The Impact of Genetic Heritability on Intelligence: Fact or Fiction?

[Paleo-Conservative]

Here is an interesting quote:

Professor Jensen on heritability of intelligence in "Intelligence, Race, and Genetics: Conversations with Arthur R. Jensen" by Frank Miele, 2002:

[Jensen] "Consider the heritability of height. In our population, height has a heritability of about 0.30 in infancy, which gradually increases, up to about 0.95 in early adulthood. IQ shows a similar developmental increase in heritability, going from about 0.40 in early childhood to about 0.70 in adulthood, then up to about 0.80 in older adults. If environment and experience were the chief determinants of mental growth throughout our life span, you would predict that the longer we have lived, the lower the heritability of IQ, because the difference between our life experience and those of our kin should accumulate. But just the opposite is found to be true. IQ behaves like height and other physical traits in that the resemblance between genetic relatives increases with age, despite their differences in cumulative life experience."

There is an interesting debate on race, intelligence, and eugenics going on at http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32453&page=1&pp=20 and http://forums.philosophyforums.com/showthread.php?t=6121 But, as a person of color, I am curious to know what White people plan to do with this information. I mean, let's say it's really true, all these claims about intelligence, race, etc. Some here have suggested that eugenics would be used to increase the intelligence of "lesser" races. Okey, fine. But what about those extremist types who actually want ethnic cleansing of the "lesser races?" You know, those inbred morons waving the Swastika flags and burning crosses on the yards of Blacks. In other words, will this information be used to help "lesser races" or to oppress them?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well, as an old white man, I say this. I have worked with and for intelligent blacks, and I think the racist use of this g-gene connection is terrible.

About 1/8 of our people, both white and black, have some trouble getting through the day in our bureauocratic country. we cannot expect the corproations to do anything for them, therefore the government has to help them. We should have a graduated income tax to support this effort, so that smart people, both black and white, will repay to society for the good fortune of their genetic inheritance.

This would be anathema to a libertarian, but I hope that from your handle you may be inclined to receive it otherwise.

 

[Nachtwolf]

All knowledge is inherently neutral. You're asking a very good question, Paleo-Conservative, but this is a political question, and it isn't something you can answer just with the raw facts.

I actually make an effort to educate about racial differences precisely in the hope that people will use the knowledge humanely and wisely. Modern society is starting to fall into a trap - I've heard people say that "Of course slavery was wrong to deny minorities the right to vote, because we know that the races are the same." This kind of thinking confuses ethical issues with factual ones and essentially claims "If the races weren't equal, slavery would be justified." You already seem well aware of where that leads.

The key at this point is to educate in a calm and neutral sense. If we integrate this knowledge slowly and gently, there's no reason why we have to abandon our current value set which calls for humane treatment of everybody, irresopective of intelligence or racial origin.

This is why I have a problem with kids not having the right to vote and with retards getting off easy "because they don't know what they're doing." We're all U.S. citizens, and as long as we draw lines based on intellectual ability we're setting a precedent. We really need to re-think our entire political system, although the trouble is that we probably won't.

Specifically regarding the fate of minorities, you can bet that this information will have some negative consequences. Affirmative action may well disappear, along with plenty of jobs currently held by minorities. Hate crime legislation will probably disappear. You'll probably see a lot of resentment on the part of whites who realize they've been hoodwinked and who take it out on minorities.

But it doesn't have to be all bad - schools integrated on the basis on of ability are an absolute nightmare for another significantly above or below the average, and most blacks are significantly below the average, so school is an endless series of frustrations for blacks. Large national surveys show that black 17-year-olds perform in school like white 13-year-olds - they are four years behind. Can you imagine an entire group of children bumped up four grades and expected to keep up? I can, and it sounds like an absolute nightmare to me!

Additionally people will finally be able to quit blaming minorities for economic and social failures. As it is now liberals blame conservatives and conservatives blame the minorities, but really this is just Mother Nature making us all different. Instead of flailing around ineffectually, we at least have the potential to strike at the root of the problem, apply gentle eugenic pressure, and resolve the issue in a positive way.

One thing is clear, however - there's no turning back. Now that the facts have been brought to light, we can't make them disappear. All we can do is try to steer this in a sensible direction as best we can.


--Mark

 

[Nachtwolf]

Here's an article written in the 70's which I think is even more relevant to this issue today than it was then. We've had decades to adjust to this knowledge, and we aren't doing it very well.


--Mark

ARE ALL RACES EQUALLY INTELLIGENT? -- OR:
WHEN IS KNOWLEDGE KNOWLEDGE?


http://members.optusnet.com.au/~jonjayray/knowledg.html

There has recently been an extensive controversy in the psychology literature on the possible genetic base of racial differences in intelligence. This has been so acrimonious as to inspire the thought that the controversy itself forms an interesting case-study in the sociology of knowledge. I refer to the articles by Jensen (1968 and 1969) and Garrett (1969). One outcome of these controversies is the apparently justified accusation by Jensen (1969b) that an important body of his colleagues (the members of the council of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues) indulged in "propaganda" and disregard for the facts of the issue. Garrett (1969) makes similar observations. As Van den Haag (1969) points out, the cause of equalitarianism seems to have induced some remarkable failures of reasoning even among normally eminent social scientists. How may these phenomena be explained?


Study of Intelligence as the Hereditary Given

Before one can understand what is really going on in this controversy, it is necessary briefly to recapitulate some basic findings.

There is no doubt that American Negroes obtain lower average scores on standard intelligence tests than do American whites (Tyler, 1965, p. 306; Garrett; 1969). In fact the differences found are often so large and so regular in their incidence that this might be held to be one of the most impressive uniformities in the whole of psychological measurement.

To use Hebb's (1949) terminology there are two types of intelligence -- A and B. Intelligence A is the inborn, hereditary "given" whereas intelligence B is intelligence as measured, i.e. intelligence A plus some variable overlay of learned problem-solving strategies. It is mean differences across races in intelligence A that is of concern here.


Substitution of Ideology for Science

The way to assess differences in intelligence A is to control or equalize the influences and opportunities affecting the B Component. When this is done, differences remaining are attributable to intelligence A variations. Tanser (1939), Bruce (1940), and McQueen and Browning (1960) have carried out such studies where environmental influences on white and Negro groups have been controlled. All reported significant superiority of the white groups. In spite of this, most psychologists (Tyler, 1965, 9, 300) continue to claim that there are no innate differences in intelligence between whites and Negroes. The usual reason advanced for adherence to this credo is that the tests used must in some way be unfair to non-members of the dominant white culture (even though the Negroes and whites of Tanser's study had attended the same schools since 1890!). If this claim is true, how does one explain the consistent finding (Pintner, 1931) that Chinese and Japanese school-children get average test scores equal to or above those of American whites? One is asked to believe that the tests are unfair to people who have sat in the same classrooms as whites but not unfair to Chinese and Japanese who have a totally different cultural background.

Why is it that psychologists, who are most in a position to observe racial differences in intelligence, resolutely refuse to believe the evidence before their eyes? The answer to this is, I believe, an instructive, if sad, incident in the sociology of knowledge. Often drawn to their profession by humane or humanitarian considerations, psychologists are so committed to the belief that whites and Negroes morally should be treated equally that they seem to conclude, albeit unconsciously, that the best way of securing this morally desirable end is to convince people that whites and Negroes in fact are ontologically equal. If the facts fell into line with this account, all would be well, but as it is, the present author would question whether any moral goal is ultimately well served by denying reality as it is. If there are native differences in intelligence, our strategy in pursuing humanitarian goals must presumably become more adaptive by a recognition of it.

This question of the ideology subscribed to by the scientist is also relevant to the question of what we accept as a criterion for evidence. There have been many attempts to construct "culture fair" tests but their application has not been successful in removing Negro-white differences. We must then at some point ask ourselves: "When do we stop?" When do we consider the case proved? When do we start to conclude that there might not after all be some real difference there that is not attributable to a measurement artifact? Given the impressive uniformity of the findings to date, it seems abundantly clear that the existence of a real difference between races would long ago have been considered to have been proven out of hand were it not for an ideological commitment to the opposite viewpoint.


When is Moral Moral?

Just how much ideology can cause even an outstanding psychologist to drift into self-deception is exemplified in the position taken by McElwain (1970). McElwain is head of the Department of Psychology at Australia's largest university (Queensland) and author of the definitive "Queensland Test" of Aboriginal intelligence. This test was normed and validated on Aboriginal groups themselves. It includes only those sub-tests which could be shown to discriminate within the Aboriginal population. Although he does not appear to have committed himself in print, he has repeated to the present author in writing, an assertion often made to his students -- that when the Queensland test is given also to whites, a negative relationship between the discriminating power of a subtest within the Aboriginal population and the size of the gap between white and Aboriginal mean scores appears, i.e., as the test gets better so Aborigines rose closer to whites in average test scores. From this McElwain appears to suggest that if we got a really discriminating test, the difference between whites and Aborigines would disappear altogether.

Here, then, McElwain appears to commit the same fallacy in reverse that is so frequently alleged against tests normed and validated for whites! A test is designed specifically for an Aboriginal culture and yet whites still get higher scores on it! The amazing thing is that whites do not get lower scores on it. Of course the discriminating power and the size of the cross-racial gap are related. As the test is more and more characteristically Aboriginal in specific background, so whites are more and more disadvantaged. A true comparison study of the question set by this paper using the Queensland's test would require that a group of whites be found who shared an environmental background similar to the Aborigine culture. In that case only, might mean scores on McElwain's test be reasonably compared across the two racial groups.

If racial differences exist how do we explain them? A possible explanation is the ecological one: different racial groups develop different areas of excellence according to the specific demands of their characteristic environment. In the harsh European climate, forethought (symbolic thought) has historically been essential to survival -- particularly through the long winters. In Africa these same mental qualities have not had the same relative importance. Because of the more beneficient climate the importance of certain physical and psychomotor abilities has risen in comparison. In time the process of natural selection has ensured that these differentia became racially fixed. With the different characteristic environments of the white and Negro races, it would in fact be highly surprising to find similar levels in all abilities. What one would expect and what one does, I believe, find is that whites would be higher on cognitive abilities and Negroes higher on certain physical abilities.

Using the concept of a morality hierarchy proposed by Hampden-Turner and Whitten (1971) it might be said in fact that the attempt to deny the empirical findings of racial differences in intelligence in order to secure the moral goal of having all races treated equally represents a very low level of moral maturity. The person at the highest stage of moral development would presumably not need to have his moral resolve to treat people equally bolstered by assertions that people are equal anyhow. He would be anxious to do justice to the empirical findings in the awareness that they are essentially irrelevant to the moral decision he has made.

For the future then, humanitarian aims might perhaps best be served by abandoning the unlikely enterprise of proving all men equal. Instead, perhaps, we might concentrate on the question of what the difference between groups are -- and how differences might be used in the betterment of all.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Paleo-Conservative
In other words, will this information be used to help "lesser races" or to oppress them?

What lesser races?

 

[hitssquad]

Social science syllogisms

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
About 1/8 of our people, both white and black, have some trouble getting through the day in our bureauocratic country. we cannot expect the corproations to do anything for them, therefore the government has to help them.

There seems to be something missing in your syllogism.





-Chris

 

[selfAdjoint]

It isn't a syllogism, it's a policy statement. Of course one solution would be just to kill those who can't "keep up", or to let them die of lack of food and medical care. But that isn't within my scope, and so something has to be done.

 

[Paleo-Conservative]

Is this an example of what we non-Whites should be doing:

[The following is the first essay from Jewish Eugenics and Other Essays,
Three Papers Read Before the New York Board of Jewish Ministers, 1915,
Bloch Publishing Company, New York, 1916.]

Jewish Eugenics
By Rabbi Max Reichler

Who knows the cause of Israel's survival? Why did the Jew survive the
onslaughts of Time, when others, numerically and politically stronger,
succumbed? Obedience to the Law of Life, declares the modern student
of eugenics, was the saving quality which rendered the Jewish race
immune from disease and destruction. "The Jews, ancient and modern,"
says Dr. Stanton Coit, "have always understood the science of eugenics,
and have governed themselves in accordance with it; hence the
preservation of the Jewish race."1

I. Jewish Attitude

To be sure eugenics as a science could hardly have existed among the
ancient Jews; but many eugenic rules were certainly incorporated in the
large collection of Biblical and Rabbinical laws. Indeed there are clear
indications of a conscious effort to utilize all influences that might
improve the inborn qualities of the Jewish race, and to guard against any
practice that might vitiate the purity of the race, or "impair the racial
qualities of future generations" either physically, mentally, or morally.2
The Jew approached the matter of sex relationship neither with the horror
of the prude, nor with the passionate eagerness of the pagan, but with
the sane and sound attitude of the far-seeing prophet. His goal was the
creation of the ideal home, which to him meant the abode of purity and
happiness, the source of strength and vigor for body and mind.4

The complete article is at http://groups.google.com/groups?q=r...TF-8&selm=b7j8f9$5qi$1@reader08.wxs.nl&rnum=1

 

[hitssquad]

The breathless tone of pure science

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
It isn't a syllogism,

A syllogism is a "deductive logical scheme or analysis of a formal argument that consists of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion." (M-W Unabridged 3.0)

About 1/8 of our people, both white and black, have some trouble getting through the day in our bureauocratic country.[/color]

That is a major premise.


we cannot expect the corproations to do anything for them,[/color]

That is a minor premise.


therefore the government has to help them.[/color]

That is a conclusion.

Major premise; minor premise; conclusion. It looks like it indeed is a syllogism.

it's a policy statement.

It might very well be, but it appears to be in the form of a syllogism. The conclusion of that syllogism does not appear to follow from its premises.

Of course one solution would be just to kill

Was there a problem stated?

something has to be done.

http://www.google.com/search?q="something+has+to+be+done"




-Chris

 

[selfAdjoint]

Nah, I was the one who wrote it and I say it wasn't a syllogism, so it wasn't. I didn't lay out all the possibilities or want to. This is a very "sylly" argument.

 

[Nereid]

we're all US citizens?!

Nachtwolf wrote (my emphasis): This is why I have a problem with kids not having the right to vote and with retards getting off easy "because they don't know what they're doing." We're all U.S. citizens, and as long as we draw lines based on intellectual ability we're setting a precedent. We really need to re-think our entire political system, although the trouble is that we probably won't.

Er, no we (PF members and guests) are not. FYI, the top five economies today (ranked by size of population):
China
India
EU
USA
Indonesia

According to information from the US Census Bureau's website (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/world.html), the US has <5% of the world's population (it doesn't seem to tally citizens and 'resident aliens' as separate groups).

 

[Nereid]

Paleo wrote: *SNIP But, as a person of color, I am curious to know what White people plan to do with this information. I mean, let's say it's really true, all these claims about intelligence, race, etc.

Just as Nachtwolf assumed the US is the whole world, so Paleo is perhaps blurring the distinction between some White folk in the US and members of population groups such as 'English', 'Greek', 'Italian', and 'Danish' (per hitssquad's link to data from Cavalli-Sforza et al), most of whom don't live in the US.

Paleo, if folk such as Nachtwolf were true to their beliefs, they should campaign for the US to become the 33rd province of the People's Republic of China (or something similar), then agitate for social benefits for disadvantaged whites. At the same time, they would encourage inter-breeding between folk in the 33rd province and Japanese, Koreans and Chinese, as part of a eugenic campaign to allow them (the whites) to catch up with the JKC's in mean IQ.

Of course I'm kidding, but it makes you wonder how the boot feels when it's on the other foot.

 

[hitssquad]

Originally posted by Nereid

Nachtwolf wrote (my emphasis)
We're all U.S. citizens, and as long as we draw lines based on intellectual ability we're setting a precedent.

Er, no we (PF members and guests) are not. FYI, the top five economies today (ranked by size of population):
China
India
EU
USA
Indonesia

And the top six nations in terms of size of population of netizenry are:

1  United States   165,750,000  2002  
2  Japan            56,000,000  2002  
3  China            45,800,000  2002  
4  United Kingdom   34,300,000  2002  
5  Germany          32,100,000  2002  
6  Korea, South     25,600,000  2002

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2153rank.html

According to information from the US Census Bureau's website (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/world.html), the US has <5% of the world's population

According to the CIA World Factbook's figure of 604,111,719 netizens in the world, the United States has 27% of the world's netizen population.

So, 27% of us are U.S. citizens.





-Chris

 

[Nachtwolf]

Originally posted by Paleo-Conservative
Is this an example of what we non-Whites should be doing:

I'd say it's an example of what everybody should be doing, although it is merely an example. Eugenics has been practiced in many forms throughout society; older societies (such as Greece or China) often practiced infanticide on unwanted children and polygamy for the upper class males, and more modern societies (like my own state of California) have enacted forced sterilization laws. (See http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/essays.htm --> Ancient Times for a more thorough investigation.)

It's important to realize that these severe or awkward eugenic methods are not necessary to improve intellectual ability. Certainly I know of no self described eugenist alive who advocates any of that! The best eugenic method - and this is only my opinion - is simply the voluntary procreation of intelligent and healthy couples. This is the form of eugenics promoted by Hawk in his Millennium, and its effectiveness rests entirely on the conscience of the individual rather than the impersonal hand of the state.


--Mark

 

[Nereid]

So, 27% of us are U.S. citizens.

You forgot the 'resident aliens', illegal immigrants, ...!

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf

This is why I have a problem with kids not having the right to vote and with retards getting off easy "because they don't know what they're doing." --Mark

retards? getting off easy "because they don't know what they're doing? You are unbelieveable.

 

[Nachtwolf]

The only thing unbelievable is your ignorance, Evo - although I'm rapidly becoming a believer!


http://www.laweekly.com/ink/02/32/features-catania2.php

The generally accepted definition of mental retardation is an intelligence quotient of around 70 or less, with significant limitations on adaptive skills, such as communication or caring for oneself. The high court's ruling last week barring the execution of the mentally retarded also requires the onset of such a condition by age 18.


http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Articles/Sharp_MR.htm

Currently, during pre-trial, trial and appeals, the law provides evaluation for mental competency -- and such an evaluation requires that the defendant understand the consequences of their actions, that they must be able to constructively participate in their own defense and that they understand the nature of their punishment. Furthermore, mental capability is one of the many issues that a jury might consider when establishing mitigation which may dictate a sentence less than death. Quite simply, only mentally competent capital murderers can face either execution or life in prison.


I'm sure we'd all love to see Evo explain to us how a convicted murderer who gets to dance away from his sentence on account of mental retardation isn't "getting off easy!"


--Mark

 

[Evo]

No you ignoramous, I was referring to your use of the word "retard" in reference to a person with a mental illness. What are you 10 years old?

You are too ignorant and uneducated to catch that!

Nachtwolf you are so stupid it is mind boggling.

 

[Nachtwolf]

Originally posted by Evo
No you ignoramous, I was referring to your use of the word "retard" in reference to a person with a mental illness. What are you 10 years old?

Hahahaha, am I not politically correct enough for you? Just for fun, let's think back - the word "retarded" is actually an old PC term. It was a way to talk about people who were previously called "idiots" or "morons" in a friendly, non-stigmatized way.

I'm sorry if you find the word "retard" offensive, although it's quite amusing that you'll defend the honor of the retarded and then immediately turn around and try to insult me by calling me the stupidest person you've ever seen.


--Mark

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Hahahaha, am I not politically correct enough for you? Just for fun, let's think back - the word "retarded" is actually an old PC term. It was a way to talk about people who were previously called "idiots" or "morons" in a friendly, non-stigmatized way.
--Mark

Actually the word "moron" originally was a medical classification used in psychology for people with mild mental retardation of a mental age between 7-12 years of age generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education. It's original use did not have the negative connotations currently associated with it.

The term "idiot" was originally a medical classification used in pyschology to describe a person with profound mental retardation, usually with a mental age below 3 years and generally unable to learn connected speech.

The term "retard" has always been used by uneducated people as a slur against people with mental handicaps.

So to be correct, I'd have to say you are a moron as opposed to an idiot, but I would never stoop to calling you a "retard".

 

[Nachtwolf]

The term "retard" has always been used by uneducated people as a slur against people with mental handicaps.

One of my good friends, Daniel, is gay. He refers to himself as a fag. The politeness police freak out when they hear this; it's incredible how emotionally unhinged some people are, isn't it?

So to be correct, I'd have to say you are a moron as opposed to an idiot, but I would never stoop to calling you a "retard".

Well, you can call me anything you like, but your hypersensetivity to the word "retard" doesn't change the fact that right now, retards can be convicted of heinous crimes and avoid the full penalty of the law. If you don't dispute that, then why are you even arguing? Because you personally are intolerant of certain words, and feel the need to burden others with your emotional baggage?


--Mark

 

[Nereid]

the shape of things to come

hitssquad wrote: According to the CIA World Factbook's figure of 604,111,719 netizens in the world, the United States has 27% of the world's netizen population.

... and making some possibly unwarranted extrapolations (using data from: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm),
- next year (2005) there will be more netizens in the EU than the US
- in 2007 there will be more in China than the US (so that Accenture (?) ad wasn't wrong!)

 

[Nachtwolf]

Hey, now you're thinking like a eugenist!

And I'd be surprised if 2007 rolled around and you turned out to be wrong.


--Mark

 

[hitssquad]

Originally posted by Nereid
- next year (2005) there will be more netizens in the EU than the US
- in 2007 there will be more in China than the US

That latter extrapolation is in keeping with Richard Lynn's prediction (from his book Eugenics: A Reassesment) that China -- because of its population's present characteristic IQ and because of its population's characteristic temperament which allows for state-controlled eugenics -- will soon become the world's sole superpower.

--
As China gains supremacy over Europe in economic, scientific, and military strength sometime in the second half of the twenty-first century, China can be expected to use its power to take control of the world and establish a world state.[/color]
--
(Richard Lynn. Eugenics: A Reassessment. Chapter 21, The Evolution of the Eugenic World State; Part 5, The Emergence of Chinese Global Supremacy; p314.)






-Chris

 

[Nereid]

Hmm, Let's see now, 1.2b > 0.3b, so China will become a bigger economy than the US when its per capita GDP is only ~25% as big (crudely). India, 1.1b > 0.3b; 1.1b ~1.2b, so India will reach the size of China (economically) only if their relative rates of economic growth cross over. Further, once there's (relatively) free trade, (relatively) free movement of capital, not too much corruption, at least a modestly capitalist economy, a decent system of universal public education, (etc), then the economic theory of comparative advantage is all you need to say that the Chinese economy will grow to be larger than the US'. And so will India's, but it might take another 10 more years.

No need for Lynn; Ricardo and Adam Smith are more than sufficient.

 

[hitssquad]

The world-generalizability of the g nexus

Originally posted by Nereid
once there's (relatively) free trade, (relatively) free movement of capital, not too much corruption, at least a modestly capitalist economy, a decent system of universal public education, (etc), then the economic theory of comparative advantage is all you need to say that the Chinese economy will grow to be larger than the US'. And so will India's,

Many arabic nations have all of these things, yet universally are economic failures, relying upon happenstance rentier rights, rather than upon creation of economic value, to feed themselves.

Ditto for many tropical resort nations.

These are the low-IQ outliers from the Lynn-Vanhanen regression trend line. They make far more money than their IQs alone would predict. But they also make far less money than their happenstance wealth would predict under the comparative advantage model. Norway is similarly blessed with oil as Saudi Arabia is, yet, unlike the latter's, Norway's economy is not dropping like a rock. The oil-wealth of Saudi Arabia is perhaps a curse which masked the viral infection of a corrupt gene pool afflicted with a tendency to express as a low-IQ, uneducable and unemployable populace that cannot even find employment for itself within its own national borders in the face of competition from higher-IQ foreign guest workers. These are Saudis with college degrees. Perhaps it is because Saudi employers -- in a nation of mentally-13-year-olds where everyone possesses a state-sponsored college degree -- know what a Saudi college degree is worth.

With an average IQ of 81, India will buck the trend and grow to be a more-powerful economy than the United States (with an average IQ of 98) is? How? The United States has plenty of people with low IQs, too. They systematically fail to contribute to the economy of the United States. Why would low-IQ people perform any differently in India?

As they softly speak magic spells rote memorized in a decent system of universal public education they will burn their cow dung into gold bars? In the words of Vandana Shiva,

--
In India we worship cow-dung as Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth. The famous festival of Gobur-dhan puja is literally the occasion to worship gobur (cow-dung) dhan (wealth).[/color]
--
http://www.google.com/search?q=india+"cow+dung"





-Chris

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
One thing is clear, however - there's no turning back. Now that the facts have been brought to light, we can't make them disappear. All we can do is try to steer this in a sensible direction as best we can.

--Mark

Just to be clear here, you're suggesting that those deemed less intelligent should not be allowed to breed?[edit:nevermind, just read the next thread.]

There are some major misconceptions in your post, specifically your comment re: voting, but I'll get to that later. That eugenics thing if I understand you correctly is very, very bad.

And I didn't see it, but has anyone mentioned the identical twins issue?

 

[hitssquad]

Originally posted by russ_watters
has anyone mentioned the identical twins issue?

What is the identical twins issue?





-Chris

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by hitssquad
Many arabic nations have all of these things, yet universally are economic failures, relying upon happenstance rentier rights, rather than upon creation of economic value, to feed themselves.

Ditto for many tropical resort nations.

These are the low-IQ outliers from the Lynn-Vanhanen regression trend line. They make far more money than their IQs alone would predict. But they also make far less money than their happenstance wealth would predict under the comparative advantage model. Norway is similarly blessed with oil as Saudi Arabia is, yet, unlike the latter's, Norway's economy is not dropping like a rock. The oil-wealth of Saudi Arabia is perhaps a curse which masked the viral infection of a corrupt gene pool afflicted with a tendency to express as a low-IQ, uneducable and unemployable populace that cannot even find employment for itself within its own national borders in the face of competition from higher-IQ foreign guest workers. These are Saudis with college degrees. Perhaps it is because Saudi employers -- in a nation of mentally-13-year-olds where everyone possesses a state-sponsored college degree -- know what a Saudi college degree is worth.

With an average IQ of 81, India will buck the trend and grow to be a more-powerful economy than the United States (with an average IQ of 98) is? How? The United States has plenty of people with low IQs, too. They systematically fail to contribute to the economy of the United States. Why would low-IQ people perform any differently in India?

As they softly speak magic spells rote memorized in a decent system of universal public education they will burn their cow dung into gold bars? In the words of Vandana Shiva,

--
In India we worship cow-dung as Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth. The famous festival of Gobur-dhan puja is literally the occasion to worship gobur (cow-dung) dhan (wealth).[/color]
--
http://www.google.com/search?q=india+"cow+dung"

(taking a deep breath ...)

Perhaps we should start a thread on economic development? It's taken quite a while - and some rigourous applications of statistics that would make even Jensen's hair curl - but there's a solid body of economic practice and theory that addresses your points.

In 15-second sound bites (yes, vastly over-simplified):

Many arabic nations: deliberately denying half the adult population the opportunity to participate meaningfully and fully in economic life?

Ditto for many tropical resort nations: small economies with very narrow bases -> no resilience against the inevitable shocks

*SNIP higher-IQ foreign guest workers (in Saudi)*SNAP; *SNIPWith an average IQ of 81, India will *SNIP: er, the guest workers come from India (and Pakistan, and ...)

The oil-wealth of Saudi Arabia is perhaps a curse which masked the viral infection of a corrupt gene pool *SNIP: make that "a corrupt elite" and it's generalisable; immense natural resource wealth is a curse, especially for a developing economy without strong democratic institutions

Democratic and 'free economy' institutions: these are more important than was realized in the 1950s, and take ~two decades to build if there are older traditions and institutions to work from; if not (e.g. a particularly nasty colonial legacy, as in the Congo; a war, as in VietNam), even longer

Women's lib: as above

Universal public education: literacy matters (and numeracy counts)

And above all else: free trade. This is the most powerful tool the US has used - as both carrot and stick. And it's still hugely important - ask the cotton farmers of west Africa why they can't make a living by exporting their high quality, competitively priced cotton to the world's largest market. One reason why the Chinese economy has been able to grow so well (and why the Indian economy will too) is that it's big enough to withstand shocks from trade with the US, and is big enough to be credible in negotiating with OECD countries.

Oh, and if L+V's work is badly flawed, what is the point of repeating what's in their book?

 

[Nachtwolf]

That eugenics thing if I understand you correctly is very, very bad.

I think you understand me correctly, but I also think your ability to use value judgments is underdeveloped. Let's be sure of the first point and then we'll tackle the second.

I shouldn't have to state that I'm opposed to genocide and involuntary sterilization. I am wary of genetic manipulation and don't promote it. I'm not a fan of totalitarian schemes of any sort. But I am especially in favor of voluntary eugenics such as free mate choice, genetic counselling, and personal decisions about how many children to have, and I am also in favor of certain low-key governmental programs such as socialized (free, widely and easily available) birth control, immigration reform, and public announcements.

Now that that's clear, let's look at your ability to use value judgments.

What in God's Green Earth is wrong with voluntarily deciding to have more or fewer children? What in blazes is "very, very bad" about giving people free birth control and letting them use it as they wish? What is so horrible about educating people on the subject of evolution? Are those "Truth" commercials which highlight the inherent dangers to smoking "very, very bad?"

Here's a better question, Russ - do you think that poverty, crime, illiteracy, illegitemacy, driving accidents, and workplace incompetence are "very, very bad?" And if so, what is your plan for decreasing these problems? If you think you have a better way to resolve these issues in a humane and cost effective manner, I'm sure we would all be very interested to hear what it is!


--Mark

 

[Nereid]

hitssqud wrote: That latter extrapolation is in keeping with Richard Lynn's prediction (from his book Eugenics: A Reassesment) that China -- because of its population's present characteristic IQ and because of its population's characteristic temperament which allows for state-controlled eugenics -- will soon become the world's sole superpower.
--
As China gains supremacy over Europe in economic, scientific, and military strength sometime in the second half of the twenty-first century, China can be expected to use its power to take control of the world and establish a world state.[/color]

You don't need any of this scary stuff, simple global free trade and an open economy (plus 1.2 billion people) will ensure that China gets bigger than the US economically (with India following a decade or two later).

The rest seems to me like what I understand psychologists call "projection" - it's what Lynn would do if he were Hu Jintao's successor.

A more detailed study of Chinese culture might lead a different scholar to a very different conclusion.

 

[Nereid]

Nachtwolf wrote: But I am especially in favor of voluntary eugenics such as free mate choice, genetic counselling, and personal decisions about how many children to have, and I am also in favor of certain low-key governmental programs such as socialized (free, widely and easily available) birth control, immigration reform, and public announcements.

Didn't I see that you also thought removal of all 'hate laws' would be a good idea, ditto a return to segregated schools (in the US), banning all conjugal visits to prisoners (or was it only blacks?), significant welfare reform, and (I'm not so sure of this) redistribution of spending on public education, away from schools for poor blacks to rich whites?

 

[hitssquad]

Geographical restrictions on the expression of the g nexus

Originally posted by Nereid
You don't need

...the g nexus?...

simple global free trade and an open economy (plus 1.2 billion people) will ensure that China gets bigger than the US economically (with India following a decade or two later).

Assuming that the g nexus is operable in the United States, why would it not be operable in the rest of the world?

China's genetically characteristic high IQ, and India's genetically characteristic IQ terminating at below the mental age of the average 13 year old British child, do not effect the respective probabilities for China's and India's respective economic outcomes? Yet IQ does effect relative outcome between American cities and American states? How could this be?





-Chris

 

[Nereid]

hitssquad wrote:
China's genetically characteristic high IQ, and India's genetically characteristic IQ terminating at below the mental age of the average 13 year old British child, do not effect [sic; I think hitssquad means 'affect'] the respective probabilities for China's and India's respective economic outcomes? Yet IQ does effect [sic; harder to say; both 'affect' and 'effect' could be what hitssquad means] relative outcome between American cities and American states? How could this be?

Well, for a start, I don't think it's been established what the 'genetically characteristic IQ' of either economy is.

First, there's still an open 'Stats-101' question about the data Lynn and Vanhanen used - and the conclusion they reached - re 'China' and the dominant population group (Han Chinese).

Then, for me at least, a set of open questions on L+V's methods.

Third, the Wipro reality check (see the other thread) - I understand Wipro is not a sport, nor managed by white Americans (and certainly not by Han Chinese!); there're a rather a lot of Indian software companies, producing absolutely world-class products. (But then, maybe 13 year old British kids are pretty good hackers? Well, last time I looked, the Indians among them certainly could be ).

Fourth, my toy research - city living all but guarrantees smarts.

hitssquad wrote: Assuming that the g nexus is operable in the United States, why would it not be operable in the rest of the world?

This is a really good question . I've got some ideas; ttul.

 

[hitssquad]

Does living in a wealthy country force expression of high IQs

Originally posted by Nereid
city living all but guarrantees smarts.

Then we are left with the questions of why:


1. within the United States, heritability of IQ has been found to be high.

2. children rescued from adversity, both moderate and severe, tend to fall into a normal distribution of IQs.
http://www.google.com/search?q="children+rescued+from+adversity"

3. Chinese have high IQs despite China's poor environment (Chinese heat their homes with coal buring inside the home; much of the population lacks an education, viz literacy is only at 86%).

4. wealthy, urbanized oil and resort nations have low IQs.





-Chris

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by hitssquad
Then we are left with the questions of why:

1. within the United States, heritability of IQ has been found to be high.

2. children rescued from adversity, both moderate and severe, tend to fall into a normal distribution of IQs.
http://www.google.com/search?q="children+rescued+from+adversity"

3. Chinese have high IQs despite China's poor environment (Chinese heat their homes with coal buring inside the home; much of the population lacks an education, viz literacy is only at 86%).

4. wealthy, urbanized oil and resort nations have low IQs.

These are, of course, very good questions.

However, the second two require us to first have to hand good data on the IQs of many, many groups of people in many countries. Such data may exist; however, it's not to be found in Lynn and Vanhanen's " Intelligence and the Wealth and Poverty of Nations".

Let's do some toy research anyway. Let's take L+V's "National IQ" for rich North American (Canada, US), European (Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, UK), and Asia-Pacific economies (Australia, Hong Kong, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore). I've already established, using L+V's reported data, that there's no correlation between National IQ and 1998 real per capita GDP ('wealth' for shorthand).

What about wealth and urbanisation? No correlation.

How about National IQ and urbanisation?
~57% correlation!

Of course, this is toy research, and almost all the correlation is accounted for by two data points - Ireland (IQ 87, urbanisation 6) and Portugal (91, 5.8); Finland (the other low urbanisation nation (also 6) has the same IQ as the US (98), is the outlier (must be all those Lapps ... oops! Lapps are closest to SE Indians genetically, and nearest Indians on the PC plane ... and they have IQs of ... er, oh dear)

 

[Nereid]

why the g-nexus may not be generalisable

hitssquad wrote: Assuming that the g nexus is operable in the United States, why would it not be operable in the rest of the world?

First thing to make very clear: if we're doing science, we can't assume it operates outside the region it has been shown to work*, we have to do the hard work to demonstrate clearly and unambiguously that it does.

Let's start with g. Is it tied to biology?[/color] No. As quite a number of the threads here (http://psycprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00000699/ ) make clear, a) g is an operational construct (briefly "g measures the ability to do well at tests"), not a theoretical one (e.g. within Pinker's neuroplastic theory of meta-linguistic ability, g is an outcome of hyper-language fixation - that's not real, I made it up); and b) research results showing a biological link are far from being well-established. This means that, short of doing the same extensive research that Jensen et al did in the US in every other region of the world, we have no basis for thinking a generalisation will be true (equally, none for thinking it would not).

Is g 40 to 80% hereditable?[/color] Among US 'blacks' and 'whites', it may be*; among some samples of folk in 50's and 60's England (and Wales?), it may be. However, without unequivocal identification of 'g genes' or detailed studies into g's hereditability in the thousands of ethnic groups throughout the world, it's an open question.

Next, the g-nexus.
Criminals[/color]. A study of the g-nexus in China in 1959 would likely have shown a high correlation between prisoners and g ... the smarter folk were disproportionately represented within the prison population. The same may be true in Cuba today. Of course we immediately dismiss this as a serious counter to the g-nexus; but what not-so-obvious variations of this might be at work? What's the g profile of the ~600 people in Guantanamo Bay? The inmates of the Woomera Detention Centre?

SES (social and economic success)[/color]. In many countries of the world, we can be very, very certain of the primary factor in SES - gender. If you're a woman in many (most? all?) of the Middle East nations, your g plays no significant part in your SES. The same is undoubtedly true in Lynn's poster children - Japan and S Korea. In many other countries, other factors are clearly important if not necessarily of primary importance - caste (e.g. India), physical strength (e.g. rural areas in developing countries), general disease resistance (ditto), birthplace (e.g. China; under the hukou system, if you're born in 'the countryside', you can't go live in a city; the good news is that this is breaking down).

What else? IMHO, it's probably worth looking at language (e.g. tonal vs atonal), writing (e.g. ideographic vs phonemic), family traditions (e.g. behaviours and values exhibited in early childhood), behaviour of mothers in early childhood, and birth order and spacing (didn't I read that the US decline in average SAT scores was laid at the feet of younger siblings?).

*Note: I'm not saying that it does/is; I'm merely examining the logical consistency.

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Because you personally are intolerant of certain words, and feel the need to burden others with your emotional baggage?


--Mark

You are making incorrect assumptions. I am not offended. I was merely pointing out your obvious lack of intellect.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Nereid,

g is an operational construct (briefly "g measures the ability to do well at tests"),

is an inaccurate way to characterize g. "A systematic propensity to do better on some test questions than others, found to persist across individuals and populations in the US and Britain" would be better, and not weaken your argument.

Secondly your insistance (made in several different ways in several posts) that US and British evidence tells us nothing about non-anglo populations or selected subgroups, is a little weak. In science we do make "uniformitarian" assumptions, sometimes quite strongly. We assume physics is the same in the solar system as in the remote galaxies, for example. I am quite sensitive to your points about Chinese prisoners, hypothetical Cuban prisoners, and Guantanamo detainees, and I think they would make interesting case studies, but can't believe any consequence of those studies would much affect the broad populational results which have been developed.

 

[Nereid]

SelfAdjoint wrote: Secondly your insistance (made in several different ways in several posts) that US and British evidence tells us nothing about non-anglo populations or selected subgroups, is a little weak. In science we do make "uniformitarian" assumptions, sometimes quite strongly. We assume physics is the same in the solar system as in the remote galaxies, for example. I am quite sensitive to your points about Chinese prisoners, hypothetical Cuban prisoners, and Guantanamo detainees, and I think they would make interesting case studies, but can't believe any consequence of those studies would much affect the broad populational results which have been developed.

Some time ago, back in Physics (or was it Astronomy and Cosmology) I started a discussion on just the question of 'how do we know that the physics we do in our labs here is the same as that in remote galaxies'. The point is that we *don't* assume it's the same, we are continually doing experiments and making observations to be sure that it is (as much as anything can be sure of anything in science). For example, there's a lively debate about whether the speed of light is constant, and has always been constant (the question is far better addressed through the fine structure constant than c).

When it comes to g, which has no theoretical basis (unlike what we do in physics, mostly) and no biological links, it seems to me that generalisation should be demonstrated, concretely, step-by-step.

However, the more important limitation is on the g-nexus; the g factor's importance (going up) in explaining/accounting for/predicting/etc SES, criminality, child abuse by welfare Moms, the wealth and poverty of nations, ... (and going down), its hereditability etc.

Finally, there's the 'race' component in the g-nexus. As is discussed on another thread, Jensen's work was built on a concept of race that is clearly peculiar to the US (and highly unlikely to be generalisable in any meaningful sense) - self-reporting, and only two 'races' studied ("Black" and "White").

 

[selfAdjoint]

The present situation in astrophysics and cosmology is dependent up many recent breakthroughs in technologies, such as observation from satellites. Back when Einstein was in his prime, or even Feynman (which I remember well), these things that are now discussed in falsifiable manner were simply assumed to be so, and the reason given was uniformaitarianism. Some day g will be tested in all the venues you desire and more, but till then it is still a valid construct.

On the black and white issue, you say his evidence was collected on the basis of race. In fact it was collected on the basis of self identification in one of two long standing little interbreeding (at that time) populations in the US. He may have used the word race but nothing in his work depended on any of the racial beliefs of the time. The differential sociology of these populations was and is a large study, and he had data on the different social and econmoc classes within the two populations.

 

[Nereid]

SelfAdjoint: Back when Einstein was in his prime, or even Feynman (which I remember well), these things that are now discussed in falsifiable manner were simply assumed to be so, and the reason given was uniformaitarianism.

This is very interesting, and well worth a good discussion in Astronomy & Cosmology. For now I merely note that helium was discovered in the spectrum of the Sun 25 years before it was found on Earth, and that Dirac's prediction of the positron was followed 4 years later by Anderson's discovery ... in cosmic rays.

SelfAdjoint: Some day g will be tested in all the venues ...

It may be that g is relatively unexceptional; what I am more concerned about is the baggage it has accumulated - the g-nexus - g and race, g and crime, g and SES, g and national wealth and poverty ...

SelfAdjoint: On the black and white issue, you say his [Jensen's] evidence was collected on the basis of race. In fact it was collected on the basis of self identification in one of two long standing little interbreeding (at that time) populations in the US. He may have used the word race but nothing in his work depended on any of the racial beliefs of the time. The differential sociology of these populations was and is a large study, and he had data on the different social and econmoc classes within the two populations.

It would seem that Jensen himself studiously avoided the term 'intelligence', feeling that it was too overloaded with different meanings and associations. Curiously, he seems to not have had the same qualms with 'race', where self-identification hardly constitutes a reliable basis (except perhaps as a social group), where the biology of period was unequivocal as to its unreliability, and where there was ample evidence of the historical extent of interbreeding and the contemporaneous trends (the US Census Bureau's data was publicly available, and the trends hard to miss).

To reinforce this last point, perhaps someone au fait with population statistics could tell us quickly what degree of gene mixing we could expect among two groups:
A: breeds within its group and with group B; all progency considered to be group A, 10% of all breeding is inter-group
B: breeds within its group and with group A; 5% of all breeding is inter-group, all inter-group progency considered to be group A.

Caveat: these comments apply more to the period from 1980 than post-World War II to 1980. However, "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" is a 1967 film (not that Hollywood should be considered serious science!)

 

[hitssquad]

Interbreeding and its discontents

Originally posted by Nereid
It would seem that Jensen himself studiously avoided the term 'intelligence', feeling that it was too overloaded with different meanings and associations. Curiously, he seems to not have had the same qualms with 'race', where self-identification hardly constitutes a reliable basis,

As far as a statistical viewpoint is concerned, statistical methods quantify reliability. Statistical methods applied to instances of self-identification of racial categories return quantifications of reliability in those instances.

Unreliability in an instance of racial self-identification would imply, over the lifetimes of a substantial portion of individuals in the populations under study, systematic inconsistency in the answering of the institutionally-posed race-category question. E.g., a given unreliably-self-identifying individual may claim to be black one year, white the next, then asian, then American Indian, etc.

where the biology of period was unequivocal as to its unreliability,

Lack of discrete knowledge of the inner workings of biology is noticably unreliable in its hindering of the reaching of reliable and valid conclusions.

and where there was ample evidence of the historical extent of interbreeding

Interbreeding is one of the modes of race generation and is consistent with the realities of statistically-defined sets. It does not conflict with race or racial categorization.


--
a race is one of a number of statistically distinguishable groups in which individual membership is not mutually exclusive by any single criterion, and individuals in a given group differ only statistically from one another and from the group's central tendency on each of the many imperfectly correlated genetic characteristics that distinguish between groups as such. The important point is that the average difference on all of these characteristics that differ among individuals within the group is less than the average difference between the groups on these genetic characteristics. [/color]
--
(The g Factor. p425)
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874

and the contemporaneous trends (the US Census Bureau's data was publicly available, and the trends hard to miss).

What contemporaneous trends are referred to here?

what degree of gene mixing we could expect among two groups:
A: breeds within its group and with group B; all progency considered to be group A, 10% of all breeding is inter-group
B: breeds within its group and with group A; 5% of all breeding is inter-group, all inter-group progency considered to be group A.

In the first instance, group A's progeny end up bearing an average of 5% of group B's markers.

In the second instance, group A's progeny end up bearing an average of 2.5% of group B's markers.





-Chris

 

[Nereid]

hitssquad: Unreliability in an instance of racial self-identification would imply, over the lifetimes of a substantial portion of individuals in the populations under study, systematic inconsistency in the answering of the institutionally-posed race-category question. E.g., a given unreliably-self-identifying individual may claim to be black one year, white the next, then asian, then American Indian, etc.

Well there's some indication that precisely that may be happening: 2.4% of respondents in the 2000 Census gave 'more than one race' as their race (the first time this was allowed); the 'other race' category rose from 0.3% in the 1970 census to 5.5% (more if you count the 'more than one race' responses) in 2000. Of course, without access to the individual records, there would appear no way to tell, from the Census data, how many folk changed their 'race' between censuses.

hitssquad: Lack of discrete knowledge of the inner workings of biology is noticably unreliable in its hindering of the reaching of reliable and valid conclusions.

Translation: not knowing how the biology works can sometimes mean your conclusions are unreliable and invalid, other times it doesn't seem to matter; before you find out the biological mechanisms you cannot be sure which it will be. Yes/No/Other?

hitssquad: Interbreeding is one of the modes of race generation and is consistent with the realities of statistically-defined sets. It does not conflict with race or racial categorization.

There are at least two important caveats: if there are factors which vary continuously (or nearly so) across the whole population, the distributions about the means of each subset are unlikely to be Gaussian, and you should be able to recover the continuous distribution from statistical analysis. What does Jensen have to say on these points?

hitssquad: What contemporaneous trends are referred to here?

Inter-racial marriage. AFAIK, laws against black-white marriage (or all inter-racial marriage?) were declared unconstitutional in the US only in 1967; Census Bureau data shows a) a fairly swift rise in black-white marriages, at least from 1970, and b) >8 white-black marriages for every 100 black-black marriage (in 2002).

hitssquad: In the first instance, group A's progeny end up bearing an average of 5% of group B's markers.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant, given reasonable assumptions, how quickly would virtually all members of Group A have at least one Group B ancestor? My small envelope says as few as 4 generations.

 

[Nereid]

Racial admixture study in Germany - no IQ/race relationship?

From http://psycprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00000692/ :

"... Jensen dismisses data from a racial admixture study in Germany which found no significant or consistent differences in IQ with race, because parental IQ was unknown, and because white and black fathers were not randomly sampled, two faults shared with the Minnesota adoption study. The absence of differences in the German study is also consistent with a maternal effects hypothesis, since the mothers were all white."

What is the German study?

What studies have been done into the material effects hypothesis?

 

[Nachtwolf]

Originally posted by Nereid
What is the German study?

Now here's a great question.

The German study was a done on the bastard children of American WWII officers and German woman, and Jensen doesn't dismiss it for those reasons you quoted alone.

Referring to his book, The g Factor, I note that the study was done in 1959 on almost 400 children, 194 white and 193 mixed race children. The IQs are as follows:

White Boys: 101 IQ
White Girls: 93 IQ
Mixed Boys: 97 IQ
Mixed Girls: 96 IQ

As you can see, there is no important difference in the averages between the White and Mixed groups. Here are the objections he presents on page 483 of The g Factor, summarized:

1. The fathers were not representative of their respective populations, "since 30 percent of blacks, as compared with about 3 percent of whites, failed the preinduction mental test and were not admitted into the armed services." (In other words, the blacks had a higher-than-average IQ, probably closer to 95 than 85.)

2. Nothing is known about the army rank of the fathers. (This strikes me as mere quibbling.)

3. The children were tested before adolescence, which is before the genotypic aspect of IQ has become fully manifested.

4. Heterosis (or hybrid vigor) probably enhanced the IQ of these first generation mixed race children. (Heterosis has in other instances been seen to raise IQ scores by 2 to 4 points.)


In other words, Jensen's Default Hypothesis would predict, using the information we have at our disposal, an IQ gap on the order of 1 IQ point, while the environmental hypothesis would predict an IQ gap of 0 IQ points. These two predictions are so close that the test is unable to vindicate one and falsify the other and was, essentially, a waste of time.

What studies have been done into the material effects hypothesis?

This is a good question, and I cannot answer it. Chris might be able to, however.

You are making incorrect assumptions. I am not offended. I was merely pointing out your obvious lack of intellect.

Hello Evo. Please explain, in fifty thousand words or less, how my refusal to bow before idiotic standards of political correctness which are quite mindlessly embraced by sheeple such as yourself marks me as an individual with a "lack of intellect."

When considering your answer, Evo, pay careful attention to these objective test results:

This report compares Mark W. Henshaw from the country USA to other men between 21 and 40 years of age.

...

..Intellect...87 (Out of 100)

Intellect and artistic interests are the two most important, central aspects of openness to experience. High scorers on Intellect love to play with ideas. They are open-minded to new and unusual ideas, and like to debate intellectual issues. They enjoy riddles, puzzles, and brain teasers. Low scorers on Intellect prefer dealing with either people or things rather than ideas. They regard intellectual exercises as a waste of time. Intellect should not be equated with intelligence. Intellect is an intellectual style, not an intellectual ability, although high scorers on Intellect score slightly higher than low-Intellect individuals on standardized intelligence tests. Your level of intellect is high.


--Mark

 

[Nereid]

Minnesota yes, Germany no?

Do you have a reference to the German study Nachtwolf?

Would you care to counterpose the Minnesota transracial adoption study with the German study?

Here's a quote from the same source as my previous quote; you may wish to consider this as your draw up the comparison table:

"Jensen's "default hypothesis" is that differences in white and black IQ scores are made up of genetic and environmental effects and that environmental effects are often small relative to genetic effects (e.g. pp. 177-175, 475, 476, 489). These conclusions seem best supported by estimates of heritability [...] and from the Minnesota transracial adoption study. This adoption study has several flaws. Maternal effects were not considered as a serious possibility for the lower IQ of blacks relative to whites. The IQ of parents of adopted children was unknown. The mean age of adopted infants also differed between treatment groups. And most fundamentally, the parents of children were not selected randomly from the population. Infants of parents of varying socioeconomic status and race might give children up for adoption, or have them taken into care, for very different reasons.[/color]"

 

[hitssquad]

Originally posted by Nereid
Do you have a reference to the German study Nachtwolf?

Sprechen Sie Deutsch, Nereid?



--
Black-White Hybrids in Post-World War II Germany. We saw in the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study that the interracial (BW) adoptees, whose biological fathers were black and whose biological mothers were white, averaged lower in IQ than the adoptees who had two white parents (WW). (See Table 12.5 , p. 474.) This finding appears to be at odds with the study conducted by Eyferth [^{68}] in Germany following World War II, which found no difference between offspring of BW and WW matings who were reared by their biological mothers. All of the fathers (black or white) were members of the U.S. occupation forces stationed in Germany. The mothers were unmarried German women, mostly of low SES. There were about ninety-eight interracial (BW) children and about eighty-three white children (WW). The mothers of the BW and WW children were approximately matched for SES. The children averaged about 10 years of age, ranging between ages 5 and 13 years. They all were tested with the German version of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC). The results are shown in Table 12.6. The overall WW-BW difference is only one IQ point. As there is no basis for expecting a difference between boys and girls (whose average IQs are equal in the WISC standardization sample), the eight-point difference between the WW boys and WW girls in this study is most likely due to sampling error. But sampling error does not only result in sample differences that are larger than the corresponding population difference; it can also result in sample differences that are smaller than the population difference, and this could be the case for the overall mean WW-BW difference.

This study, although consistent with a purely environmental hypothesis of the racial difference in test scores, is not conclusive, however, because the IQs of the probands' mothers and fathers' were unknown and the white and black fathers were not equally representative of their respective populations, since about 30 percent of blacks, as compared with about 3 percent of whites, failed the preinduction mental test and were not admitted into the armed services. Further, nothing was known about the Army rank of the black or white fathers of the illegitimate offspring; they could have been more similar in IQ than the average black or white in the occupation forces because of selective preferences on the part of the German women with whom they had sexual relations. Then, too, nearly all of the children were tested before adolescence, which is before the genotypic aspect of IQ has become fully manifested. Generally in adoption studies, the correlation of IQ and genotype increases between childhood and late adolescence, while the correlation between IQ and environment decreases markedly. (The respective correlations are the square roots of the heritability, \sqrt{H^2}\\, and of the environmentality, \sqrt{1-H^2} = \sqrt{E^2}\\.) Finally, heterosis (the outbreeding effect; see Chapter 7, p. 196) probably enhanced the IQ level of the interracial children, thereby diminishing the IQ difference between the interracial children and the white children born to German women. A heterotic effect equivalent to about +4 IQ points was reported for European-Asian interracial offspring in Hawaii. ^{69} [/color]
--
The g Factor. pp482-483.
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874



--
68. Eyferth, 1959, 1961; Eyferth et al., 1960. This study is described in some detail by Loehlin et al., 1975. Flynn (1980, pp. 219-261) offers a quite detailed summary and analysis of the study in support of his view that it probably constitutes the strongest of what he terms "direct" evidence against the hypothesis that the mean W-B IQ difference has a substantial genetic component.

69. Nagoshi & Johnson (1986) reported g factor scores averaging .26\sigma\\ higher for interracial European-Asian offspring than for the offspring of same-race parents who were matched with the interracial parents in education and SES. Heterosis was greater on the more highly g-loaded tests; the vector of heterotic effects on fifteen tests correlated +.44 (p = .10) with the vector of the tests' g loadings. [/color]
--
Ibid. pp526-527.
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874




Eyferth K. (1959). Eine Untersuchung der Neger-Mischlingskinder in Westdeutschland. Vita Humana, 2, 102-114.

Eyferth K. (1961). Leistungen verschiedener Gruppen von Besatzungskindern in Hamburg-Wechsler Intelligenztest für Kinder (HAWIK). Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie, 113, 222-241.

Eyferth K., Brandt U. & Hawel W. Farbige Kinder in Deutschland. München: Juventa Verlag.

Flynn J. R. (1980). Race, IQ and Jensen. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Loehlin J. C., Lindzey G. & Spuhler J. N. (1975). Race differences in intelligence. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Nagoshi C. T. & Johnson R. C. (1986). The ubiquity of g. Personality and Individual Differences, 7, 201-208.



(References are quoted from The g Factor. The g Factor omitted the date from the Eyferth et al. reference. Footnote 68, above, implies it should be 1960.)


Nachtwolf already reproduced the IQ data from Table 12.6 Mean WISC IQ of Black Interracial Children (BW) and of White Children (WW) of German Mothers. Here it is again, for convenience:


White Boys: 101 IQ
White Girls: 93 IQ
Mixed Boys: 97 IQ
Mixed Girls: 96 IQ[/color]



[Edit: added a parenthesis and corrected a page number citation] [/color]


-Chris

 

[Nachtwolf]

Would you care to counterpose the Minnesota transracial adoption study with the German study?

Try reading this and see what you think.
http://euvolution.com/articles/shockley.html


--Mark

 

[Nachtwolf]

To give a more specific analysis:

This adoption study has several flaws.

Certainly. Scarr & Weinberg admit that no study is perfect.

Maternal effects were not considered as a serious possibility for the lower IQ of blacks relative to whites.

Maybe not.

The IQ of parents of adopted children was unknown.

Indeed.

The mean age of adopted infants also differed between treatment groups.

Just so.

And most fundamentally, the parents of children were not selected randomly from the population. Infants of parents of varying socioeconomic status and race might give children up for adoption, or have them taken into care, for very different reasons.

Quite true.

But:

We don't know whether maternal effects were involved - they are a "possibility."

We don't know whether the parents were unusually high or low for IQ - their IQs are "unknown."

We don't know what effect, if any, the (unspecified) mean age difference would have had.

We don't know whether it's true that parents give up kids for different reasons, only that they "might." And we don't know whether this could have any effect - we're just expected to assume that it could.

But Jensen brings up real, solid points which mitigate the results and interpretation of the German study:

The black fathers of the German kids were smarter than average. This isn't a possibility - it's what we know.

Heterosis probably boosted the IQ scores - this isn't just a guess; you can see heterosis showing up in Scarr & Weinberg's study, too.

And there were no fully black kids for comparison, just half-black children - there's no speculation about this, as they all had white mothers.

So while there's room for doubt, and probably good reason to do a better follow-up study, the mitigating points brought up to explain the Scarr & Weinberg study are generally... well... vaporous, while the mitigating points brought up against the German Study have some actual substance to them.


--Mark