, and vigilant.That, coincidentally enough, being needed to survive the harsh winters of Northern Europe and Siberia. Higher conscientiousness was is also another reason for the formation of European societies. With being able to be more conscientious, this, along with genetic pacification, is yet another cause for the cucking of Europe.
When our ancestors trekked out of Africa and into Siberia and Northern Europe, they needed differing abilities than those peoples who stayed in the more tropic climates. Those in the tropics, for the most part, could just lounge around all day. With food being readily available, there was really no pressing need to “save” or “partition” their findings (as Africa is full of mostly a hunter-gatherer societies). Conversely, in Europe and Asia, with harsh conditions in regards to their environment, which made food less plentiful than in the tropics, this meant that more cooperation was needed. Due to more cooperation being needed to survive, planning ahead (abstract thought) evolved to better help cope with the harsh environment.
The aforementioned factors in Europe and Asia then led to the higher rates of altruism seen today. Ancient Europeans needed to be thorough, vigilant and careful. Whether they needed to be careful with food storage, how much to eat, whether or not to help someone, etc, it’s clear that conscientiousness evolved with higher intelligence. Since higher intelligence is correlated with those three things involving conscientiousness, they evolved hand in hand, as selection only selects for good traits and discards the ones that aren’t useful.
These two environments that the three races evolved in then set the stage for what’s going on today. With Africans’ lack of conscientiousness, this leads to them not being vigilant, careful or thorough. This can be seen with how sloppy they are when they commit crimes. Their ancestral environment wasn’t conducive to conscientiousness, and in turn, higher IQ, so they evolved without the need of conscientiousness, as their societies (for what they are), function ‘well’ in their perception. This is yet another reason why that we cannot live together. Differing evolutionary strategies lead to these causes, yet we still think we can acclimate some peoples into society when their biology says otherwise.
JP Rushton proposed that the GFP (General Factor of Personality) and IQ were linked. It was found that the correlation between the GFP and IQ was -.23. The higher the g score, the higher the individual scores on the GFP. He noted that the correlation is so low, possibly due to the restricted range of the sample. Rushton provided an argument for the evolutionary process of cognitive ability and personality evolution. This is clear evidence of the GFP and IQ evolving hand-in-hand.
Lacking a high IQ, and therefore, lack of g, Africans (as well as other colored peoples), on average, have lower g and therefore lower conscientiousness, which then is a huge cause for crime. Increases criminality has been correlated, like I’ve said here before, to a lower verbal intelligence. Though this higher IQ and higher GFP is being taken advantage of. Ever since that fateful day in 1964, white pathological altruism has been taken advantage of. Those with lower conscientiousness know they can take advantage of those with higher IQ and higher conscientiousness as altruism is correlated highly with IQ and conscientiousness.
There is an altruistic personality; the altruist has a high IQ, is conscientious, and altruistic. Those on the opposite end of the spectrum, however, take advantage of that and this can be seen with the political climate around the world in regards to other races’ feelings towards whites.Conversely, those who are r-selected and have a low IQ and GFP tend to be more hostile and commit acts of aggression. This multiculturalism due to the altruistic personality on a large scale is one of the reasons for the mass immigration into Western societies. People, as a whole, become collectively altruistic. Then, those lower IQ, lower GFP, r-selected people then take advantage of the more altruistic people. They then turn into a parasitic entity, sucking the host dry before moving on to their next victim.
This is where a high GFP does not work, in multicultural societies. Of course, this is also due to ethnic dissimilarity, but the other thing I brought up along with that ethnic dissimilarity are all of the negative effects of those that are r selected, which, in their own societies is ‘fine’, but to who are K-selected and have complex societies, those behaviors are archaic.
There is a high correlation between low IQ, low conscientiousness, archaic actions, lack of abstract thought, and lack of society building. We know that those with lower IQs commit more crime on average than those with higher IQs.
This is why allowing non-Western people who are abnormal to our societies is a bad move, since they don’t share the same evolutionary track, and therefore, due to differing selections due to evolution, evolved differing behaviors to better adapt to the climate, environment, and surroundings.
Since skin color and IQ correlate at -.92, meaning the darker the skin the lower the IQ and vice versa, this is yet another great assessor on whether an individual has a high IQ, and is, therefore, conscientious. This is due to, as I alluded to earlier, the environment in sub-Saharan Africa being conducive to lack of ability to delay gratification. Due to that, we can infer, on average, whether someone will be conscientious or not. Since their ability to delay gratification is impeded due to certain evolutionary pressures not put on Asians and Europeans, they will, therefore, be less conscientious, which is a crucial building block in maintaining a successful society.
The research of Templer and Arikawa (2006) supports Rushton’s contention that higher intelligence develops in colder climates. They used 129 countries with primarily indigenous populations (Asia, Africa, and Europe) and correlated culture fair IQ (Lynn & Vanhanen, 2002) with temperature. In addition to temperature, Templer and Arikawa used skin color provided by an anthropology book (Biasutti, 1967). IQ correlated .92 with darker skin color, .76 with winter highs, .66 with winter lows, and .63 with per capita income. Previous research by Meisenberg (2004) reported a correlation of .89 between skin reflectance and IQ in a similar study. Templer (2010b) found a correlation of .96 between skin color measure used by the Templer and Arikawa and the one by Meisenberg’s skin reflectance. Because both measures were independently determined using different methodology, they both can be regarded as highly valid measures of skin color.
The cause of these two variables being correlated is evolution. They paired well with each other, so over tens of thousands of years, they got selected for with each other and persisted to today. Since we have modern societies and are much more civil (some of us), we can better see these differences in personality as well as behavior. There are This General Factor of Personality was able to evolve due to evolution in cold climates. The altered intelligence, which then altered personality. This r/K Life History Theory of Rushton’s blend’s beautifully with the GFP and intelligence. Evolution in cold climates along with genetic isolation caused differing evolutionary trajectories for each race/ethnicity which led to differences in crime, IQ, socioeconomic status, sexual maturity, cultures, and so on. There are clear genetic differences brought on by the environment (due to evolution), which leads to differing societies based on differing evolutionary trajectories. Conscientiousness and intelligence, the whole General Factor of Personality, evolved in Northern populations since it was more beneficial in that environment, and to survive, this is what done to adapt to the environment through natural selection, which then led to racial differences.
Germany Begins to (Slightly) Wise Up: Will Begin IQ Testing “Migrants”
800 words
Haaretz reported today that Germany was going to begin IQ testing on the ‘migrants’ to assess where talent and what occupational groups that they could put them in. This is a slightly positive change with all of the negativity this past year.
The mean IQ of Arab countries is 84 (Templer, 2010). With around 1.2 million ‘refugees’ coming from land and sea, assuming a SD of 15 (seeing as Arabs are Caucasian, I’ll assume a SD of 15), 50 percent of them fall at or below 84. So 600k at 84 or below. 16 percent fall at 100. 192k fall at 100. 12k at 120 and 1,680 fall at 130. 50 percent fall below 84. In America the average IQ for a repeat criminal is 85. With an IQ of 85, you can see that criminality begins to increase. This is due to lack of abstract thought(linked to verbal ability), which has them not think of the consequences of their actions before they act. At or below 85 is 1 in 6, 68% of the population is within 1 SD of 100, and 2.5% of people are 130 or more.
I can’t find any data on Arab testosterone at the moment, so I’ll just assume that it’s higher than Europeans due to the Arabs’ closer proximity to the equator (someone correct me if I’m wrong), as that’s why African’s testosterone is high. Due to higher average testosterone combined with low IQ, this leads to increased aggression along with increased sex crime, which is a cause for some of the sex assaults on European women by Muslim men. I can’t find anything on terrorist IQ, the closest I can find is how the FBI convinced a man with an IQ of 51 to attempt terrorist acts, though that’s an extreme case. Since low IQ is correlated highly with lack of abstract thought, it was easier for him to become convinced to do it. Like in most organizations, the more intelligent ones are at the top so they tell the lower IQ ones what to do. Though, by administering these tests, they will greatly lower their chances for another terrorist attack, seeing as those actions are correlated with low IQ.
In a study on prison inmates, IQ predicted inmate misconduct. Using a sample of 2500 inmates over 30 institutions from August 2004 to June 2006, it was found that those inmates who had higher IQs were involved in fewer incidents as well as being less likely to commit violent behavior. Verbal intelligence has been posited to be some of the cause for increased crime, seeing as verbal IQ is correlated with delinquent behavior, which is due to lack of abstract thought being correlated with lower IQ. With higher testosterone being correlated with low IQ and increased androgen sensitivity along with higher sperm counts (both are indicators of higher testosterone) being correlated negatively when measured by speed of neuronal transmission which causes a trade-off between g (general intelligence) and neuronal transmission, this shows that increased testosterone means decreased IQ. This is also seen with how higher IQ people have a lower sex drive.
I did say in my article Non-Western People are Abnormal for Our Society, that, as the title says, non-Western people are abnormal for our society due to not sharing our cultural values, which, we know is genetic. Though, higher IQ individuals will be better able to acclimate into society, as well as have a decreased proclivity to commit crime.
Since there are some evoultionary reasons for suicide bombings due to increased inbreeding this increased genetic similarity between them which led to increased altruism due to genetic similarity, by allowing those with higher IQs, this will lead to a greatly increased chance for attacks to happen as higher IQ people are better at controlling impulses.
This is a move I agree with. All countries should implement this procedure (obviously not enough to where it begins to displace the native population). With there being a cut-off limit on IQ, lets say 105 or even 110, that guarantees a high chance of those who are immigrating will be of value to the country and bring something to the table instead of the current situation with the benefits they currently receive (and lets be honest, you know these rules aren’t being followed). So by implementing this policy not only in Germany, but around the world, this would be a great thing for the West, to restrict immigration only to high-skilled workers, with a background check, intelligence test and someone with good credentials. Of course, only in sectors that really need the help. I of course advocate for the natives of any country to have first dibs when it comes to getting a job.
All in all, this is good move because a) rapes will be lessened and b) there won’t be as much individuals on welfare because there will be an (assumed) moratorium on those with lower IQs, leaving the higher IQ ones to find jobs and contribute to the economy.
Smoking and Race
1000 words
From the brands of cigarettes people use to the types of cigars people use, there are variations by race. There are also death rate differences and variations in how peoples of different race and ethnicity. I will explore causes for these points as well.
From the CDC’s Fact Sheet on tobacco use, we can see that Marlboro (41 percent), Newport (12 percent), Camel (8 percent), Pall Mall (8 percent) and Pyramid (2 percent) were the leading cigarette brands.The percentage of those older than 12 years old who smoked menthol was 19.1% black, 3.6% Asian, 7.8% ‘Hispanic’, and 6.5% white. You can see this looking in any majority black area how younger blacks most always smoke menthols, mainly Newport and sometimes Kools.
In my experience, that has been the case. For whites, the main brand was either Marlboro menthol, Marlboro lights or Marlboro Reds. For Asians it was most always Parliament Lights; they sure do love those.
Exposure to Newports in their environments may also be a factor for blacks smoking more menthol cigarettes, such as Newports. I have already written a bit about the media’s involvement in both a positive and negative way that affects behaviors, so by seeing more advertisements for a certain kind of cigarette, they’ll be more likely to smoke the brand that they constantly see, see their parents or siblings smoking (though, controlling for that in the study, they were still able to recognize Newports) smoking or ones that they can take that are lying around. Regardless of race, those students who were able to recognize Newports were more likely to begin at follow up even after controlling for other risk factors. In this sample of 1179 students (this was a longitudinal study), non-recognition of Camel and Marlboro did not predict smoking at follow-up. These factors also involve what I will discuss below.
Caraballo (1998) found that serum cotinine levels were higher than blacks than they were in whites. That is, blacks have higher levels of the metabolized form of nicotine in their bodies than do whites called ‘cotinine‘. This causes blacks’ bodies to absorb more nicotine than whites due to these biological factors. This may possibly explain why blacks have more cases of lung cancer and are less likely to quit smoking.
Non-‘Hispanic’ blacks also have two times the amount of cotinine than do Mexican and white Americans. This affects how much of the nicotine absorbed into the blood stream as well as the increase in getting cancer.
The differences in cancer disparity between blacks and whites cannot be explained by the preference for a certain brand of cigarette. Though, that study does confirm that those who smoke more mentholated cigarettes take deeper inhales. So in a way, in can be said to be explained by brand preference, since those who smoke menthol cigarettes inhale more deeply than those who smoke a non-mentholated brand.
Ross et al (2016) discovered that blacks take more pulls per cigarette and take deeper, longer pulls than do whites, which is the cause for the disparity in lung cancer between blacks and whites (along with higher cotinine levels in blacks, that’s the cause for more nicotine absorption). Deeper inhales means more nicotine is being absorbed into the body and therefore cotinine levels increase.I could also see personality differences playing a factor in who takes longer pulls and more pulls of a cigarette as well.
Higher testosterone levels may also be correlated with lung cancer. With blacks having more testosterone on average than whites, we can see how these disparities in hormone levels between the races are the cause for differences in acquisition of disease rate between the races. It seems that all cancers have high correlations with increased testosterone, not just prostate. Higher testosterone is associated with many negative variables, and of course, blacks have some of the most negative health effects. This is a combination of genes x environment. Their environment is more conducive to menthol cigarettes (mostly Newports), blacks also are more extroverted, which means they’re more sociable and therefore can coerce each other to do things, such as smoking (lower IQ also plays a part in coercion).
In teenage populations, whites showed a higher use for tobacco smoking and marijuana usage, but in the 20s, blacks and ‘Hispanics’ are more likely to pick up the habits, while whites drop off. The researchers conclude that we need to better understand why these substance abuse behaviors exist, which differing personality traits (due to testosterone, as well as that being a factor for smoking more) are part of the cause for it in my opinion.
Higher free and total testosterone was found in males, even after stratification of age, BMI, triglycerides and alcohol consumption were controlled for. This shows why more blacks and ‘Hispanics’ are represented more in the statistics after age 20, as that’s when genetics takes full effect, so they would be over-represented in these cases.
With the higher natural cotinine levels, this causes blacks to absorb more nicotine; they take more pulls per cigarette as well as deeper pulls. Along with smoking cigarettes with more nicotine and more tar in them, this is a cause for the disparity between blacks and whites and how it involves the acquisition of lung cancer. Higher testosterone individuals turn to smoking more than lower testosterone individuals.
I theorize that part of the reason for deeper pulls of a cigarette as well as more pulls is correlated with the amount of testosterone one has, which is then correlated with how extroverted they are. Extroversion leads to being around others more often, which, even with desegregation, there has been less integration, not more. Since they’re more likely to be around each other due to desegregation not ending people segregating by race, they then are exposed to others who are smoking as well as doing other thing that younger children with higher testosterone will be more likely to do, in part because of exposure to the new stimulus along with higher testosterone which leads to more impulsive behavior.. This leads to one of many social and biological variables that lead to blacks having higher rates of lung cancer due to smoking.
Rushton’s Differential K Theory and Intelligence
1250 words
This is my 50th post. I plan to cover altruism and ethnocentrism much more extensively, intelligence and race, psycological disease and race, personality and race and so on. A JayMan refutation on his belief of Ethnic Genetic Interests and Group Selection is coming soon.
Differential K Theory explains human behavior on countless variables. Rushton was one the first scientist to use r/K selection theory to explain human behavior. Albeit, it’s on a much smaller scale than what r/K selection theory is used for, it still greatly applies to human populations. On over 6o variables, Blacks (r selected) fall at one end of the continuum, whereas Orientals (K selected) fall at the other end, with Caucasians falling in the middle, consistently on over 60 variables.
Rushton’s theory, which of course is extremely controversial, drew the ire of many researchers because he chose to use r/K selection theory in regards to explaining differences between isolated human populations. But, what they don’t get is this: even if Rushton is wrong with his Differential K theory, you’d still need a way to explain how and why these 3 populations who evolved in genetic isolation came to have such stark and consistent differences between them no matter where in the world you look. Between IQ (Asians 103-4; Europeans 100 and African-Americans 85), rates of 2-egg twinning (Asians 4 for every 1000, Europeans 8 for every 1000, and Africans 16 for every 1000 [I wrote about some evolutionary causes for earlier menstration in black girls with leptin being the cause last week, it also explains how and why blacks have more rates of 2-egg twinning, because the life expectancy is so low it lead to evolutionary pressurses in which Africans evolved mechanisms that have them have more kids and earlier menstral cycle.]), average age of first walk (blacks one week before whites who are one week before Asians) and so on and so forth.
The more intelligent the woman, the less kids she will want to have, on average. One SD increase in childhood IQ leads to a 21-25 percent decrease in a woman’s odds to have children. This is a clear k strategy. Have less kids, but show more care for them. Conversely, blacks have more kids, but show less paternal involvement. This still continues today in America, even though we have an industrial society. The things involved in this discussion are, at its core, evolution in its process, but we don’t see it that way because of the society we live in. With intelligent women not having children, while the less intelligent, r selected women having more children, this will lead to an eventual dysgenisis and the average IQ in America will drop immensely. The birth rate for whites in America was 1.75 in 2013, 2.0 for blacks, 2.4 for Hispanics and 1.77 for Asians. The r/K selection theory perfectly explains this. It’s an evolutionary process that occurs as adaptations to the environment that their ancestors evolved in.
The more K selected peoples had to have less children in their ancestral environment due to food being scarce. This is where the higher intelligence evolved as well as high amounts of altruism, which I theorize that Europeans have a higher amount of the brain hormone oxytocin, which leads to more altruism, but is being taken advantage of by non-Western people who are abnormal to our societies and eventually leads to increased ethnocentrism.
Rushton postulates that Differential K Theory is a cause for group differences in intelligence. With the K selected having less children and the r selected having more, we can see this in birth trends as well as IQ trends in the country. More intelligent women can see that it’d be better to wait to have children as to be more financially able to take care of the baby. While the less intelligent women have more kids due to not thinking into the future and only thinking in the now, wanting their pleasure immediately. This is causing a dysgenic effect on America. The more the average intelligence drops, the more we can expect to see conditions begin to deteriorate, as a country is only as good as the majority of its population, as we can see looking at the average living conditions around the world.
With altruistic behavior being highly correlated with race due to evolution for tens of thousands of years, we can see that more intelligent people will be more law abiding, more altruistic, commit less crime, have less children, more cooperative and so on. Whereas less intelligent people will be less law abiding, less altruistic, commit more crime, have more children and be less cooperative. This is modeled in communities all over America in their crime rates, graduation rates, IQ scores and so on. One of the most noticeable r selected traits is criminality. This is due to lack of ability to delay gratification and higher testosterone. The reverse is true for lower testosterone Eurasians, as well as numerous other differing physiological factors between the races.
With differing crime rates no matter where you look, the racial disparities are all the same. This is no coincidence; social factors do not account for these differences. Evolution, does, though. Evolution is also the cause for the social factors that do arise within and between populations. Over time, these selection pressures caused these positive traits you see in those who evolved in the Northern, harsher, colder climates and the more negative traits in the more Southerly, hotter climates.
This is why importing more people from differing societies into our countries will not end well. They have differing evolutionary goals different evolutionary reasons for them. They are not normal for our societies; ethnic dissimilarity causes more strife between people due to genetic distance. The more r selected peoples are less intelligent and are also prone to higher rates of criminality as well due to higher testosterone.
These differing evolutionary goals would be fine; if not for forced mass immigrations into Western countries. Since birth rates never remain stable, a lower white birth rate would have been able to rebound eventually. With the introduction of mass immigration into Western Societies, this is causing the birth rate to continue to fall percentage wise, even if the birth rate increases due to the introduction of more r selected peoples. The more educated that women get, the less kids they have. It works in two ways: going for higher degrees and wanting success in life first, some women may be around their mid 30s before deciding to have children and when deciding to have children they then can’t have any due to being too old. Whereas those with lower intelligence and no career prospects would have been having more kids due to their r selected strategy and lack of foresight into the future due to lower intelligence.
Looking at things from an evolutionary lens will make what’s going on around the world clear. Everything you see is evolution in action, though you won’t see its effects and they won’t be noticeable for tens of thousands of years, it’s evolution on a macro level. Negative birth trends always do reverse, as they never remain stable. As more women get educated (and this holds for all women of every age, race, religion and ethnic group), birth rates drop due to less time in the fertile years attempting to get pregnant. If we’d only look at things in an evolutionary scientific way, we’d be better able to understand how and why human populations differ behaviorally cognitively, and a whole multitude of other factors. We’d also better understand how to, on average, deal with the average criminalistic personality. It would make the job for police easier if these evolutionary factors were known and life would be safer in America as a whole.
NotPoliticallyCorrect 