Race, genes and intelligence


In my previous post, we were discussing why there are no stable black nations. These black nations include those in Africa and the Caribbean.

One of the comments got me scouring the net on what has been said on race, genes and intelligence. The comment in part reads

There is (controversial but true) proof that Africans have a lower average IQ than most other groups of people on Earth (only the Aboriginal Australians have a lower average IQ) – although this is true, I find it hard to believe that a slightly lower IQ leads to horrible countries in Africa and such. But then again – the European Jews have the highest average IQ of all peoples on Earth, and they seem to have done very well for themselves.

Since we are trying to find an explanation for the seeming instability in black populations, lack of technological advancement and so on, this becomes a very interesting thing to look at.

To start us off, the statement of the US declaration of independence that

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

is untrue. We can agree on this because even at that particular point, there were slaves in America. They couldn’t have been equal.

Now to the more juicy stuff.

It’s time to prepare for the possibility that equality of intelligence, in the sense of racial averages on tests, will turn out not to be true. 

“I am apt to suspect the Negroes and in general all the other species of men … to be naturally inferior to whites. There never was a civilised nation of any other complexion than white … a position held by Hume and many other philosophers of the 18th century.

Estimating the average IQ of Sub-Saharan Africa

Low IQs are Africa’s curse

The black-white test score gap

Now that we have a few things to look at, I want to encourage my readers that all is not gloom.

The industrial revolution and technological advances we have seen in the last hundred years or so have made a lot of difference to our lives. Through advances in medicine, we now live longer. This means we have a larger ecological foot print. We destroy our environments to feed the growing population. Our weapons of war are very advanced, we can kill remotely. Communication is much easier now and we have thousands of friends. Industrial revolution has helped us to pollute our environment so well that in some places seeing the sun is a great pleasure.

And to cap it all, we have a short video

 

Advertisements

About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

134 thoughts on “Race, genes and intelligence

  1. Veracious Poet says:

    I don’t think the problem of intelligence in Africa is genetic. Because thousands of years ago an indigenous African invented a manual loom – a machine used in weaving multicolored fabrics. He didn’t have any prototype. Another man invented a process of refining gold and casting it into various shapes at the time he knew nothing of the world outside of Africa. Still many village folks found a way to build houses, grow large farms to feed their families, carve or dig canoes for fishing and cure themselves of various illnesses with only herbs. Many stronger tribes went on to build empires such as the Songhai Empire, the Axum, the Benin, Gana and Mossi Empires. We can correctly say that they had the intelligence to solved their own problems prior to colonialism and slavery. Who knows what inventions will have come out of Africa had our minds not been completely brainwashed into abandoning our culture and adopting European culture.

    So I have a big problem with these IQ Tests. For once, I know these tests have flaws at every stage or level:

    (1) The researchers may think they are testing for intelligence but they are actually testing visual and spatial perception. Many world renowned mathematicians have equally poor imagination or ability to visualize social problems.

    (2) The sample group and size is often very limited which means extrapolation to cover entire populations.

    (3) The test was conducted in Apartheid South Africa where Blacks had been deprived of proper education for centuries. What they had was a special type of education called “Bantu education” specifically designed for them. At the same time, the white children attended the best and the most renowned schools.

    (4) Lastly, how can you measure somebody’s intelligence because on a specific day, at a specific place and time (independent of his or her mood or social conditions), he or she could not answer a question on paper. Why not conduct the test on a specific group repeatedly before concluding.

    The main flaw, as I see it, is that the test disregards the practical application of one’s intelligence to real world problems. In other words if and only if one can see the relationship between the shapes on paper then one is intelligent, which I find vain and amusing.

    Liked by 1 person

    • makagutu says:

      Good observations all through.
      Rushton claims his study was conducted among black university students in South Africa which he chose as the most developed. Does that claim answer your critic on Bantu education?
      On IQ and data size. Do you think the sample size used in the study is not big enough to be representative of black nations?
      Do you think the tests are used to push an agenda?

      Like

      • Veracious Poet says:

        We cannot verify Rushton’s claims so I will assume it’s his opinion; he ‘knows’ all of black race through tests on a few south African students. Up till now I still cannot know on what basis Kant and Hume were considered influential moral philosophers.

        All IQ experiments on Blacks can be summerised thus: You catch a bear, wounded it and put it inside a cage. This bear was hunting on its own in the woods before you caught it, you pulled out its claws and started feeding it salmon. Over many years it’s now used receiving salmon, in fact it has reproduced in the cage and now has cubs but has lost its hunting skills. After some time, you then take a pen and paper wanting to test its hunting skills in comparison to other free bears who have long advanced their skills. Isn’t this senseless?

        The point I’m trying to make is that African spirit itself had been crashed and mangled by colonialism and brutalities of the slave trade. Let Africans have genuine opportunities as Europeans over the same historical time frame without any interference and they will certainly improve their indigenous technologies and progress. And isn’t it in fact true, and as trivial as it may sound, that the world’s greatest music talents are people African descent?

        Liked by 1 person

    • orwell1627 says:

      Studies look at group averages. True, there are many blacks that are highly intelligent and capable of inventing the tools you mentioned. But, on average, blacks perform worse on IQ tests than other races. The most intelligent person in the world might be a sub-Saharan African, but it does not discount the fact that the average black performs worse on IQ tests than the average person of other races.

      Also, studies have found that the heritability of IQ is around .7, so the intelligence problem of Africa is primarily due to genetics.

      IQ tests are very useful at predicting the performance on standardized tests like the SAT, the financial success of an individual, and the tendency to commit crime…at least in the US.

      Like

      • RaceRealist says:

        Heritability of IQ is 85 percent. The magnitude of the black white IQ gap is at 80 percent heritability. See Rushton and Jensen 2005.

        Like

      • Veracious Poet says:

        What I’m saying is that these IQ tests mean nothing as long as they are not based on real world situations. If Blacks are constantly discriminated against, oppressed and denied equal opportunities what do you expect? Only few decades ago, they were not even allowed to vote or own any property.

        I’m surprise no one is speaking of overall contentment and happiness in one’s life as a sign of high IQ. You will agree that happiness is one of the ideal wishes of mankind.

        Liked by 2 people

      • makagutu says:

        The tendency to commit crime is of interest to me. Are there white criminals in the US and what is their average IQ? And once we correct for racial bias in the system how do the IQs of black and other prisoners from different groups compare?
        And thirdly, if the evidence is such that the negro’s is predisposition to crime is not their making, what is to be done? Whose interest does it serve to incarcerate them?

        Like

        • orwell1627 says:

          Plenty of white criminals. There are more white criminals than black criminals in the US. But there are more black criminals on a per capita basis.

          The IQ of the prison population is around 10 points lower than the IQ of the average American.

          Studies have found a correlation between IQ and incarceration to be as significant as -.25.

          Like

        • RaceRealist says:

          White criminals average 85. However, due to that being the black average, obviously, we’ll see more black criminals.

          Like

  2. Barry says:

    I’m no expert when it comes to IQ tests, but I’m fully aware that they can frequently have a cultural bias. For example, my wife always exceeded 120 in her country of birth, but on the two she has sat here in Aotearoa New Zealand, her scores were in the low 90s.

    On IQ tests adapted from tests developed in the US and UK, Pakeha perform better than Maori, but on one locally developed test, it is Maori who do marginally better.

    I had trouble watching the video as for some reason it kept freezing my android phone. After removing the battery for the third time, I gave up. I got as far as the speaker describing 2 pattern matching problems, but don’t know it the entire test consisted of similar questions. If the entire test consisted of similar questions then it’s testing a specific skill and not general IQ. Culture or genetics could have an effect on a group’s skill set.

    As an aside, my wife was unable to solve either of the aforesaid problems even with a few hints from me, but there have been other so called IQ tests where she leaves me well behind – especially if it’s testing social IQ.

    It wasn’t so long ago that I read that in one IQ test men averaged 5 points higher than women, while in another test women averaged one point higher than men. It seems to me that IQ tests can have a social, cultural or gender bias that can skew results for different groups that it makes comparisons unreliable.

    Liked by 2 people

    • makagutu says:

      Interesting.
      If I remember correctly, he talks mostly of the pattern recognition. If he mentioned other things in the test, I didn’t pay attention.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Barry says:

        Here in NZ we have a mountain parrot, the kea, which has amazing puzzle solving skills. It can manipulate and solve some types of puzzles that would stump a 10 year old child. Is it actually smarter than a 10 year old? Well it is in regards to some puzzles, and they can work out how to remove hubcaps, exterior mirrors, aerials, windscreen wipers and light fittings from a car faster than you or I can without resorting to brute strength. They have figured out how to survive in extreme mountain weather where you and I wouldn’t survive a day, but in other respects the average 10 year old child is considerably smarter.

        When it comes to claims about human intelligence I’m very sceptical.

        One other aspect of intelligence that wasn’t mentioned was relative wealth. Poorer families generally perform less well on IQ tests. Some might claim that they are poor because they have lower intelligence, but it’s just as likely that poverty denies opportunities to develop the skills necessary to perform well in IQ tests. In comparing the South African blacks and whites, is the real comparison between races or between rich and poor?

        Liked by 2 people

    • RaceRealist says:

      This is why Ravens Progressive Matrices is used.

      Your wife is also a single data point. There are no biases. Studies attest to this.

      Like

      • Barry says:

        I do extremely well when tested with Raven’s Progressive Matrices, but that doesn’t help me much in the real world. I do well because I have Asperger Syndrome, not because I have above average intelligence. I average well over 140 on the RPM, while on more general IQ tests I’m closer to 105. And when it cones to some social skills tests such as the “Mind in the eye” test I get a score that is no better than if I tossed a dice to choose the correct answers.

        Liked by 1 person

    • basenjibrian says:

      I think you are hinting at another point….”IQ” is such a generic term that it is almost meaningless. There is social intelligence, mechanics who can disassemble a complicated machine with ease, people who naturally smooze and do well in group settings, artists, musicians. What does “Intelligence” even mean, given so many different aspects of human life and skills.

      I am a little disappointed, Maka, that you are giving this very politically motivated trend among some very questionable people so much space.

      (Note: I am German and English, so as WASP as one can get!)

      There are so many different kinds of intelligence that to claim that one test from South Africa “proves” blacks are inferior, ON THE WHOLE, seems ludicrous. Unless one has an ulterior cultural and political motif, like a poster who calls himself “racial realist” has.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. shelldigger says:

    You know when I was a kid growing up the general “white boy privilege” attitude was very much what you seem to be pointing at here. I might have fell for that shit when I was very young, but I do not believe it for a minute with a few years of wisdom under my belt.

    We are all human. We all have the same capacity for learning. That some have had better educations will likely correlate with higher IQ’s. Though there will always be some real standouts and some real dipsticks in the mix.

    FWIW last time I took an IQ test (still sipping on my first cup of coffee) I managed a 129. If IQ tests were related to a persons actual experiences in life rather than a basic (education based) curve, I think some interesting results might show up.

    I learned a long time ago, no matter how ignorant you may suspect a person might be, there is always something you can learn from them. Well unless they are a die hard creationist with a bible up the crack of their ass. 🙂

    Liked by 5 people

  4. john zande says:

    IQ is not a good measure of “intelligence.” I’ve done two IQ tests, 120 and 130, yet I’m glacially slow in picking up on certain things… and I can’t do maths to save myself.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. RaceRealist says:

    Africans have the possibility of having an IQ of 80 by getting rid of disease, parasitic load and having better nutrition.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/01/15/iq-nutrition-disease-and-parasitic-load/

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      Can they get to above 80?
      Do you suggest a balanced diet or a specific food?
      Is the parasitic load a problem of their IQ or does it affect their IQ. Those didn’t come out clearly in the article

      Like

      • RaceRealist says:

        “Can they get to above 80?”

        To the best of my knowledge, no. That’s their genotypic IQ when their environment is like that of a first world nation. Richard Lynn says that black Americans in the deep South have IQs at 80 and they have low to no white admixture.

        Rushton and Jensen state in their reply to Nisbett that there is a black underclass that doesn’t get tested in America so the true black IQ may actually be 78 in America.

        “Is the parasitic load a problem of their IQ or does it affect their IQ. Those didn’t come out clearly in the article”

        It’s a chicken and the egg problem, really. Clearly, endemic disease such as what are found in SSA are natural. As I said, SCA reduces brain size which reduces IQ.

        Personally I think that it’s the hot climate that’s the main culprit. They don’t have the intelligence to think of ways to beat the diseases. But nature has given them natural defenses.

        https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/05/08/sickle-cell-anemia/

        Africa is interesting with the parasite load. I like what Epigg, et al say that we should monitor the IQs of SSAs to monitor whether or not their IQ increases as QoL increases for them.

        Like

  6. tildeb says:

    A couple of things here.

    The first has to do with what the Declaration’s ‘all men are created equal’ means. It does not mean what people today assume it to me – equal rights for all because everyone is born with the same baseline rights.

    Jefferson – the author of the Declaration – wrote extensively about the inherent social cost of and the problems caused by British primogeniture laws (inheritance to the oldest male). This was causing similar social problems throughout the colonies – a class system – and was a unifying issue for Jefferson in the attempt to create out of disparate colonial populations a single ‘people’. So he highlighted the radical idea that these inheritance laws were unprincipled. He criticized the idea that the eldest males were somehow born superior to deserve the inheritance while all other offspring were of lesser value.

    It is this issue specifically Jefferson addresses when he writes ‘all men are created equal’. He did not want British primogeniture law and so part of the Declaration – which for those who read it is really a long list of shared grievances against the Crown – was used to challenge its principle in the name of unity.

    The second has to do with Rushton’s reliance on IQ tests. When criticized for relying on this comparative metric he then tries to use average skull sizes to back up the link between intelligence and race. Anyone with half a brain knows that women – whose brain volume is a about a third less of its racial male counterpart – does not equate with a third less IQ on those same tests. So we know brain volume is not relevant. And as Barry quite rightly points out, many animals including birds demonstrate vastly superior cognitive abilities in many specific ways to humans. So the metric being used is a determinant of the results.

    IQ started out as a means to compare age to a knowledge base. This varies over time and with each test. This is why it’s so difficult to quantify what a baseline knowledge means to a population, and so its highly problematic which knowledge base means what to compare different populations. The problem is further compounded by trying to establish the age criteria baseline because exposure and access to collected knowledge drastically affects the criteria. One’s IQ can be manipulated as much as 80 points through studying for the particular IQ test that utilizes this knowledge/age criteria. That’s why there are so many different kinds of IQ tests today and why meta-compilations of them are used to try to mitigate many the metric’s inherited qualitative problems of capturing average ‘intelligence’.

    The third thing is what benefit is there in doing so? Are we trying to identify areas of lack where we can address it through public education? In which case, why don’t we have classes for digital connectivity knowledge for seniors? Tax evasion classes for the evolving rich? DIY body armor classes for blacks venturing forth in a racists society? Linguistic classes for men to understand the meaning of the female sexual consent term ‘No’. The list is rather long… none of which is captured by IQ testing and of greater social concern than trying to make racial profiling of intelligence academically legitimate.

    Liked by 4 people

    • RaceRealist says:

      “The second has to do with Rushton’s reliance on IQ tests. When criticized for relying on this comparative metric he then tries to use average skull sizes to back up the link between intelligence and race. Anyone with half a brain knows that women – whose brain volume is a about a third less of its racial male counterpart – does not equate with a third less IQ on those same tests. So we know brain volume is not relevant. And as Barry quite rightly points out, many animals including birds demonstrate vastly superior cognitive abilities in many specific ways to humans. So the metric being used is a determinant of the results.”

      Meaningless. Men have a 3.63 point advantage on IQ tests. See Rushton and Jackson 2006.

      Like

      • tildeb says:

        Meaningless? Nice hand wave. I especially liked the wrist action.

        I attended Rushton’s debate with Suzuki and he really did try to link average racial skull size to racial intelligence. So don’t try to tell me the point here is ‘meaningless’ and then refer back to Rushton.

        Liked by 4 people

        • RaceRealist says:

          Suzuki? I love that debate and watch it a lot. That’s cool that you attended.

          There is a correlation between brain size and intelligence. Rushton and Ankney have about 8 reviews looking at the relationship.

          Suzuki got destroyed in that debate. It’s not even question of who won.

          It is ‘meaningless’ and Suzuki barely said anything to Rushton!

          Like

          • tildeb says:

            I agree that Rushton as a social scientist presented much better than Suzuki and as a geneticist. Suzuki was talking apples (well, fruit flies, specifically) where Rushton was talking oranges (IQ testing and sorting by race). But Rushton continued to presume and insist that ‘intelligence’ was measurable through IQ tests and that IQ tests then correlated nicely to racial skull volume (but, mysteriously, not skull volume within the same population that we can actually study)!

            IQ tests are very good at determining answers to IQ tests. IQ tests are excellent indicators of how well people answer IQ test questions. But if they were indeed independent verification of intelligence, then intelligence should not be able to be widely varied by additional testing. Suzuki argued about the claim of a <racial genetic component to this ‘thing’ called intelligence made no sense in genetic terms. Rushton made hay from this point – as social scientists often do when the science is not clearly enunciated – and Suzuki failed to capitalize of Rushton’s abuse of the confusion. To Rushton, race is a ‘thing’ that can be quantified; to Suzuki, race is a very slight genetic modification of particular sequences that unlike most actually present in physical traits.

            A friend went from being tested by Mensa at the 60th percentile and, after practicing for two years, tested in the 98th. Now, the point is, Is he really 60% more intelligent than he was? Well, using Rushton’s hypothesis he must be because of the testing results, you see. But Rushton was never concerned about the accuracy of his starting presumptions; he was concerned about granting scientific respectability to racial differences in intelligence that aligned with academic achievement: Mongols smart, Caucasians average, Blacks stupid. Science says so. Except, it doesn’t. That’s why only social scientists and those with a social agenda pay Rushton’s ‘science’ any attention at all; geneticists don’t because it’s useless and meaningless data.

            Liked by 5 people

          • makagutu says:

            Did WP eat your comment?

            Like

          • RaceRealist says:

            But Rushton continued to presume and insist that ‘intelligence’ was measurable through IQ tests and that IQ tests then correlated nicely to racial skull volume (but, mysteriously, not skull volume within the same population that we can actually study)!

            Men have a 3.63 IQ point advantage over women.

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606000250

            Suzuki argued about the claim of a <racial genetic component to this ‘thing’ called intelligence made no sense in genetic terms.

            I assume you haven’t heard of David Piffer’s research?

            https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/06/02/individual-and-racial-differences-in-iq-and-allele-frequencies/

            Race can be quantified. Most notably, phenotypic differences which are, obviously, expressions of the genotype.

            A friend went from being tested by Mensa at the 60th percentile and, after practicing for two years, tested in the 98th.

            “Training” for IQ tests takes away the g loading.

            Except, it doesn’t. That’s why only social scientists and those with a social agenda pay Rushton’s ‘science’ any attention at all; geneticists don’t because it’s useless and meaningless data

            Riiiight. Some of Rushton’s data has been corroborated just in these past 3 months! It’s not ‘meaningless’ at all.

            Like

    • makagutu says:

      Thanks for the clarification on the meaning and origin of those words in the declaration of Independence.
      Since Rushton mentions skull size, were the measurements taken from dead or live subjects? And had their IQs been tested to draw a link?
      I like the proposals for classes to begin.

      Like

      • tildeb says:

        Good questions, Mak.

        No, the skull/brain volume to race was made because it appeared to support Rushton’s assertion about intelligence via IQ testing. What none of Rushton’s evidence managed to do was link IQ to be synonymous with intelligence.

        I have asked many people if they are excellent servers in volleyball. Almost all say they are not because they although they may have played the sport at some earlier point, they either play only intramural or for fun or not at all. I then ask if they consider themselves stupid. I usually get a guarded ‘no’ and a puzzled look. I then ask if they think one is really intelligent to serve well and by this time the people I’m questioning think I’m a bit nuts. After all, what’s up with the serving in volleyball and my questions about intelligence? I then ask if they think they’re any good at math.

        The analogy I’m making is how effortlessly we presume something like math has a direct correlation with intelligence but think nothing about other venues like volleyball. No one thinks they’re stupid if they’re not good at serving a volleyball, but math… yeah, the association is assumed. (I use this to get people who have suffered a fair bit of math failure to be really good at doing math and enjoying all the attention and awards of being seen now as ‘smart’ rather than ‘dumb’ because they score very highly on math tests once they’re taught how to show the mathematical understanding they already have.)

        Now, why is this? On what basis do we award ‘intelligence’ to be equivalent to scoring well on an IQ test? Just because one can serve a volleyball doesn’t make one intelligent. Just because one can demonstrate mathematical expertise doesn’t make one intelligent. Just because one can score well on an IQ test doesn’t make on intelligent. Understanding why these associations are simply assigned assumptions badly in need of serious questioning does!

        Liked by 3 people

  7. Showed this post to my pals at the local KKK meeting in my church. The cheers practically tore the roof off the place. We’ve been waiting for science to finally prove what we’ve been saying for years: whites are far superior and more intelligent than blacks could ever hope to be. As a matter of fact, we’re starting a petition to re-institute slavery here in the States. Shit, with data like this, supported by every reasonable scientist out there, how could one argue against the enslavement of blacks? Christ, we all gotta be good at somethin’, and for blacks, it sure as fuck ain’t gonna be math, science and politics. Their IQ’s are far too inferior for such difficult tasks. Cotton pickin’ and servin’ supper to white folk, that’s what they’re best at. No reasonable, scientifically minded person can argue otherwise. Now, I’m off to pray to Jesus to please help me treat all people as my loving family; then, I’m off to start the new “Put The Blacks Back In Chains” movement with my local KKK pals. WHITE POWER FOREVER! $Amen$

    Liked by 1 person

    • makagutu says:

      You can’t go around denying what years of solid scientific research has shown to be the case.
      Don’t you know the cause of hunger and famine in African countries is low IQ. They can’t farm. You must follow the evidence wherever it leads.
      Kant knew this. Hume knew it. Hegel knew it. Who did I leave out? Schopenhauer.

      Like

      • Could not agree more. WHITE POWER BABY!!! Scientifically backed! Bring back dem chains ‘n whips ‘n lets put the blacks where they scientifically belong, under the thumb of my KKK brothers. Famine in Africa? Fuck, what better way to be fed than to chained up in shed in America and pick cotton every mornin’? You simply can’t argue with old white philosophers and my friends in the KKK. Slaves get three solid meals a day. Ya’ gots ta admit, it beats famine. WHITE POWER!!!! Sieg Heil! Time to stop fightin’ science and embrace the facts. Dumb ass, low IQ, genetically inferior balcks belong at the end of chains and covered in scars from the whips of genetically superior whites. Lord, but do I ever get a fuckin’ hard on when science backs up my beliefs. You’ll get no argument from me.

        Liked by 1 person

        • makagutu says:

          There was an anthology I studied in high school. In one of the stories, a man prefers jail to being free. There is food, bad food, at least three times a day. He can read and finish a degree course and no rent. Maybe that’s the black man too. He doesn’t want to work.
          Did you also know science has shown the divorce rate among the black nations is higher than other groups?
          Maybe it is time we just had the African in chains again.

          Like

          • Absolutely. That’s where he belongs. Any reasonable person, like my pals in the KKK, can see this. Of course, some blacks may disagree, but that’s because they’re not as smart as me and my white pals. It’s not the black persons fault, however, that he or she finds this hard to accept. Should the rat be upset because it’s treated like a rat? No. The rat can’t help what it is. It behaves as a rat and must be treated as such. The black, being genetically inferior to whites, like me, can’t blame himself for being what he is; genetically inferior and suited only to slavery. Oh, my Neo-Nazi pals are jumpin’ with joy over these inarguable scientific facts too. I guess maybe Hitler and the S.S. weren’t so wrong after all, eh? There is a master race, and Africans sure as fuck ain’t it. As a member of the master race myself, I must say, it’s a burden to carry. Being as ridiculously smart as I am isn’t easy. My huge brain is also very heavy and often gives me neck cramps. Ouch. It’s up to me and my genetically superior brothers in the KKK and the Nazi Party to make hard choices in regards to the black. You must admit, being black yourself, with a smaller brain ‘n all, that you’re incapable of making decisions for yourself. You’re simply not smart enough. It’s not your fault, though. You can’t help what you are. You may not like the chains we’ll soon place around your neck, but, please trust me, it’s for your own good. Oh, I also must say, you blacks are awesome at football and basket ball and those are sports I and my KKK pals really like. So, if your very good, and do as your masters tell you with no back talk, we may let you play one of those sports rather than pick cotton all day. See, this isn’t too hard to understand, is it? Well, you’re black, so maybe it is. Either way, WHITE POWER BABY!!!!

            Liked by 2 people

          • makagutu says:

            You will have to use language that can be understood by an 11 year old. I didn’t understand a thing you said.
            Did you mean I love basketball? Or I should eat football? I am lost

            Like

          • Veracious Poet says:

            You forgot to mention suicide rates in white communities.

            For me, intelligence is best understood through this anecdotal illustration: Let’s just say two men (A & B) are sentenced to death. The day before their execution, they are released on bail to go to their families and bid them goodbye. The first man decided there was no point in going to see his family since, inevitably, he was going to die. The second quickly wiped his tears, went home, had a bath and made merry with his family. At evening he wore his best clothes, ate well and drunk good wine. He also enjoyed very well with his wife. The next day they were both brought back to prison and executed. I know this scenario is very sketchy but the question is which of these men is an intelligent man?

            Liked by 1 person

          • makagutu says:

            Tell me, were their families in the know about the coming execution?
            If they didn’t, I would rather not go to break the news to them and shortly after leave to go die. That would be cruel

            Like

          • Veracious Poet says:

            Mak, I’m sorry but you failed my standard IQ test. You scored zero.

            Whether your family knows of your impending execution is of no relevance to the question if you should go home. You ought to go home and if your family didn’t know, you could hide it from them. If they knew, they will initially be hurt but will surely get over it and cherish those last memories of you.

            Haha, I guess you will have to tell me your particular race type so I can conveniently extrapolate and make my conclusions.

            Liked by 1 person

          • makagutu says:

            Not 10?
            My view is that most people’s lives are already miserable. Why add to their misery when one can die and remain in oblivion? I know you on the other hand is an optimist.

            Liked by 1 person

    • RaceRealist says:

      You said absolutely nothing about the data.

      Like

  8. Swarn Gill says:

    I like your ability to ask big questions and promote violent debate Mak. 🙂

    The genetic argument doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. I mean we know anthropologically speaking we all originated in Africa before spreading out to all parts of the Earth in the last 70,000 years so we should have started with approximately the same base genetic structure.

    If there is a genetic advantage now between certain races to me this seems more of a function of two things 1) Technology as you brought up and which I will address shortly, and 2) Perhaps unnatural selection

    Through history conquering groups have always targeting the most intelligent as being the most dangerous to them in terms of maintaining control. Given the long history of imperialism by whites in most parts of the globe and the vast amount of indigenous people who have died, it seems likely that the intelligentsia could have been completely wiped out. It’s easy to make someone give up that information on who is a great inventor, a great tactician, a great investigator, and lock them up and silence them…kill their family and children etc. My father-in-law who is Polish said that the Nazi’s first target where the intelligentsia and this included many Poles who were taken from university and other institutions of research and learning. Whether intelligence is genetic or not is unimportant compared to the fact that we know affluent parents generally produce a more affluent child through nurture if not nature. So the chances of breaking out of that cycle after generations of oppression is no easy task. I teach university in a fairly impoverished county where many of the students are first in their family to go to college. It’s clear that most of these students have to work twice as hard to perform at the same level as students who have parents who are university graduates and have professional careers based on their university education. I might be more interested in seeing how their intelligence compares at 50 instead of a stage of life when those that started out further behind are still working hard to catch up.

    Jared Diamond in his Pulitzer Prize winning book Guns, Germs, and Steel makes a pretty good case for how technology plays a role in the development of a people. Africa was one of the most disadvantaged continents along with north america when you look at environmental factors that led to farming, which ultimately was the rise of civilization. Eurasia meanwhile had all the advantages in terms of nutrition of grains, ease of crop domestication, 13 of 14 domesticatible large mammals for plowing crops and for food, favorable geography for trade of goods and technology…it’s really quite amazing. So there is no question that technology was instrumental in the rapid advancement of people in Eurasia. And so I guess I don’t find it surprising that there would be racial differences in IQ…I’m just not convinced that it’s because of some racial differences at the genetic level…at least through natural selection.

    And as Veracious Poet says there is no clear indication that higher IQ has anything to do with emotional intelligence or happiness. There are plenty of arguments to be made that farming might have been the biggest mistake we made regardless of who has the higher IQ and for whatever reason that is the case. We sink or swim together on this planet and as the intelligent countries with lots of smart people continue to burn fossil fuels head us towards Earth’s next great mass extinction…well intelligence isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Without empathy, intelligence doesn’t mean a whole lot to me.

    Liked by 5 people

    • makagutu says:

      Debate is good. We learn from them, sometimes.
      I am interested in looking at contributions of blacks to civilization with reference to Egypt and Aethopia. Could it have been possible they made no contribution and if they did, what happened after.
      Somewhere in my reading list is that book: Guns, Germs and Steel.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Swarn Gill says:

        Haha…I wasn’t criticizing…I actually like the boldness. I am convinced we need more it. Guns, Germs, and Steel had a profound impact on my thinking. I highly recommend it. The idea of that genetic differences between races completely disappear against the background of environmental determinism.

        Like

      • RaceRealist says:

        Don’t even waste your time with it thinking it’ll prove the environmentalist case. GG&S is a book with some neat tidbits, but overall it’s a joke.

        Different levels of civilizations can be traced to environmental differences and not innate differences of the people, which is what he says. Egalitarians make the leap that since physical environment can explain civilization differences, that means all of these populations we call races are the same on average. Not only is that a non-sequitur, but the whole argument is a strawman. No one says that environment doesn’t matter. We can look at two countries within Sub-Saharan Africa, South Africa and Botswana. We can look at their level of economic freedom and see that they are the most wealthy countries in Africa despite the declines from the ANC. They are the second wealthiest in Africa.

        Natural resources and human capital are also important, but the lack of the proper natural resource requisite for civilization in the past is not the reason for them being poor today since we can see actual African countries that are better off than the rest of Africa just by having economic freedom. The gap between SA and Botswana and Congo, is evidence that Congo’s poverty today is not traceable to the disadvantages to the dawn of civilization.

        The hereditarian model is more sophisticated than Diamond’s environmental determinism since hereditarians incorporate innate intelligence as a factor in national wealth, whereas Diamond, by assuming all races are the same in the brain, has one less factor to work with in explaining the world.

        Diamond then makes a remark the New Guineans being smarter than Europeans. So are all races the same in the brain except New Guineans? Does he then accept that different environments can differently affect human brain development depending on where they are located? All this is to say that his work is completely irrelevant, he does nothing to explain why the different races perform differently in different parts of the world. Factors you may name are not in play today.

        If you think it’s caused by environmental poverty in the past, you still have to argue about it today because that evidence still exists. GG&S doesn’t invalidate the hereditarian argument. At all.

        See Rushton’s response. I also need to make an article on that.

        http://www.arthurhu.com/99/04/diamond.txt

        Like

        • Swarn Gill says:

          If anything, the only problem with Diamond’s book is that he doesn’t take into account the many environmental factors that impact human societies, there are more than have been researched that we know impact today, but from a historical perspective would require more guesswork. He also at no point says genetics are unimportant, but points out that genetic differences among humans show no convincing trends in terms of race, and thus we the only reasonable explanation is the role environment plays in shaping societies. The brain is most certainly differently impacted by environmental influences which shape society. For instance we know that drought can have strong impacts on the thinking and behavior of the offspring at the epigenetic level and environmental influences over longer periods of time impact how certain genes are activated or deactivated. In fact this is an important thrust of evolutionary theory is the role the environment plays on a genetic back ground.

          You are also ignoring the roles that memes play (as defined by Dawkins in 1976 not internet memes). Cultural practices and behaviors are passed on in much the same way genes are, and so it is not surprising that we see practices which might have been initiated by environmental stresses are still in practices today once those stresses are gone. The idea that humans are always immediately reactive to changes in the environment is an easily disprovable notion.

          Your critique of GG&S is predicated on your unproved assertion that races shows significant genetic differences among each other. I’ve gone through some of your websites, and seeing that most of your “Research” involves non peer reviewed research and research that has been disproven by many other scholars which you conveniently leave out. Even your link here is just a series of e-mails between people which hardly represents any serious scholarship, but rather a discussion among people with a clearly racial cognitive bias. You are the poster child for Type I errors disguised as scholarship. Congratulations!

          Liked by 1 person

    • tildeb says:

      Swarn, you raised the three points I was going to raise. I don’t know if you should take that as a compliment or a criticism!

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Well, being the superior white fella I am, I stopped by a group of black dudes having lunch in the restaurant I was just in and calmly pointed out to them, that I, being white, have a bigger brain than they do and am, by far, genetically superior and smarter than they could ever hope to be, on average, that is. I told them I know this because several white philosophers and great white thinkers from the 18th,19th and 20th centuries said so. Oddly enough, they highly disagreed with me and actually seemed greatly offended by the cold hard facts I was pointing out to them. I was told, and I quote,” Get your dumb, stupid racist white ass away from here or we’ll kick the shit out of you.” I thought that was quite rude of them. After all, I was simply pointing out reality. I hate it when people get all huffy over things like simple facts. Good thing there’s superior, smart, large-brained white guys like me around to keep the world running or we’d all be fucked.

    Liked by 1 person

    • tildeb says:

      So we take a 100 young Caucasian and 100 Blacks out of their grade 10 classrooms and time them in the 100 yard dash. We collect all the times and average them in total AND average them by race. We can legitimately say that the average time for blacks is slightly fasted than whites. The deduction? Blacks run faster than whites.

      Why is this both true yet only trivially true?

      Well, let’s revisit our data and look again. We look at the actual times and notice that the fastest white runner runs faster than the second fastest black. The second fastest white runner runs faster than the third fastest black, and so on. Does this match the deduction we originally made? Do blacks run faster than whites in reality?

      NO.

      Many of those whites do in fact run faster than many of those blacks. Only in the world of population averages does the mean show a slightly fast running average.

      We are always in danger of overreaching our conclusions from large data sets and applying them inappropriately to the individual as if true and objectively true. I don’t know if this white is faster than that black, but I do know I’m making a thinking error to presume the average applies to the individual and that that black because he is black will probably run faster than that white because he is white. That is the thinking error Rushton could never get his big brain around regarding IQ.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Well put. Though, I must admit, as a middle-aged, overweight white dude, there are few people, white or black, who don’t run faster than me. Come to think of it, most people have always been able to run faster than me. Good thing I’m white and have this big fat skull with this big fat white brain in it to keep me going. I’d be in trouble otherwise. Being the dominant race on the planet is hard work. OK, enough pontificating. Time for some jelly donuts.

        Liked by 2 people

    • basenjibrian says:

      Ah, but your experience brings up another question: given that these young bucks would have probably kicked you directly in the balls for making these comments, how are you going to pass on your superior Anglo intelligence???? 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Tildeb addressed Mak’s inaccurate characterization of the U.S. Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson’s words related to civil/human rights under the law, not to the biological differences between people.

    IQ tests are a poor intelligence metric because of the myriad external factors detailed by many of the commenters here (i.e. culture, socioeconomics, etc.). IQ tests accurately reflect only one thing, how well people can score on such tests. They’re useful for assessing students’ academic performance and perhaps their academic potential.

    Inspiredbythedevine1 sarcastically exposed the underlying issue with this post. White supremacists have been regurgitating an endless stream of “evidence” on race to advance their perverse social agenda for a very long time. That anyone would fall into their trap is rather embarrassing IMO.

    Are there differences between races, ethnic and cultural groups? Of course there are, but these are quite minor in the larger context. We are all Homo sapiens and should treat each other as such and with equal respect just as Jefferson (and others) declared.

    Liked by 3 people

    • $Amen$ brother! I’ve heard shit like this my whole life and seen this kind of garbage be used by racist groups time and time again to justify their bullshit agendas. This issue is not one of harmless, ethereal philosophical debate. It has immediate and dire real life consequences which affect whole groups of people who’ve been socially and economically suppressed for decades and even centuries. Hitler used this kind of reasoning and white supremacists still use it today to justify their bigoted horse shit ideas. Fucking skull size differences are honestly being discussed here? Seriously? No anthropologist or person who seriously studies physical anthropology and/or human evolution believes this sort of racist shit. Truly, it’s embarrassing to read it. Garbage. It’s hurtful to whole groups of people, not metaphorically but truly and seriously right now today. Whatever Africa’s issues are with famine and poverty, they’re not due to black people having lower IQ’s and smaller fucking skulls. It’s insulting. Fucking skull size! Jesus Christ, I feel like I’m reading a script to a Quintin Tarantino movie.

      Liked by 2 people

      • basenjibrian says:

        Except that the Samuel Jackson character in Pulp Fiction was DEFINITELY the most intelligent one in the movie! LOL

        Liked by 2 people

        • He was. One of my favorite movies. I was thinking of the scene in Django Unchained were Leonardo DiCaprio’s character is holding that skull in his hands explaining to everyone at the dinner table how blacks make great slaves because their skulls can’t hold as much brain matter as the white man’s can. Truly, this type of talk, taken seriously, is offensive. It does not show signs of intelligence. It shows blatant signs of ignorance and even higher signs of insensitivity to whole groups of people.

          Liked by 1 person

          • basenjibrian says:

            My biggest problem is the whole concept of “intelligence”. Too often “success” and “intelligence” are really sociopathy. 🙂

            Liked by 1 person

          • Very true. Take Donald Trump, please, take Donald Trump, for example. There isn’t an intelligent thing about that dude, but his “success” often makes people believe it’s due to his hard work and intelligence rather than who he was born to and his sociopathic personality. Got a feeling that dude’s skull capacity couldn’t hold a pea in it.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            That surprises me too

            Like

      • Indeed, very insulting.

        Liked by 1 person

    • RaceRealist says:

      There is a reason why Raven’s Progressive Matrices exists.

      Like

  11. This just in from the inspired Hitler youth of America: Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! WHITE POWER BITCHES!!!! FUCK THE BLACKS!!!! STUPID DUMB IDIOTS!! Sieg Heil!!! WHITES RULE!!!! FUCK THE BLACKS!!!!! Good night, and have a David Duke tomorrow. 🙂 Mak, how’s about you next write a post on how fuckin’ stupid and genetically inferior Jews are and how Hitler had a great idea in killing them all? This post is not only offensive, Mak, it’s beneath you. You’re better than this. I’m ashamed for you. Shame on you.

    Like

  12. Okay, the genetic argument is a bit silly. As far as I’m aware, there isn’t a study for intelligence that controls for cultural bias. Indeed, there are many different tests for intelligence, and one can get different results based on each.

    It really depends on the yardstick we’re using to measure stuff here. If the hallmark of a civilization is the ability to dominate other cultures around it, then all we need to do is look at martial power. Change the concern to living in harmony with one’s surroundings, and the cultures that were at the bottom suddenly rank at the top.

    Liked by 1 person

    • makagutu says:

      The proponents of the idea claim IQ tests measure many things and that our criticism doesn’t change a thing

      Liked by 1 person

      • Peter says:

        I found the more IQ tests I took the ‘more intelligent I became’. After reflecting upon this matter I concluded that IQ tests require a certain type of thinking that to some extent is learned, thus they are not a precise measure of intelligence.

        Liked by 1 person

      • That just ignores the issue without addressing it. They have to show that the different measurements across cultures are qualitatively the same. Plus, it ignores that IQ testing is still a “best guess” as to measuring intelligence. Hell, I’ve had my IQ tested 4 times, and I’ve gotten the same spiel regarding the drawbacks of putting too much stock in it.

        The best response to that attempted counter-argument is that they’re making stuff up about IQ tests, and they should quit while they’re behind.

        Liked by 1 person

  13. Peter says:

    I am convinced that culture is the issue that has most influence upon which societies developed and which did not. That and fate (or perhaps better described as circumstances).

    Like

We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s