The impossibility of racial equality

Author: Analgesic.Spectre ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 31
  • Analgesic.Spectre
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 474
    1
    1
    5
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Analgesic.Spectre
    An intellectual miasma exists within public discussion of racial equality. Most people readily accept differences between individuals. Most will even accept that genetics plays some kind of part in said individual differences, but all differences suddenly become environmentally causes when cognitive abilities in racial groups are judged. Not only is this wrong, but these people essentially have blind faith in what appear to be miracles.

    1. Prima facie necessity

    Different groups would have had different environments to contend with. For example, some places may have had malaria prominent, and so developed immunity to it became necessary. Some animals may have needed group coordination to kill, and hence social ability was now selected for. Harsh Winters required pre-planning and delayed gratification (saving food), and so those who had the ability to develop these traits were selected for. Clearly, prima facie, there is need for certain cognitive abilities.

    Also add culture to the mix, and evolution speeds up by a factor of 100. Moreover, in the last 5,000 years, the advent of civilisation started selecting for people who were capable of being civilised (in various ways) (https://www.pnas.org/content/104/52/20753.abstract). For example, England's "war on murder", a time in English history wherein criminals, of all kinds, were sentenced to death for their crimes, had a significant eugenic effect on criminality (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/147470491501300114). If all races were equally criminal, then England selectively killing off criminals would mean that those countries not doing that would have more people with criminal tendencies.

    But we also have physical differences which demonstrates that differences do exist...

    2. Physical differences

    We have more than a century worth of research which shows that the races differ in brain size. Sean Last (2016) created a comprehensive article detailing these differences and why they exist (hint: it's partially genetic). In short, the arguments for their existence, and the fact that they are at least partially genetic, is as follows: "the differences are present at birth, around the world, the Black/White brain size gap is not smaller today than it was 100 years ago, mixed race individuals have brain sizes in-between their parent’s races, and, finally, traits that typically co-evolve with brain size differ racially in a way that mirrors brain size differences." (https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/brain-size-race-and-iq/).

    It is also possible to predict someone's race by looking at the shape of their brain, because the human brain contains "rich ancestral information" (https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(15)00671-5).

    In fact, it's the brain wherein the most pronounced genetic differences between races can be found. In other words, if we were looking genetic racial differences, it's best to start in the brain because that's where a lot of the difference is found https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-11-16

    The physical differences contradict the conception of cognitive racial equality.

    3. Neanderthal admixture

    Once humans left Africa, they met and bred with other species or subspecies of humans. These other humans had been evolving independently from us for a seriously long time, and they are universally accepted to have been different from us physically and mentally, as a result of evolution (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/phenomena/2013/03/13/from-neanderthal-skull-to-neanderthal-brain/). Some populations bred with these groups more than others (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259984758_Resurrecting_Surviving_Neandertal_Lineages_from_Modern_Human_Genomes). Africans didn't breed with them at all (https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/01/neanderthals-dna-legacy-linked-to-modern-ailments/). Hence, there is differing degrees of Neanderthal admixture in different races of people.

    So, for example, mental traits such as nicotine addiction and depression were found to be related to Neaderthal DNA (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/feb/11/neanderthal-dna-may-account-for-nicotine-addiction-and-depression). 

    So, how is it possible for the races to be cognitively equal, when their levels of Neaderthal DNA differ, and Neanderthal DNA is known to result in different mental traits?
  • SamStevens
    SamStevens avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 286
    0
    1
    3
    SamStevens avatar
    SamStevens
    --> @Analgesic.Spectre
    Discussing race and the various differences we see in humans due to it is definitely a sensitive topic and one where it's very easy to take it to extremes, as we've seen in the past and currently(Nazi Germany, KKK, Neo-Nazis, etc). The differences that divide us do not warrant the sentiments that define these groups/movements of intolerance, slavery, and genocide. In my opinion, to make this topic much more approachable, one should look at dogs to make sense of what variance within a subspecies can look like. We all acknowledge that some breeds are smarter than others, that some have better and worse attributes, and that some are predisposed to health issues while others are not. Some are clearly superior and inferior to each other, depending on what you are using to compare them. 

    With dogs such as pit bulls, it's completely fair to say that they are predisposed to aggression, courtesy of their genetic makeup and its effects on brain development, which can have negative outcomes. Couple that with the fact that many pit bulls come from less than ideal situations(dog fighting, abuse, etc), it's understandable that a lot of them will lash out, thus creating a negative stigma around them, which people use to issue bans on
    pitbulls and say that they should be euthanized. There are plenty of parallels to be made in recent human history when people obsess a little too much about what makes us different instead of trying to bridge differences. Proper training goes a long way in remedying a pit bull's issues, and the sentiments surrounding them would be improved if people were willing to invest the time and effort to raising the dog properly. 

    If we were to look at health issues, we could draw a comparison to our situation where we have Neanderthal DNA(and the health implications it entails) to what dogs inherit due to their breed. German Shepherds are inclined to experience hip problems due to their lineage just as some of us are inclined to experience allergies due to inheriting Neanderthal DNA. 

    While brain size may differ and may be a manifestation of race/differences between us(I would like something other than 'alternative hypothesis' as a source), I believe that is generally a poor indicator of a race's intelligence. A chihuahua has the highest brain to body ratio of any dog, yet there are many breeds that outshine it when it comes to trainability, learning commands, etc. https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/pets/g4748/top-smartest-dog-breeds/ 

    If we were to look at human brain size directly, males generally have a larger brain to body ratio than females. Despite this, men have shown to have a lot more variance with their IQ, which means you'll have a lot more men deviating from the average in both directions. The result is that, sure, more men may have higher IQ's than women, but you'll also have a lot more men that are idiots despite having a larger brain on average. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/study-finds-some-significant-differences-brains-men-and-women

    Differences between us have inspired a lot of evil in our past. Some people literally make up silly metrics to divide us. It's understandable that a lot of people would not want to talk about us as inequals based on our race. However, it's important to acknowledge our differences and work to remedy them. In acknowledging them, it is also important not to take a wrong turn and demonize people or say that they have less of a right to live or that they are destined to live in poverty due to their race. 



  • Analgesic.Spectre
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 474
    1
    1
    5
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Analgesic.Spectre
    --> @SamStevens
    Discussing race and the various differences we see in humans due to it is definitely a sensitive topic and one where it's very easy to take it to extremes, as we've seen in the past and currently(Nazi Germany, KKK, Neo-Nazis, etc). The differences that divide us do not warrant the sentiments that define these groups/movements of intolerance, slavery, and genocide. In my opinion, to make this topic much more approachable, one should look at dogs to make sense of what variance within a subspecies can look like. We all acknowledge that some breeds are smarter than others, that some have better and worse attributes, and that some are predisposed to health issues while others are not. Some are clearly superior and inferior to each other, depending on what you are using to compare them. 
    Sure, it's a sensitive topic. No one likes to be told that your race is far capable than others.

    Nazi Germany had an inaccurate model of race. They didn't consider the Slavs to be White. They had some mysticism about the Aryan race. Hitler wasn't even a White nationalist. As for the KKK, I don't know much about them. But as for Neo-Nazis, I wish they would stop buying the Progressive narrative and stop larping. I'd love to tell SJWs and Antifas that Nazis don't exist, but then these people decide it would be cool to be edgy like this.

    People already accept the dog idea. It's not about understanding. It's about being in an emotional state that will be receptive to accepting the ideas. That why Black Conservatives overwhelmingly voted Democrat in 2012. They accept your ideas; they just don't feel like betraying their feelings.

    With dogs such as pit bulls, it's completely fair to say that they are predisposed to aggression, courtesy of their genetic makeup and its effects on brain development, which can have negative outcomes. Couple that with the fact that many pit bulls come from less than ideal situations(dog fighting, abuse, etc), it's understandable that a lot of them will lash out, thus creating a negative stigma around them, which people use to issue bans on 
    pitbulls and say that they should be euthanized. There are plenty of parallels to be made in recent human history when people obsess a little too much about what makes us different instead of trying to bridge differences. Proper training goes a long way in remedying a pit bull's issues, and the sentiments surrounding them would be improved if people were willing to invest the time and effort to raising the dog properly.
    Idk some racial group's I.Qs are just too low to be treated like this. When the average I.Q. of your race is nearly 60, as is the case with Australian Aboriginies (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsZ11VVdP_M&bpctr=1553383782), "training" them better isn't going to increase their I.Q. significantly, as I.Q. is roughly 80% heritable (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3y2SDpIEhE).

    If we were to look at health issues, we could draw a comparison to our situation where we have Neanderthal DNA(and the health implications it entails) to what dogs inherit due to their breed. German Shepherds are inclined to experience hip problems due to their lineage just as some of us are inclined to experience allergies due to inheriting Neanderthal DNA.
    This analogy is sound.

    While brain size may differ and may be a manifestation of race/differences between us(I would like something other than 'alternative hypothesis' as a source), I believe that is generally a poor indicator of a race's intelligence. A chihuahua has the highest brain to body ratio of any dog, yet there are many breeds that outshine it when it comes to trainability, learning commands, etc. https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/pets/g4748/top-smartest-dog-breeds/ 
    The Alternative Hypothesis isn't just a source. It's a collection of sources. Sometimes it creates the data itself, but all the cited works are readily accessible on the website. Besides, I don't know why you'd want to see a different source if you thought The Alternative Hypothesis' data and sources were correct.

    Richard Lynn (2015) found that 30% of the White-Black I.Q. gap could be accounted for by differing brain sizes (https://www.amazon.com/Race-Differences-Intelligence-Richard-Lynn/dp/159368052X/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8). Whilst brain size doesn't dictate all intelligence, generally, a bigger brain means more intelligence.

    If we were to look at human brain size directly, males generally have a larger brain to body ratio than females. Despite this, men have shown to have a lot more variance with their IQ, which means you'll have a lot more men deviating from the average in both directions. The result is that, sure, more men may have higher IQ's than women, but you'll also have a lot more men that are idiots despite having a larger brain on average. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/study-finds-some-significant-differences-brains-men-and-women
    All uncontroversial, except in extremist Progressive camps.

    Differences between us have inspired a lot of evil in our past. Some people literally make up silly metrics to divide us. It's understandable that a lot of people would not want to talk about us as inequals based on our race. However, it's important to acknowledge our differences and work to remedy them. In acknowledging them, it is also important not to take a wrong turn and demonize people or say that they have less of a right to live or that they are destined to live in poverty due to their race.
    I agree with all of this, for the most part.


  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 305
    Forum posts: 8,991
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @Analgesic.Spectre
    Why do you think they never split up sports between races even though blacks blatantly dominate some sports, whites others, yellow-asians others and Brown-Asians dominate Cricket and some peculiar sports like Chess and disc-sliding type games? Everything's fine as long as the dominant one truly earned it and everyone of the other races feels it's fair. This will always be subjective, but the pain of being kept at the bottom so brutally that even the anomalies can't shine and the way the norm of your race shines is not able to come to fruition is a pain that is unjustifiable to put the race through.

    There was a time blacks couldn't compete in long-distance races because all jobs were white-only. There was a time when mathematics wasn't something Asians were able to compete with whites at as the very syllabus they used (both brown and yellow, Asian races) were incompatible with the ones Whites used. You only see races able to 'shine' when given the chance to do so and they only can even begin to do that when you undo the already-present glass ceiling that has so many ways it's weighed down upon them, to enable them to even bother to go into a line of work and think 'oh someone of my race can do this'. Sure, once in a while you'll get the Eminem or Benjamin Banneker to break the mould but waiting for someone lucky enough and strong-willed enough to break a glass ceiling is hardly the best way to keep things evened out.
  • Analgesic.Spectre
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 474
    1
    1
    5
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Analgesic.Spectre
    RM, you have glorified racial terrorism in the past, in that you said (in another thread) that Nelson Mandala was a hero AND you agreed that he committed terrorist attacks against White people. Why would anyone think you have sane views on race? You don't belong in this thread. You have nothing valuable to say. You should leave and get the mental help you badly need, because glorifying terrorism isn't normal or welcomed.

    Go.
  • disgusted
    disgusted avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,959
    2
    3
    3
    disgusted avatar
    disgusted
    @spook
    Mental health help needed.
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 305
    Forum posts: 8,991
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @Analgesic.Spectre
    I do not care if you believe that I belong in this is thread or what value you assign what I say. I take note that you were incapable of even respondig to a single thing I said in the post above, in your entire reply.
  • Analgesic.Spectre
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 474
    1
    1
    5
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Analgesic.Spectre
    RM, your feelings about what I said are entirely irrelevant. You are a confirmed supporter of terrorism. Just like I know I couldn't have a conversation about child welfare with a paeodophile, there is no hope with you in regards to race relations. You need to be mocked, ridiculed, denounced and eschewed from all societies, be it this online one or one irl.

    I HATE what Muslims are doing to my homeland. BUT I would never EVER even consider doing what the New Zealand shooter did. Nor would I ever consider doing what Nelson Mandela did to White South Africans.

    You are not worth substantive discussion. You are hideous beyond repair. You are not welcome on this site.

    We want you to leave.


  • Analgesic.Spectre
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 474
    1
    1
    5
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Analgesic.Spectre
    Evidence for RM's support of the terrorist Nelson Mandela: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1130?page=2&post_number=35

    tl;dr version

    (1) RM agrees that Nelson Mandela committed terrorist attacks

    (2) RM considers Nelson Mandela to be respected and a hero

    (3) RM considers Nelson Mandela's reign in power to be peaceful

    If RM isn't another New Zealand shooter in the making, I'm not sure who is.
  • SamStevens
    SamStevens avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 286
    0
    1
    3
    SamStevens avatar
    SamStevens
    --> @Analgesic.Spectre
    If RM isn't another New Zealand shooter in the making, I'm not sure who is.


  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 305
    Forum posts: 8,991
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    One day I hope you gain respect for others and also do research so that you start to see that the government can be the terrorists even though legally they never can be named that.

    Aside from that, what does that have to do with my first post to this thread? You are simply trying to mock and offend me so that I either succumb to rage or silence. 

  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 305
    Forum posts: 8,991
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    You are not worth substantive discussion. You are hideous beyond repair. You are not welcome on this site.

    We want you to leave.
    I'm sure that you do and that you think you speak for everyone in the 'we'. You unfortunately will find that I am too smart and also too tough to be bullied off a website merely by remarks like that. Keep this up and see which one of us leaves this thread and site; I assure you, I don't think it will be me.
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 305
    Forum posts: 8,991
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    You need to be mocked, ridiculed, denounced and eschewed from all societies, be it this online one or one irl.
    Aside from what this reveals about you as a person aside, this is directly encouraging others to violate the Code of Conduct and to bully me. That's beyond just breaking the rules yourself; quite ironic, considering what you accused me of in the next post.
  • blamonkey
    blamonkey avatar
    Debates: 16
    Forum posts: 496
    1
    4
    8
    blamonkey avatar
    blamonkey
    --> @SamStevens
    The Alternative Hypothesis evidence is not compelling to me for a few reasons. 

    First, the science on the correlation between brain size and intelligence is far from concrete. The Scientific American explains that when volunteers undergo MRI scans on their brains, researchers typically find a weak correlation between brain size and intelligence. Brain size only accounts for about 9-16% of variability in general intelligence according to the article (1). The article also explains neanderthal brains are actually bigger than the brains of the modern day human. Despite this difference in brain size, the modern day human is accomplishing more in the realms of technology and medicine than ever before. 

    A large portion of the evidence provided in the article you cited came from Rushton's studies, some of which are littered with major logistical issues. Specifically, his 1995 study, in which he suggested that Mongoloid brains were bigger than Caucasian brains, which, in turn, were bigger than African-American brains. In the study, Rushton controlled for body size when making the measurements. Michael Peters of the University of Guelph cites 3 separate studies which show that body parameters are independent of brain size. Also, he shows that when not accounting for body size, whites have larger brains than Asians (2). Rushton acknowledged that Asian children had higher IQ scores than other races (3). Unless these IQ differences are somehow eliminated by adulthood, there emerges a major contradiction. If Asians have less brain mass, then how could they be smarter if brain size determines intelligence? 

    Second, there is a large potential for bias in the work done by many of the researchers cited. I understand that in the era of "fake news," it seems redundant, (some might even say impertinent) to show bias within the sources. However, at least 2 of the people in the link, Rushton and Lynn, were at one point members of the Pioneer Fund (4). This fund is a non-profit group founded by people who were inspired by the Nazi eugenics program, and, later funded people such as Roger Pearson. Pearson was not only a eugenicist, he was also the creator of the Northern League, a neo-Nazi organization. 

    Third, and most importantly, the conclusion drawn does not seem to have much support. Even if there are physical differences between races, why would that necessarily stop people from reaching success? Great strides have been made to further the rights of blacks, and many have been able to become doctors, lawyers, politicians etc. Intelligence, which you seem to suggest is lacking in blacks, is determined through more than genetics. The U.S. National Library of Medicine suggests that nutrition, education, and home environment all affect IQ (6). Given the persistent gap between white and black earnings, perhaps some of these observed differences on IQ scores are to be expected (7). Poor households are ones that cannot afford tutoring, medicine, or healthy food. 

    I suppose that IQ and race could be correlated. However, I am confused as to what US lawmakers. or in fact, anyone is supposed to do with that information. Creating a caste system by which only certain races can take certain jobs seems ridiculous. Obviously, not all black, white, or Asian people have IQs which are average for their race. If you don't believe me, listen to Jimi Hendrix and tell me with a straight face that the man was not a musical genius. 

    IQ tests happen to be antiquated as well, and not good predictors of actual intelligence. A study published from the journal "Neuron" found that there are multiple, independent components of intelligence that a single integer cannot describe (8). Multiple "compartments" in the brain are used for different functions. These functions are largely determined by the external environment. For instance, those with chronic anxiety are less capable when it comes to short-term memory storage, and yet, could have extraordinary planning skills (8). Smoking, playing video games, and other choices that people make can also influence IQ (8). If the IQ is supposed to be an instrument which analyzes people's natural ability to learn, retain information, and analyze, then how can it change with external factors and still be considered to be a flawless test? In truth, science can do a lot, but it cannot reduce someone's brainpower to a mere number.

    Interesting post by the way. It is not letting me tag you for some reason Zarro. It is probably my computer.



  • PhilSam95
    PhilSam95 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 3
    0
    0
    4
    PhilSam95 avatar
    PhilSam95
    I'm glad this issue is being discussed. I've been thinking about this topic off and on for seven months now. This is a huge and complex topic, and neither the hereditarian or environmentalist view on race and IQ is obvious to me. Arriving at answers on these questions is extremely important. If the race realist view is true, for example, then this does suggest politicians in the U.S. should restrict immigration to high IQ nations such as Japan or South Korea. As Nathan Cofnas pointed out to me in an email exchange, Garett Jones's book, Have Mind, shows that the economic prospects of a nation are closely tied to its average IQ. This is because higher-IQ societies tend to function better for a variety of reasons. One important factor is that people with high IQs make better voters: they support better policies and are better at holding their leaders accountable, which reduces corruption. If race realism is true, then it's plausible that, at least for the foreseeable future, immigration policies that reduce the average IQ of the US will tend to have a negative effect on economic development and corruption.

  • SamStevens
    SamStevens avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 286
    0
    1
    3
    SamStevens avatar
    SamStevens
    --> @blamonkey
    The Alternative Hypothesis evidence is not compelling to me for a few reasons. 

    First, the science on the correlation between brain size and intelligence is far from concrete. The Scientific American explains that when volunteers undergo MRI scans on their brains, researchers typically find a weak correlation between brain size and intelligence. Brain size only accounts for about 9-16% of variability in general intelligence according to the article (1). The article also explains neanderthal brains are actually bigger than the brains of the modern day human. Despite this difference in brain size, the modern day human is accomplishing more in the realms of technology and medicine than ever before.
    I don't know if comparing the brain size with Neanderthals and using them as a benchmark to measure our growth in tech and medicine is fair. I think we were more or less on the same page as they were when we co-existed, and since their extinction, we are now thousands of years removed from that time period. Who knows what they could have made had they not gone extinct or if their brain size, etc would give them an advantage in today's society. 


    A large portion of the evidence provided in the article you cited came from Rushton's studies, some of which are littered with major logistical issues. Specifically, his 1995 study, in which he suggested that Mongoloid brains were bigger than Caucasian brains, which, in turn, were bigger than African-American brains. In the study, Rushton controlled for body size when making the measurements. Michael Peters of the University of Guelph cites 3 separate studies which show that body parameters are independent of brain size. Also, he shows that when not accounting for body size, whites have larger brains than Asians (2). Rushton acknowledged that Asian children had higher IQ scores than other races (3). Unless these IQ differences are somehow eliminated by adulthood, there emerges a major contradiction. If Asians have less brain mass, then how could they be smarter if brain size determines intelligence? 

    Second, there is a large potential for bias in the work done by many of the researchers cited. I understand that in the era of "fake news," it seems redundant, (some might even say impertinent) to show bias within the sources. However, at least 2 of the people in the link, Rushton and Lynn, were at one point members of the Pioneer Fund (4). This fund is a non-profit group founded by people who were inspired by the Nazi eugenics program, and, later funded people such as Roger Pearson. Pearson was not only a eugenicist, he was also the creator of the Northern League, a neo-Nazi organization. 
    That was my concern, 'what exactly are they all about?'. I read the site's 'about' section and they are clearly among the alt-right and all that entails. I can acknowledge the possibility of brain size differences between races, but I personally wouldn't use a site with a lot of 'baggage'. 

    Third, and most importantly, the conclusion drawn does not seem to have much support. Even if there are physical differences between races, why would that necessarily stop people from reaching success? Great strides have been made to further the rights of blacks, and many have been able to become doctors, lawyers, politicians etc. Intelligence, which you seem to suggest is lacking in blacks, is determined through more than genetics. The U.S. National Library of Medicine suggests that nutrition, education, and home environment all affect IQ (6). Given the persistent gap between white and black earnings, perhaps some of these observed differences on IQ scores are to be expected (7). Poor households are ones that cannot afford tutoring, medicine, or healthy food. 

    I suppose that IQ and race could be correlated. However, I am confused as to what US lawmakers. or in fact, anyone is supposed to do with that information. Creating a caste system by which only certain races can take certain jobs seems ridiculous. Obviously, not all black, white, or Asian people have IQs which are average for their race. If you don't believe me, listen to Jimi Hendrix and tell me with a straight face that the man was not a musical genius. 

    IQ tests happen to be antiquated as well, and not good predictors of actual intelligence. A study published from the journal "Neuron" found that there are multiple, independent components of intelligence that a single integer cannot describe (8). Multiple "compartments" in the brain are used for different functions. These functions are largely determined by the external environment. For instance, those with chronic anxiety are less capable when it comes to short-term memory storage, and yet, could have extraordinary planning skills (8). Smoking, playing video games, and other choices that people make can also influence IQ (8). If the IQ is supposed to be an instrument which analyzes people's natural ability to learn, retain information, and analyze, then how can it change with external factors and still be considered to be a flawless test? In truth, science can do a lot, but it cannot reduce someone's brainpower to a mere number.

    Interesting post by the way. It is not letting me tag you for some reason Zarro. It is probably my computer.
  • Analgesic.Spectre
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 474
    1
    1
    5
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Analgesic.Spectre
    --> @blamonkey
    First, the science on the correlation between brain size and intelligence is far from concrete. The Scientific American explains that when volunteers undergo MRI scans on their brains, researchers typically find a weak correlation between brain size and intelligence. Brain size only accounts for about 9-16% of variability in general intelligence according to the article (1). The article also explains neanderthal brains are actually bigger than the brains of the modern day human. Despite this difference in brain size, the modern day human is accomplishing more in the realms of technology and medicine than ever before. 
    Alt Hype doesn't argue that brain size equals intelligence, so let's just make that clear. It's a correlation of some sort.

    So, you stated it's about 9-16%. This number comes from MRI scans of 46 adults.

    Alt Hype would cite (these are the ones I've found with a quick search) at least these three meta-studies of over 100 studies (http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mamcdani/Big-Brained%20article.pdf), (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2668913/) and (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014976341500250X). The correlations range from 0.24 to 0.40. I'm going to take these numbers, coming from over 100 studies, over your one study.

    As for neanderthals, what you said is true. However, bigger brain size doesn't necessitate more intelligence. For example, men have bigger brains than women, yet their I.Qs are virtually identical. This is because women's neurons are more tightly packed -- they have roughly the same number of neurons as men (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=mrDwXSw2w5YC&pg=PA193&lpg=PA193&dq=womens+neurons+more+tightly+packed&source=bl&ots=wCDeHaR2kp&sig=QxdxQW-io6Jd3Vy84EMMvj_cAvQ&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=womens%20neurons%20more%20tightly%20packed&f=false). 

    A large portion of the evidence provided in the article you cited came from Rushton's studies, some of which are littered with major logistical issues. Specifically, his 1995 study, in which he suggested that Mongoloid brains were bigger than Caucasian brains, which, in turn, were bigger than African-American brains. In the study, Rushton controlled for body size when making the measurements. Michael Peters of the University of Guelph cites 3 separate studies which show that body parameters are independent of brain size. Also, he shows that when not accounting for body size, whites have larger brains than Asians (2). Rushton acknowledged that Asian children had higher IQ scores than other races (3). Unless these IQ differences are somehow eliminated by adulthood, there emerges a major contradiction. If Asians have less brain mass, then how could they be smarter if brain size determines intelligence? 
    Again, size of brain isn't the only determinant of intelligence. It is merely correlated with intelligence.

    Second, there is a large potential for bias in the work done by many of the researchers cited...
    Nobody cares. Argue to evidence and data.

    Third, and most importantly, the conclusion drawn does not seem to have much support. Even if there are physical differences between races, why would that necessarily stop people from reaching success? Great strides have been made to further the rights of blacks, and many have been able to become doctors, lawyers, politicians etc. Intelligence, which you seem to suggest is lacking in blacks, is determined through more than genetics. The U.S. National Library of Medicine suggests that nutrition, education, and home environment all affect IQ (6). Given the persistent gap between white and black earnings, perhaps some of these observed differences on IQ scores are to be expected (7). Poor households are ones that cannot afford tutoring, medicine, or healthy food. 
    The physical differences impose limitations. For example, some high-end university research work, such as theoretical physics, requires a high amount of I.Q. If you're from a race of low I.Q, chances are that you don't have the I.Q. necessary to do the research (at least quickly enough for the job).

    The "rights of blacks" are merely political weapons designed to take resources from other political tribes. Furthermore, Blacks get bonus SAT points for university applications, due to racial quotas. Hence, on average, Blacks get into top-end universities easier than Whites (or Asians, for that matter), and as such are less intellectually qualified (https://imgur.com/a/af8lpua). These racial quota Blacks go on to fail these courses because they are too intellectually demanding. The Blacks that become doctors, lawyers, politicians etc. would have been so without these affirmative action "rights of blacks".

    I.Q. is roughly 80% heritable, by the age of 24 ("Figure 2": https://sci-hub.tw/10.1017/thg.2013.54). Sure, if you give Blacks a better environment when they're young (when heritability less influences I.Q.), they will do better. But the genes become more and more expressed over time. They are going to eventually get left behind anyway.

    As for poor households, lottery vouchers for "better schools" is an excellent way to see the effect of low SES children having better opportunities. Basically, all the low SES kids put their application for schools into a lottery, hoping to be one of the lucky few to gain acceptance into these "better schools". When analysed properly, the results show that there is pretty much no difference in educational outcomes for lottery voucher winners versus lottery voucher losers (https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/05/16/follow-up-on-vouchers/).






  • Analgesic.Spectre
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 474
    1
    1
    5
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Analgesic.Spectre
    --> @blamonkey
    I suppose that IQ and race could be correlated. However, I am confused as to what US lawmakers. or in fact, anyone is supposed to do with that information. Creating a caste system by which only certain races can take certain jobs seems ridiculous. Obviously, not all black, white, or Asian people have IQs which are average for their race. If you don't believe me, listen to Jimi Hendrix and tell me with a straight face that the man was not a musical genius.

    Yassine and I, in several of our recent conversations, devolved the conversation into wild tangents, that I've only just realised are a waste of time (I can't address 40 different points with any kind of serious depth, when I've only got 5-6 hours a week to respond to this stuff). I'm not going to let that happen here. If you want to discuss this, make another thread.

    IQ tests happen to be antiquated as well, and not good predictors of actual intelligence. A study published from the journal "Neuron" found that there are multiple, independent components of intelligence that a single integer cannot describe (8). Multiple "compartments" in the brain are used for different functions. These functions are largely determined by the external environment. For instance, those with chronic anxiety are less capable when it comes to short-term memory storage, and yet, could have extraordinary planning skills (8). Smoking, playing video games, and other choices that people make can also influence IQ (8). If the IQ is supposed to be an instrument which analyzes people's natural ability to learn, retain information, and analyze, then how can it change with external factors and still be considered to be a flawless test? In truth, science can do a lot, but it cannot reduce someone's brainpower to a mere number.
    As for I.Q. tests not being good predictors of actual intelligence: "IQ predicts one’s subjective perception of a person’s intelligence the longer you interact with them" (https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/the-validity-of-iq/). All relevant data and studies are under the heading "IQ Probably Measures “Intelligence”.

    As for your study, I'm sure someone who is suffers from mental issues or with an addiction to something unhealthy (such as smoking), is likely to do worse than he/she otherwise would have (although, choosing to smoke is likely correlated with low intelligence, so this is arguably moot). It's not a flawless test, but most people come into the test without chronic anxiety. I.Q. is also partially environmentally determined (roughly 20% imo), so there's that, too.


  • Analgesic.Spectre
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 474
    1
    1
    5
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Analgesic.Spectre
    --> @PhilSam95
    I'm glad this issue is being discussed. I've been thinking about this topic off and on for seven months now. This is a huge and complex topic, and neither the hereditarian or environmentalist view on race and IQ is obvious to me.
    It's at the very least a mix. 100% environmentally determined is utterly insane -- it's basically saying that despite divergent evolution in humans, we've all ended up the same in the brain. 100% hereditarian isn't as insane, but the data I've come across makes this too hard to argue, imo. I think the split is 80-20, but the most popular view is about 50% (amongst a bunch of intelligence researchers) (https://imgur.com/a/zpXGSxt). I've got data to expand into the nature-nurture proportions of people around the world, if you're interested, but that's probably the best.

    Arriving at answers on these questions is extremely important. If the race realist view is true, for example, then this does suggest politicians in the U.S. should restrict immigration to high IQ nations such as Japan or South Korea. As Nathan Cofnas pointed out to me in an email exchange, Garett Jones's book, Have Mind, shows that the economic prospects of a nation are closely tied to its average IQ. This is because higher-IQ societies tend to function better for a variety of reasons. One important factor is that people with high IQs make better voters: they support better policies and are better at holding their leaders accountable, which reduces corruption. If race realism is true, then it's plausible that, at least for the foreseeable future, immigration policies that reduce the average IQ of the US will tend to have a negative effect on economic development and corruption.
    Yeah. I can add to that: Blacks and Hispanics (lower I.Qs than Whites) are net drains on the U.S. economy (https://imgur.com/a/LxbroAl).

    Interesting to suggest that higher I.Q. nations reduce corruption -- haven't seen that before.
  • nagisa3
    nagisa3 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 238
    0
    2
    1
    nagisa3 avatar
    nagisa3
    --> @Analgesic.Spectre
    I often look at threads like this and sigh.

    Before claiming one race is smarter than another, why don't we start with definitions:

    What is the definition of intelligence?

    What is the delineation of a race? 

    What is the definition of the environment? 

    Only when all of these are answered can this oh so strange discussion be had. 

  • nagisa3
    nagisa3 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 238
    0
    2
    1
    nagisa3 avatar
    nagisa3
    --> @Analgesic.Spectre
    If all races were equally criminal, then England selectively killing off criminals would mean that those countries not doing that would have more people with criminal tendencies.
    This selective pressure would've been tiny and for an insignificant amount of time. Firstly, most executions would've occurred in urban areas, Most people were farmers. Secondly, the amount of people actually killed divided by the whole population is minuscule. Third, the killing would've have to have occurred before they had children. People tended to have children a lot younger then. Fourthly, poorer people are much more likely to commit murder than rich ones, so the expression of killing might be repressed, but the tendency might've been repressed by money. So all the rich Englishpeople could've had a tendency to kill but never a reason to express it. We would have very few warlike people if this line of reasoning held up since they tend to go and die in battle. But that doesn't seem to be the case at all.

    Most of your lines of reasoning are this bad.  

  • nagisa3
    nagisa3 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 238
    0
    2
    1
    nagisa3 avatar
    nagisa3
    --> @Analgesic.Spectre
    Yeah. I can add to that: Blacks and Hispanics (lower I.Qs than Whites) are net drains on the U.S. economy (https://imgur.com/a/LxbroAl).
    Let's assume those numbers are true (which is highly suspect), how would that have anything to do with intelligence.

  • PhilSam95
    PhilSam95 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 3
    0
    0
    4
    PhilSam95 avatar
    PhilSam95
    --> @Analgesic.Spectre
    Yeah, I saw in Ryan Faulk’s video and a couple of books written by philosophers that intelligence researchers think that genes do play a role in the black/white IQ gap. This suggests that, as you pointed out, the claim that race differences in intelligence are 100% environmental is completely rejected by scientists working in the relevant fields.
     
    What books have you read on white nationalism in general? I finished reading Paved with Good Intentions by Jared Taylor a couple of weeks ago. Currently, I’m reading Michael Levin’s book Race Matters, and plan to read more books on this subject. If there is any information you’d recommend that I check out, let me know!

  • Analgesic.Spectre
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 474
    1
    1
    5
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Analgesic.Spectre
    --> @nagisa3
    I often look at threads like this and sigh.
    It must be tough being smarter than everyone else.

    Before claiming one race is smarter than another, why don't we start with definitions:

    What is the definition of intelligence?
    Firstly, I.Q. isn't necessarily intelligence. When referring to I.Q, we're referring to fraction of intelligence.

    With the above in mind, you can basically take any dictionary definition of intelligence.

    What is the delineation of a race? 
    Delineations are socially constructed, much like colours. We know that colours exist, but where we draw the line is a social construction. For example, we could clump all red shades together and call them red, or we could further divide them 445 different types (https://drawingblog.mycoloringland.com/red-shades/).

    What is the definition of the environment? 
    It's typically anything that isn't hereditary.

    Only when all of these are answered can this oh so strange discussion be had. 
    Yet you proceed to post two more comments.

    This selective pressure would've been tiny and for an insignificant amount of time. Firstly, most executions would've occurred in urban areas, Most people were farmers. Secondly, the amount of people actually killed divided by the whole population is minuscule. Third, the killing would've have to have occurred before they had children. People tended to have children a lot younger then. Fourthly, poorer people are much more likely to commit murder than rich ones, so the expression of killing might be repressed, but the tendency might've been repressed by money. So all the rich Englishpeople could've had a tendency to kill but never a reason to express it. We would have very few warlike people if this line of reasoning held up since they tend to go and die in battle. But that doesn't seem to be the case at all.

    Most of your lines of reasoning are this bad.  
    Are you able to cite any of your claims with research?

    Let's assume those numbers are true (which is highly suspect)
    Why is this highly suspect?

    how would that have anything to do with intelligence.
    Are you claiming that I.Q. has nothing to do with intelligence?






  • Analgesic.Spectre
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 474
    1
    1
    5
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Analgesic.Spectre
    --> @PhilSam95
    Yeah, I saw in Ryan Faulk’s video and a couple of books written by philosophers that intelligence researchers think that genes do play a role in the black/white IQ gap. This suggests that, as you pointed out, the claim that race differences in intelligence are 100% environmental is completely rejected by scientists working in the relevant fields.
    Yeah exactly. It has become a debate of what is the split, rather than "race doesn't exist" or "intelligence is determined by education".

    What books have you read on white nationalism in general? I finished reading Paved with Good Intentions by Jared Taylor a couple of weeks ago. Currently, I’m reading Michael Levin’s book Race Matters, and plan to read more books on this subject. If there is any information you’d recommend that I check out, let me know!
    I haven't read a whole lot on the topic. A lot of the stuff I've read is qualitative fluff, like Ride the Tiger. AmRen things can be qualitative, too. I suppose you need this rhetoric, too, but I didn't find it nearly as convincing as The Alternative Hypothesis. It's data driven so you can pick up a lot of the arguments and begin using them in debates. It also deals with common counter-arguments, so I've got a repertoire of some pretty handy counter-arguments after maybe 120 hours worth of reading and listening. I wasn't even a White Nationalist until I started to consume Alt Hype's content.

    If I had my time over again, I'd read everything on the Alt Hype website (and maybe listen to the videos, too, but they're basically crammed summaries of the articles).