Why do people cling so tightly to racism?

[Nachtwolf]

Hi Pot, I'm Kettle. Nice to meet you.

I'm a Seeker, Russ. Since you're ignorant of Millennium, and too lazy to check the website I devoted to that wonderful religion, you may not know that it revolves around three tenets:

1. Self Doubt
2. Objectivity
3. Reason

I glanced at the above which you wrote, and at Evo's comment underneath it, and thought, "I should remember Self Doubt here. I'm not always right. It looks like I did something wrong." I was ready to apologize; I was thinking about how I should phrase it. Meanwhile I sat down. And I clicked, and clicked, and clicked. And I looked through the thread and scanned through the posts I'd been ignoring to make sure I knew what this "pot to kettle" thing was in reference to. Two possibilities emerge.

Possibility 1:

From Ho et. al. (1988) "Covariation Between Intelligence and speed of Cognitive processing. Genetic and environmental influences" (Published in Behavioral Genetics, 18, page 247-261.)

White Males (413)... Brain Weight: 1392g... Brain Weight Ht.Adjusted: 1392g

Black Males (228)... Brain Weight: 1286g... Brain Weight Ht.Adjusted: 1290g

Note where I supplied a date, title, and place of publication so that anyone who wished could look it up. Note also where I supplied a white male size, and a black male size, for comparison. What did I complain about, Russ? Maybe the extremely old date on Evo's source, the lack of a comparison group to give the data she supplied some relative meaning, the lack of a title and place of publication, and my inability to look it up.

(Note to Evo: I didn't find my source through Ruston's work; I found it through Jensen's The g Factor, so of course, I didn't have a URL, did I? I gave you the source information I had, and it was plenty.)


Possibility 2:

"Other people dismiss your studies, and now you're dismissing Evo's!"

Yeah. Because it had no reference group so there's no brain size disparity, just a mean value, because there was no title so I wasn't even be sure this study existed, and because it's over a hundred years old! What do you want me to say? "Oh my God, this totally refutes all the myriad studies which are more recent and use better methods like MRI!" I thanked Evo for providing it, and she should be happy with that, because it is, honestly, pathetic.

"The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others."

I could tell you that this doesn't show up in my dictionary, but this is more to the point - which race do I think is superior to others, Russ? American Blacks, with their high ratio of fast twitch to short twitch muscle fiber, high bone density, and high T-levels, which grant them a powerful edge throughout the entire sporting arena? East Asians, with their excellent Visuospatial ability which lends them skill in the sciences? Jews, perhaps, with the best apparent verbal ability on the planet and high earning power? Or whites, with their noteworthy Field Independence? Read your own definition and understand my positions before b****ing to me about me being a racist - I don't believe in the superiority of anyone race, so no, I'm not a racist even by your definition of the word, am I?

Then clarify it. Simplify. Boil it down. HOW EXACTLY do you plan/hope to achieve this?

If you really cared about my intentions and beliefs, you could have figured them out without too much trouble by dropping by the website I run. If you check the section labeled "strategies" under http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/eugenics.htm , you'll see these things listed:

Socialized Birth Control
Voluntary Measures
Welfare Reform
Prison Reform
Immigration Reform
Research

You'll also note that I say this:

Many people have simplistic ideas about what eugenics ultimately boils down to. The two main methods for affecting eugenic change which come to mind when you mention the word "eugenics" to someone is either mass sterilization or genetic manipulation, neither of which are seriously spoken of amongst modern eugenists regardless of religious or political affiliation.

You people oppose, and oppose, and oppose, and it's all one giant straw man. Nereid at least understands whom she's arguing against. She bores me to tears but she has a clue what this is about. Did it ever even occur to you, Russ (or Zero), as I was busily telling you that you weren't getting it, that you weren't getting it?

Nachtwolf repeatedly ignored questions, said he was too busy to address manifest inconsistencies in his assertions

I'm not trying to bust your chops here, Nereid, but you keep picking at this, and I keep telling you that I don't care about your trivial points. I'm sorry if you feel left out or disappointed or irritated or whatever because I don't reply. Sometimes you say things that I think are interesting or at least worth a rebuttal; most of the time, it's a waste. See what I just did for Russ? Those points he raised were trivial, and my responding to them was ultimately a waste of my time.

So let me be crystal clear for you, and Russ, and Evo, and everybody else in the Nachtwolf Fan Club over here: If I don't reply to your posts, or if I seem like I'm dismissive of or unaffected by your comments, it's because they're lame, and I have better things to do than assuage your ego and make you feel as though your concerns are valid when they aren't.

Let this be a blanket explanation which serves the next time I don't respond to your posts or don't rush to explain my position. You people can continue to heckle and harass me with these stupid charges of racism and these inept mischaracterizations of my goals and philosophy; just don't expect me to act horrified and struggle to defend myself. I don't want to be needlessly harsh, here, but I'm not responsible for what you believe, and I can't be blamed for your misunderstanding my ideas. If you really are that interested in eugenics, you can always do what Nereid has, and go to the Millennium website, where you will learn more than you ever wanted to about what I think. And if you decide after reading it that I'm even more horrible than you ever imagined, that's fine; just please don't ask me to explain this again, because I'm juggling hot babes and tough classes and just don't have the energy.


--Mark


P.S. Adam: I'd have liked to discuss further your apparent promotion of genetic tinkering, which as I've said is unusual for eugenists and which I'm not really for, but it'll have to wait. Also, it's good to see that you understand that race and eugenics aren't linked. I can appreciate that you think the entire subject of race is dodgy; you may be surprised to learn that I used to try to avoid the subject of race entirely, but everywhere I went, the Ad Hominem Nazi/racist connections just poured down, so I realized that I couldn't run away from them. If you can avoid race, while still standing up for your apparently eugenic sentiments, more power to you, and good luck.

 

[Nereid]

Nereid: Nachtwolf repeatedly ignored questions, said he was too busy to address manifest inconsistencies in his assertions
Nachtwolf: I'm not trying to bust your chops here, Nereid, but you keep picking at this, and I keep telling you that I don't care about your trivial points.

Some questions which Nachtwolf didn't answer seem to go right to heart of his case:

1) In Singapore, the government, concerned that high IQ professionals seemed to be having few children (or not even marrying), while low IQ folk were having plenty, instituted a program that seems quite similar to what Nachtwolf is advocating. The program failed. Nachtwolf considers this - one of the few (only?) programs directed at addressing what he states as his key concern - a 'trivial' point?

2) Nachtwolf, unlike Lynn or hitssquad, seems to believe that environmental changes cannot affect IQ to any significant extent; he also believes that population groups (which he incorrectly calls 'races') have fixed average IQ. As support for these beliefs he cites the Lynn and Vanhanen study (among others). Leaving aside the fact that L+V's work is deeply flawed and that their stated conclusion quite unsupported by even the data they supply, L+V contains ample material which contradicts Natchwolf's beliefs. Strange that he feels these contradictions 'trivial'.

3) Nachtwolf listed 6 'facts' of 'grim importance' and asserted that his proposed eugenics program would remedy them. Upon closer examination, it turns out that one 'fact' is simply Nachtwolf's prediction, one is a misstatement of Lynn and Vanhanen's conclusion (which is inconsistent with the data they themselves use!), and the remaining four would remain 'facts of grim importance' even if Nachtwolf's eugenics program were to raise the average IQ in the US by 40 points. Trivial?

Here's what really puzzles me: as measured by those who post to the 'IQ threads', Natchwolf has failed to win any hearts and minds (which he needs to do if he is to win support for his cherished program - hearts and minds in general, not just on PF). I don't know about those who read these posts but don't make posts of their own. So why is Nachtwolf still here? Is he - in a different community, on a different webforum, in a different way - using the material posted here for an entirely different purpose?

 

[Zero]

I'm still trying to figure out how ANY of this isn't racist neo-Nazi propaganda. The studies are deeply flawed, it has been shown that the financial supporters of the studies had ulterior motives, and general support of nonsense.

Further, the whole thing seems to rest on two factors: inherent racism and false nonconformist thinking. There is no rational thinking associated with eugenics(look at how Nachtwolf seems to thing that crainal size is the be-all end-all of intelligence), nor is there any independent thinking. Real science rejects eugenics, because it is nonsense, based on an objective look at the evidence. On teh eugenics side is a series of studies that are deeply skewed by researcher bias.

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf I'm a Seeker, Russ. Since you're ignorant of Millennium, and too lazy to check the website I devoted to that wonderful religion, you may not know that it revolves around three tenets:

1. Self Doubt
2. Objectivity
3. Reason

I have been to Nachtwolf's website. These links are recommended there:

• Race as a Biological Concept
• Race, Genetics, and Human Reproductive Strategies
• On the biological meaning of race
• Race Differences in Intelligence: a Global Perspective
• Does Race Matter - Recent Developments
• The Reality of Race - A Summary of John R. Baker's book: "Race"
• Virtue in "Racism"
• Race, Evolution, and Behavior Summary - by Glayde Whitney
• Race, Evolution, and Behavior Summary - by Mark Snyderman

Nachtwolf is always citing the biased and distorted research of Rushton, as in the brain size studies he posted in this thread. Rushton is a known racist and Rushton is plastered all over Nachtwolf's website.

I posted part of this in another thread, but it actually is more appropriate in this thread, so forgive me for posting it again if you have already seen it.

Rushton receives a lot of financial backing from the Pioneer Fund.

Here is an excerpt from the article discussing Rushton.

"But the fund has also given more than $500,000 to Phillipe Rushton, a Canadian professor who asserts that brain size and intelligence are greater in Asians than whites, who in turn have larger brains and more intelligence than blacks. He also argues that penis size shows a similar, but reverse, correlation, and claims that the larger penises of blacks is an indication of greater promiscuity--a conclusion he based on interviewing 50 black students at the university where he teaches--and proof that blacks are less evolved. In 1989, police investigated Rushton under Canadian hate-propaganda laws but did not charge him."

Here is the information on the Pioneer Fund.

One of those testifying on behalf of lowering immigration levels was a man named Harry Hamilton Laughlin. An advocate of eugenics--a philosophy, then growing in popularity, which seeks to improve the human race through selective breeding--Laughlin cited Goddard's results and argued that the genetic "inadequacy" of eastern and southern Europeans would negatively affect "the germ plasm of the future American population."

Laughlin was one of several experts who helped convince Congress to severely clamp down on immigration in 1924. For the next 40 years--Beck's "Golden Era of Immigration"--immigrating to the U.S. from eastern Europe became very difficult; for Asians it became nearly impossible.

"For years, [Laughlin] successfully lobbied to maintain the restrictions, which eventually blocked an escape route for Jews fleeing the Nazis," Newsday reported in 1994. "In 1922, Laughlin wrote and lobbied for a law that forced the sterilization of tens of thousands of 'unfit' U.S. citizens, including the insane, the homeless and the blind."

Similar laws were later passed in Nazi Germany, where Laughlin was lauded. In 1936, the University of Heidelberg awarded Laughlin an honorary degree. Laughlin, in turn, asked the American Eugenics Society to offer Adolf Hitler an honorary membership.

The next year, five New York millionaires created a private foundation with an endowment of $5 million. One of those men was Wickliffe P. Draper, a textile tycoon who advocated sending American blacks to Africa.

The millionaires named their creation the Pioneer Fund and charged it with backing research in heredity, eugenics and "race betterment." Harry Laughlin became its first president.

He died four years later, however, and until the 1950s, the fund remained largely inactive. Partly, that may have been a result of the severe blow eugenics suffered as the truth about Nazi atrocities came to light. In 1950, the United Nations made its famous declaration in the wake of the Holocaust that "Mankind is one."

Eugenicists and researchers in hereditary intelligence were all but driven underground

The Pioneer Fund persevered, however, and became increasingly active through the 1950s. It was the fund's opposition to the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision to integrate public schools which attracted its current president, New York lawyer Harry F. Weyher, who assumed the job in 1958.

Since then, the Pioneer Fund has doled out money to people such as Roger Pearson, a British ex-patriate living in Georgia who, in 1958, founded the Northern League to promote "the interests, friendship and solidarity of all Teutonic nations."

"Early recruits," reports the London-based Independent, "included Hans Gunther, who was awarded a Goethe medal in 1941 for his work on Nordic racial philosophy, Ernest Sevier Cox, an American leader of the Ku Klux Klan, and Dr. Wilhelm Kusserow, a former SS Untersturmfuhrer."

Between 1981 and 1991 alone (payments continued at least through 1994), Pearson received $568,000 from the Pioneer Fund to publish Mankind Quarterly, a publication dedicated to "race science."

In the 1970s, reports the Independent, Mankind Quarterly's editorial advisers included Otmar, Baron Von Verscheur, who had served as director of the genetics and eugenics program at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute during World War II. While at the institute, the baron recommended one of his students, Joseph Mengele, for a post as doctor at Auschwitz.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/issues/1997-12-25/feature.html/1/index.html

 

[Zero]

Thanks again, Evo...that matches and confirms the link I posted earlier. This is a movement funded and populated with racists, not open-minded people who go where "mainstream science" is afraid or unwilling to go.

What all these brain-size studies really are is a throwback to the pseudoscience of phrenology. A more interesting study would be to link individual brain size with individual IQ...Evo, I know there was a study done on this, mind helping me find it?

More importantly, using this single factor in isolation as a predictor of mental development ignores current data in neurology and cognition. There are studies that show that genetics plays only a partial role in brain function. Environment plays a key role, especially post-natal. The brain of a newborn is basically unfinished, and forms connections between brain cells based on external stimulus. There was another study, and I'm going to hunt it down, that shows a solid link between upbringing and brain development.

In other words, there is a lot of really interesting work being done in teh field, work that the rasict Eugenics groups ignore in favor of nonsense from the Pioneer Fund's chosen pseudoscientists.

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Note where I supplied a date, title, and place of publication so that anyone who wished could look it up. Note also where I supplied a white male size, and a black male size, for comparison. What did I complain about, Russ? Maybe the extremely old date on Evo's source, the lack of a comparison group to give the data she supplied some relative meaning, the lack of a title and place of publication, and my inability to look it up.

(Note to Evo: I didn't find my source through Ruston's work; I found it through Jensen's The g Factor, so of course, I didn't have a URL, did I? I gave you the source information I had, and it was plenty.)

I was poking fun at you. You were so smug challenging anyone to find just ONE single reference that showed a larger African brain size. I furnished what you asked for. Funny how it got your knickers in such a knot! It wasn't an attempt to refute the biased information you've posted. I'm afraid I don't take you seriously enough to go to that much trouble.

originally posted by Nachtwolf - I'm not trying to bust your chops here, Nereid, but you keep picking at this, and I keep telling you that I don't care about your trivial points. I'm sorry if you feel left out or disappointed or irritated or whatever because I don't reply. Sometimes you say things that I think are interesting or at least worth a rebuttal; most of the time, it's a waste. See what I just did for Russ? Those points he raised were trivial, and my responding to them was ultimately a waste of my time.

So let me be crystal clear for you, and Russ, and Evo, and everybody else in the Nachtwolf Fan Club over here: If I don't reply to your posts, or if I seem like I'm dismissive of or unaffected by your comments, it's because they're lame, and I have better things to do than assuage your ego and make you feel as though your concerns are valid when they aren't.

Let this be a blanket explanation which serves the next time I don't respond to your posts or don't rush to explain my position. You people can continue to heckle and harass me with these stupid charges of racism and these inept mischaracterizations of my goals and philosophy; just don't expect me to act horrified and struggle to defend myself. I don't want to be needlessly harsh, here, but I'm not responsible for what you believe, and I can't be blamed for your misunderstanding my ideas. If you really are that interested in eugenics, you can always do what Nereid has, and go to the Millennium website, where you will learn more than you ever wanted to about what I think. And if you decide after reading it that I'm even more horrible than you ever imagined, that's fine; just please don't ask me to explain this again, because I'm juggling hot babes and tough classes and just don't have the energy.

This is hysterical! Oh Nachtwolf, stop, you're killing me! I haven't laughed this hard in ages. You're not only a crackpot, you're a seriously deluded one.

 

[Zero]

Oh Christ, he's got goals and a philosophy... ...thank goodness his hot classes and tough babes keep him occupied, or he'd be the next Hitler for sure!

For those of you who are college aged: is racism the new pseudo-socialism or pseudo-environmentalism? The new hobby for bored rich kids to dabble with in college before taking over daddy's business or getting married to a senator?

(BTW, Evo...nice name, it reminds me of the world-famous guitar of the same name, which makes me happy)

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by Zero A more interesting study would be to link individual brain size with individual IQ...Evo, I know there was a study done on this, mind helping me find it?

I'd love to.

 

[Zero]

I found this one...awfully small sample, but just glancing at the FSIQ in relation to brain size there doesn't seem to be a big correlation...the woman with the smallest brain scored a 101, the second smallest scored a 133, the woman with the largest brain ALSO scored a 133, the woman with teh largest brain scored a 138. The woman with the second largest brain scored a 133, the same as the woman with the second smallest brain. I'm not sure what any of this means...[:P]

http://web.calstatela.edu/faculty/ssapra/datafile/brainsiz.htm

 

[Evo]

Nachtwolf has links to the Pioneer Fund's "Mankind Quarterly" articles on his website. No wonder he was so touchy about me revealing who those people are. Kinda blows his whole "no racist or nazi stuff" spiel.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Evo
Nachtwolf has links to the Pioneer Fund's "Mankind Quarterly" articles on his website. No wonder he was so touchy about me revealing who those people are. Kinda blows his whole "no racist or nazi stuff" spiel.

LOL

That brings up the question of intellectual honesty, at least in my eyes. Why not just admit that you think black people are inferior, and at least be honest? Why take a false intellectual stance, even in the face of overwhelming evidence against your position? I understand the Pioneer Fund, at least, because they are a political organization hoping to finish what the Nazis started, by other means. What I don't understand is how they manage to recruit new people, who don't consider themselves to be racists(I'm giving Nachtwolf the benefit of the doubt on this one).

 

[NateTG]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Nate, haven't you been paying attention to where I repeatedly asked Zero to provide a single study contradicting what I've said? If you think there's selective sampling going on, find me one study where blacks have higher IQs than whites or East Asians, or where they have larger brains.

Why don't you show a study that demonstrates that martian natives have green skin?

Before you can do science about whether therein is a correlation between race and IQ, you need to establish what race is. In order for survey science to be effective you need to have consensus on what a representaive sample consists of.

I expect that people who are careful about sampling rapidly run into the probem that there is no suitable definition of 'black', or 'white' for population sampling.

If you would like, you can compare the average brain size of black NBA players with the average brain size of white sixth graders. I doubt that you'll find that the NBA players have smaller brains.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by NateTG
Why don't you show a study that demonstrates that martian natives have green skin?

Before you can do science about whether therein is a correlation between race and IQ, you need to establish what race is. In order for survey science to be effective you need to have consensus on what a representaive sample consists of.

I expect that people who are careful about sampling rapidly run into the probem that there is no suitable definition of 'black', or 'white' for population sampling.

If you would like, you can compare the average brain size of black NBA players with the average brain size of white sixth graders. I doubt that you'll find that the NBA players have smaller brains.

Like I mentioned earlier, that sort of study, one that might give an accurate picture of the situation, would require hundreds of people, decades of study, and more tens of millions of dollars than anyone is willing to devote to it. Instead, some of the Eugenics folks stand outside and ask people how large their penises are...

 

[Evo]

Here are some interesting stats on brain size. I will edit later to add the URL.

Let us look at a study reported by Kuhlenbeck (1973) with regards to intelligence and brain size. Studies of brains of "outstanding" or "genius" human individuals have been interpreted to show some statistical correlation between high brain weight and intellectual capacity. However, in individual cases, a person with a low brain weight around 1017g was highly gifted while another with a brain of 1800g was extremely mentally handicapped. In addition, one of the highest recorded human brain weights, mentions Kuhlenbeck, is said to have reached 2850g and this person was reported to be "an epileptic affected with idiocy" (Kuhlenbeck, 1973, 732). How does this affect our use of absolute magnitude of brain size to correlate with intelligence?

For another example, the average weight of a "typical" adult male is +- 1400 while an adult female brain weight averages at +- 1300. Does this mean that males are more intelligent, more advanced than female humans? If we correlated large brain size with increased intelligence, then we would have to assume this comparison, yet on a whole it has not been documented that males are any more intelligent than females.

Thus, it seems that statistical correlation of brain weight and "superior intellectual ability" remains rather inconclusive. Therefore, perhaps we should find another method for comparing brain sizes and structures of various species.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/kinser/Int2.html

 

[hitssquad]

Brain weight/volume and IQ

Originally posted by Evo
Studies of brains of "outstanding" or "genius" human individuals have been interpreted to show some statistical correlation between high brain weight and intellectual capacity.

What studies and interpretations were those?

in individual cases, a person with a low brain weight around 1017g was highly gifted while another with a brain of 1800g was extremely mentally handicapped... one of the highest recorded human brain weights, mentions Kuhlenbeck, is said to have reached 2850g and this person was reported to be "an epileptic affected with idiocy" (Kuhlenbeck, 1973, 732).

--
Developmental PET scan studies in individuals from early childhood to maturity show decreasing utilization of glucose in all areas of the brain as individuals mature. In other words, the brain's glucose uptake curve is inversely related to the negatively accelerated curve of mental age, from early childhood to maturity. The increase in the brain's metabolic efficiency seems to be related to the "neural pruning," or normal spontaneous decrease in synaptic density. The spontaneous decrease is greatest during the first several years of life. "Neural pruning" apparently results in greater efficiency of the brain's capacity for information processing. Paradoxical as it may seem, an insufficient loss of neurons during early maturation is associated with some types of mental retardation.
--
The g Factor. Chapter 6: Biological Correlates of g. p158.
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874

the average weight of a "typical" adult male is +- 1400 while an adult female brain weight averages at +- 1300. Does this mean that males are more intelligent, more advanced than female humans? If we correlated large brain size with increased intelligence, then we would have to assume this comparison, yet on a whole it has not been documented that males are any more intelligent than females.

Jensen's answer to this was recently reproduced in a Physics Forums post titled https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=156404&highlight=mysteries#post156404. Here it is again:


--
One of the unsolved mysteries regarding the relation of brain size to IQ is the seeming paradox that there is a considerable sex difference in brain size (the adult female brain being about 100 cm$$^3$$ smaller than the male) without there being a corresponding sex difference in IQ. $$^{[13]}$$ It has been argued that some IQ tests have purposely eliminated items that discriminate between the sexes or have balanced-out sex differences in items or subtests. This is not true, however, for many tests such as Raven's matrices, which is almost a pure measure of g, yet shows no consistent or significant sex difference. Also, the differing g loadings of the subscales of the Wechsler Intelligence Test are not correlated with the size of the sex difference on the various subtests. $$^{[14]}$$ The correlation between brain size and IQ is virtually the same for both sexes.The explanation for the well-established mean sex difference in brain size is still somewhat uncertain, although one hypothesis has been empirically tested, with positive results. Properly controlling (by regression) the sex difference in body size diminishes, but by no means eliminates, the sex difference in brain size. Three plausible hypotheses have been proposed to explain the sex difference (of about 8 percent) in average brain size between the sexes despite there being no sex difference in g:

• Possible sexual dimorphism in neural circuitry or in overall neural conduction velocity could cause the female brain to process information more efficiently.
  
• The brain size difference could be due to the one ability factor, independent of g, that unequivocally shows a large sex difference, namely, spatial visualization ability, in which only 25 percent of females exceed the male median. Spatial ability could well depend upon a large number of neurons, and males may have more of these "spatial ability" neurons than females, thereby increasing the volume of the male brain.
  
• Females have the same amount of functional neural tissue as males but there is greater "packing density" of the neurons in the female brain. While the two previous hypotheses remain purely speculative at present, there is recent direct evidence for a sex difference in the "packing density" of neurons. $$^{[15]}$$ In the cortical regions most directly related to cognitive ability, the autopsied brains of adult women possessed, on average, about 11 percent more neurons per unit volume than were found in the brain of adult men. The males and females were virtually equated on Wechsler Full Scale IQ (112.3 and 110.6, respectively). The male brains were about 12.5 percent heavier than the female brains. Hence the greater neuronal packing density in the female brain nearly balances the larger size of the male brain. Of course, further studies based on histological, MRI, and PET techniques will be needed to establish the packing density hypothesis as the definitive explanation for the seeming paradox of the two sexes differing in brain size but not differing in IQ despite a correlation of about +.40 between these variables within each sex group.

--
The g Factor. Chapter 6: Biological Correlates of g. pp148-149.
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874



Not every author agrees that the evidence indicates equal IQs between men and women. And the present author has offered the explanation that the greater fragility of males, via organic stunting of IQ, masks the difference in IQ that would be predicted by the male-female difference in brain weight and also explains the larger standard deviation found in the male IQ distribution.

perhaps we should find another method for comparing brain sizes and structures of various species.

We might examine genetic influence on brain structure in relation to mental abilities. 3-D MRI maps of unrelated subjects and 10 fraternal and 10 identical twin pairs were derived by Thompson et al, 2001, who found that "a highly significant relationship (**p < 0.0044) exists between gray matter volume in the frontal cortex and Spearman’s g." (p1256.)

As noted by Jensen, body-size controlled brain volume is correlated with IQ at r = .40; non-autonomic brain volume is even more correlated with IQ; and frontal brain volume may have the highest correlation with IQ.

Thompson et al, 2001, also note that:


--
...a recent abstract also observed that differences in regional gray matter volume were significantly correlated with differences in IQ, in a sample of 28 pediatric MZ twin pairs (mean age, 12.1 years) studied volumetrically (E. Molloy et al., 7th Annual Meeting of the Organization for Human Brain Mapping, 447, Brighton, England, 2001).

In frontal brain regions, a regionally specific linkage has previously been found$$^{39}$$ between g and metabolic activity measured by positron emission tomography (PET), suggesting that general cognitive ability may in part derive from a specific frontal system important in controlling diverse forms of behavior. Frontal regions also show task-dependent activity in tests involving working (short-term) memory, divided and sustained attention, and response selection$$^{40}$$. Genetic factors may therefore contribute to structural differences in the brain that are statistically linked with cognitive differences. This is especially noteworthy, as cognitive performance seems to be linked with brain structure in the very regions where structure is under greatest genetic control (Figs. 2 and 3). This emphasizes the pronounced contribution of genetic factors to structural and functional differences across individuals, as detected here in frontal brain regions.
--
(p1255)




-Chris

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by Zero
Adam, why is it that your perception of Eugenics isn't labeled as such in most of the writings I've seen? What you are talking about is something completely different from what we have seen is the more common usage, even if yours is technically correct. I understand you wanting to remove yourself from the racist elements, and I think you have done so pretty well.

1) I haven't read all the posts in this thread, but in those I have read, I've seen no racism at all. I have, however, seen a lot of people making assumptions about other users.

2) I really don't care about common use.

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by Evo

So it sounds like you are not for eugenics, you are for genetic engineering to help wipe out disease?

Perhaps. I generally prefer to view ideas such as Eugenics as less malicious, however. I don't believe that Galton chap, or whatever his name was, intended the forced sterilisation of those deemed unfit by the Party.

 

[Adam]

russ_waters

I am all for genetic engineering, I think the positive results can be very beneficial. Which is why I am all for stem cell research. I am against eugenics, the two are not the same.

Yeah, I seem to be missing this one too, Evo. Adam, care to clarify? You say you are for eugenics, but what you describe sounds like genetic engineering. Not the same thing.

I'm against what is commonly referred to as Eugenics. However, it seems most people have an odd idea about what Eugenics is. I don't believe Galton intended that the idea should involved sterilisation forced on people by authorities.

 

[hitssquad]

Eugenics by way of popular opinion

Originally posted by Adam
it seems most people have an odd idea about what Eugenics is. I don't believe Galton intended that the idea should involved sterilisation forced on people by authorities.

It seems like he might have been content, judging by his writings on the subject, to have simply given birth to the essential concept -- deliberately more socially-healthy births and deliberately less socially-unhealthy births -- and have shown it to the world, whereupon the world might then take it and adapt it to its own uses.


--
The basis of eugenics is already firmly established, namely, that the offspring of "worthy" parents are, on the whole, more highly gifted by nature with faculties that conduce to " worthiness " than the offspring of less " worthy " parents. On the other hand, forecasts in respect to particular cases may be quite wrong. They have to be based on imperfect data. It cannot be too emphatically repeated that a great deal of careful statistical work has yet to be accomplished before the science of eugenics can make large advances.

I hesitate to speculate farther. A tree will have been planted ; let it grow. Perhaps those who may thereafter feel themselves or be considered by others to be the possessors of notable eugenic qualities-let us for brevity call them 11 Eugenes "-will form their own clubs and look after their own interests. It is impossible to foresee what the state of public opinion will then be.
--
Essays in Eugenics. Local Associations for Promoting Eugenics. http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/searchImages/galton/search/books/essays-on-eugenics/pages/essays-eugenics_0113.png .




He did speculate about the use of force, but the force he speculated about was the force of social embarrassment:


--
It ought not to be difficult to arouse in the inhabitants a just pride in their own civic worthiness, analogous to the pride which a soldier feels in the good reputation of his regiment or a lad in that of his school. By this means a strong local eugenic opinion might easily be formed. It would be silently assisted by local object lessons, in which the benefits derived through following eugenic rules and the bad effects of disregarding them were plainly to be discerned.

The power of social opinion is apt to be underrated rather then overrated. Like the atmosphere which we breathe and in which we move, social opinion operates powerfully without our being conscious of its weight.
--
Essays in Eugenics. Local Associations for Promoting Eugenics. http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/searchImages/galton/search/books/essays-on-eugenics/pages/essays-eugenics_0114.png .




The introduction to the book of eugenics essays seems to be even more explicit on this point:


--
The power by which Eugenic reform must chiefly be effected, is that of Popular Opinion, which is amply strong enough for that purpose whenever it shall be, roused. Public Opinion has done as much as this on many past occasions and in various countries, of which much evidence is given in the Essay on Restrictions in Marriage. It is now ordering our acts more intimately than we are apt to suspect, because the dictates of Public Opinion become so thoroughly assimilated that they seem to be original and individual to those who are guided by them.
--
Essays in Eugenics. http://www.mugu.com/browse/galton/search/books/essays-on-eugenics/pages/essays-eugenics_0004.htm .




-Chris

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by hitssquad
It seems like he might have been content, judging by his writings on the subject, to have simply given birth to the essential concept -- deliberately more socially-healthy births and deliberately less socially-unhealthy births -- and have shown it to the world, whereupon the world might then take it and adapt it to its own uses.


--
The basis of eugenics is already firmly established, namely, that the offspring of "worthy" parents are, on the whole, more highly gifted by nature with faculties that conduce to " worthiness " than the offspring of less " worthy " parents. On the other hand, forecasts in respect to particular cases may be quite wrong. They have to be based on imperfect data. It cannot be too emphatically repeated that a great deal of careful statistical work has yet to be accomplished before the science of eugenics can make large advances.

I hesitate to speculate farther. A tree will have been planted ; let it grow. Perhaps those who may thereafter feel themselves or be considered by others to be the possessors of notable eugenic qualities-let us for brevity call them 11 Eugenes "-will form their own clubs and look after their own interests. It is impossible to foresee what the state of public opinion will then be.
--
Essays in Eugenics. Local Associations for Promoting Eugenics. http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/searchImages/galton/search/books/essays-on-eugenics/pages/essays-eugenics_0113.png .




He did speculate about the use of force, but the force he speculated about was the force of social embarrassment:


--
It ought not to be difficult to arouse in the inhabitants a just pride in their own civic worthiness, analogous to the pride which a soldier feels in the good reputation of his regiment or a lad in that of his school. By this means a strong local eugenic opinion might easily be formed. It would be silently assisted by local object lessons, in which the benefits derived through following eugenic rules and the bad effects of disregarding them were plainly to be discerned.

The power of social opinion is apt to be underrated rather then overrated. Like the atmosphere which we breathe and in which we move, social opinion operates powerfully without our being conscious of its weight.
--
Essays in Eugenics. Local Associations for Promoting Eugenics. http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/searchImages/galton/search/books/essays-on-eugenics/pages/essays-eugenics_0114.png .




The introduction to the book of eugenics essays seems to be even more explicit on this point:


--
The power by which Eugenic reform must chiefly be effected, is that of Popular Opinion, which is amply strong enough for that purpose whenever it shall be, roused. Public Opinion has done as much as this on many past occasions and in various countries, of which much evidence is given in the Essay on Restrictions in Marriage. It is now ordering our acts more intimately than we are apt to suspect, because the dictates of Public Opinion become so thoroughly assimilated that they seem to be original and individual to those who are guided by them.
--
Essays in Eugenics. http://www.mugu.com/browse/galton/search/books/essays-on-eugenics/pages/essays-eugenics_0004.htm .




-Chris

This just goes to show something that has been stated before; namely, that this is not chiefly about science, but about politics. It isn't about getting scientific evidence for eugenics, but about convincing laypeople that the evidence already exists.

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by hitssquad What studies and interpretations were those?

Kuhlenbeck, H. "Central Nervous System of Vertebrates". Vol. 3, Part II, New York, NY: Arnold-Backlin-Strasse, 1973

 

[Evo]

The problem with eugenics is that the "concept" of producing a superior race understandably attracts those that are fervent believers in their "cause" to attain this betterment. Unfortunately these are the people that most actively campaign for eugenics.

Obviously people will have differing ideas of what eugenics is, what is undesirable and what is justifiable in eliminating the "problem".

For example, here is an excerpt from an article on eugenics from Nachtwolf's website, an example of how a eugenics proponent justifies forced sterilization of female mental patients.

4. In the British Medical Journal (# 7108, September 6, 1997, p. 563) there's an article entitled "Thousands of women sterilized in Sweden without consent." The Swedish government is investigating why thousands of women were forcibly sterilized on eugenic grounds from the 1930s to the 1970s. There are similar allegations about forced sterlisations in Switzerland, Austria and Finland. Is this the kind of thing you support?

There's not enough information in this article to evaluate these programs. The fact that political correctness has spread to Europe--that they now say "Oh, isn't this terrible?" is irrelevant. What really matters is whether the programs were actually fair and humane. Over the years, I've tried, without much success, to get articles on eugenics programs in European countries that continued on long after WW2. There don't seem to be many articles (or at least I haven't been able to find them), and then there's the problem of having them translated. Since I know so little about these programs, I can't comment on their fairness or efficacy. Getting more information about them is important, though, because whether they were sound, misguided, or somewhere in between, surely something can be learned from their experiences.

This article conjures up horrible images: a young woman--selected for no good reason--is dragged from her home, kicking and screaming, pinned to the operating table, and sterilized. But it's really hard to imagine that such things happen in Sweden. Sweden certainly appears to be a highly civilized country. Could it be that in every imaginable respect, it's a highly civilized country, except for these isolated, totally atypical acts of barbarism? Or is it just possible there's a higher ethical principle operating here that we can see only if we probe beneath the surface?

The sad fact is that there are women in this world who are mentally incompetent (either severely retarded or mentally ill), and who are also fertile. They present a serious ethical dilemma. It's easy to condemn Sweden's actions, but it's not so easy to find alternatives that are demonstrably better.

There's a very real danger that if such women aren't sterilized, they'll get pregnant, because history has shown that there are plenty of unscrupulous men ready to take advantage of them. In mental institutions, women are sometimes impregnated ("raped" would probably be more accurate) by attendants, guards, or janitors. Then, the child is taken away from the mother (is this a good thing?) and given up for adoption. In the past, in most cases, the adoptive parents weren't informed if the biological mother was a schizophrenic who had been raped by an employee of the institution (is this fair to the adopting parents?). Most of the children born of such unions will be alright, but as a group, they are far more likely to develop psychopathologies of various sorts.

We really don't know all the details about what happened in Sweden and the other European countries mentioned in the article. I'm not arguing that these programs were faultless. I'm just saying that the issues involved are difficult and complicated. An article that reports that "thousands were sterilized without their consent" could be very misleading.

And what precisely does this phrase "without their consent" mean when talking about mentally incompetent people? By definition, mentally incompetent people cannot make decisions on their own. So what if they did give their consent? What would such consent mean, if they don't understand what they're consenting to? Maybe, just maybe, the authorities in Sweden realized they'd have decide for the women--they didn't bother to ask their permission, because they knew that to do so would be meaningless. I suppose one could try to explain to the women how babies are made, and why it might be better if they didn't have one, and then say "So, do we have your permission to be sterilized now?" But the whole thing could only be a charade as long as they didn't fully comprehend what was being said.

Pregnancy and childbirth, in and of themselves, are not terrific experiences! They involve nausea, depression, mood swings, bladder problems, severe discomfort towards the end (just from being so fat), and hemorrhoids, to say nothing of the pain. This is self-evident to the women who have undergone it. To attempt to prove it seem kind of silly, but I suppose we could do a survey asking a random sample of women with children, How much fun was your last pregnancy and birth, on a scale of 1 to 10? Few women would argue that pregnancy and childbirth are fun. Surrogate mothers are paid considerable sums to undergo it for infertile couples, presumably because there arent lots of women volunteering to do it for free. So I think its a safe assumption pregnancy and childbirth are not inherently highly- rewarding experiences, except perhaps as they are a patrt of the process of producing a child to love.

Theyre something to be endured as a means to an end. But if a woman goes through 9 months of it, has a baby, and then is told, "Sorry, we have to take your baby away from you for its own protection," and the mother never sees her baby again, this is a very sad story! It's a wrenching experience, and it is arguably far worse than having a simple operation to prevent pregnancy in the first place, one which many thousands of women opt for every year when they don't want more children.

Lets be clear about this. By sterilizing mentally incompetent women, were not depriving them of the experience of MOTHERHOOD -- they are already denied that by the fact that they would be totally unfit mothers. Rather, were depriving them of the dubious priviledgeprivilege of PREGNANCY and CHILDBIRTH, which, as the majority of women would attest, is doing them a favor. In addition, were sparing them the profoundly painful experience of having their baby taken away from them at birth, never to be seen again.

So we have 2 choices here: either these women can be sterilized, or they risk having children for whom they cannot care, who will be forcibly taken from them, without their consent! The children will also have a substantially increased chance of developing mental problems. I believe the former is the more humane, and the more ethical, all things considered. (The fertility of mentally incompetent men is not as big a problem because severely retarded or insane men generally have a very hard time finding women to have sex with.)

It looks like we are going to HAVE to FORCE them to do something -- either to be sterilized, or to take their babies away from them at birth. Either that, or the babies can be brought up in an insane asylum. I think the former is much more kind. There's no getting around this choice, pretending it doesn't exist. What do you think?
The question remains, who will make this decision? Since the government seems to screw up nearly everything it gets its hands on, the decision should be made by the parents or closest relative. If there is none, perhaps by the institution. This needs to be worked out.

Society can and does make decisions for mentally incompetent people all the time--for example, to institutionalize them. To allow them total "freedom" means to abandon them. It means allowing them to wander the streets mumbling to themselves, hovering in doorways, easy prey for criminals, and likely doing harm to themselves or others. In my opinion, it's in their best interest, and in the best interest of any future children they may bear, and society at large, if these people do not procreate.

 

[Kerrie]

wow, i missed this one! without reading all the pages, i think people cling to racism because of what they are taught...anyone ever watch the chappelle show on the comedy channel? i am not sure if poking fun at other races is funny or breeding it even worse...

i think racism also goes beyond color, but it also incorporates gender, age, and wealth...

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by hitssquad
He did speculate about the use of force, but the force he speculated about was the force of social embarrassment:
--
It ought not to be difficult to arouse in the inhabitants a just pride in their own civic worthiness, analogous to the pride which a soldier feels in the good reputation of his regiment or a lad in that of his school. By this means a strong local eugenic opinion might easily be formed. It would be silently assisted by local object lessons, in which the benefits derived through following eugenic rules and the bad effects of disregarding them were plainly to be discerned.

The power of social opinion is apt to be underrated rather then overrated. Like the atmosphere which we breathe and in which we move, social opinion operates powerfully without our being conscious of its weight[/b}.
--
Essays in Eugenics. Local Associations for Promoting Eugenics. http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/searchImages/galton/search/books/essays-on-eugenics/pages/essays-eugenics_0114.png .

Yikes, that's not social embarrassment, it's propaganda. This is how Hitler brainwashed a nation.

The introduction to the book of eugenics essays seems to be even more explicit on this point:
---
The power by which Eugenic reform must chiefly be effected, is that of Popular Opinion, which is amply strong enough for that purpose whenever it shall be, roused. Public Opinion has done as much as this on many past occasions and in various countries, of which much evidence is given in the Essay on Restrictions in Marriage. It is now ordering our acts more intimately than we are apt to suspect, because the dictates of Public Opinion become so thoroughly assimilated that they seem to be original and individual to those who are guided by them.
--
Essays in Eugenics. http://www.mugu.com/browse/galton/search/books/essays-on-eugenics/pages/essays-eugenics_0004.htm

Wow, thanks for posting this Chris. This is pretty scary considering that the "public opinion" that could be implanted would be that forced sterilization is ok. As frightening is what "opinion" is being implanted as to who or what is undesirable.

I didn't realize that the eugenics movement was undertaking organized efforts to sway public opinion in this fashion.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Kerrie
wow, i missed this one! without reading all the pages, i think people cling to racism because of what they are taught...anyone ever watch the chappelle show on the comedy channel? i am not sure if poking fun at other races is funny or breeding it even worse...

i think racism also goes beyond color, but it also incorporates gender, age, and wealth...

Hi Kerrie, thanks for joining us. One of the things that we've noticed so far in this thread is the pseudoscience of racism is teaching people that racism is not only acceptable, but also desireable. Any comments?

 

[TENYEARS]

Racism? Doesn't exist. There are only people with less confidence who need to feel superior over others to self actualize. These are usually very small people. I have never seen where it was not. This may be propagated in many forms, but it is all the same. There are deviations in the evolution of certain races of human beings, more blood vessels in the lungs for some who live in mountainous areas, etc... In the end when it comes to the nature of what pure intelligence is, we are all the same. Do any of you percieve to smarter than what may be qualified as a retarded individual? Careful your declaration of your unconscious expression is already used up so please don't wave another banner. I sincerely doubt any of you will ever understand this post. It would require using what you post you have, but not yet used.

 

[Evo]

Actually, TENYEARS, that is the first of your posts that I have ever understood.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Adam
Heck, if the most popular theory about the rise of Humans is true, and we all came from Africa (or base stock from Africa and maybe some interbreeding with other varieties here and there), then the entire "race" section of this discussion is irrelevant anyway. So we can forget about that and concentrate on more important things, like actual problems, such as the disease I mentioned earlier.

I didn't see this post earlier.

Adam, you've put your finger on it.

'Race', as used by Lynn, Nachtwolf, hitssquad (?), Apollo, Carlos is 'biological race'

'Race', as the 'variable' studied by Jensen et al is a social concept ('self categorisation'); it is clearly NOT, in fact, 'biological race' (hitssqquad will no doubt tell us that the connection is made through a series of correlations and handwaving).

'Race' as a word in common use carries enormous amounts of social and political baggage (particularly in the US?)

So if one wishes to do serious science in psychology, why (deliberately?) chose a term that is all but guarranteed to generate heat? Further, why conflate the social with the biological meaning?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
Hi Kerrie, thanks for joining us. One of the things that we've noticed so far in this thread is the pseudoscience of racism is teaching people that racism is not only acceptable, but also desireable. Any comments?

I see it slightly differently. I don't think all that many people are actually swayed by the pseudoscience, rather it exists mostly for people to justify their racism to themselves.

 

[Evo]

What I find interesting is that so many people who are obviously racist will so vehemently deny it. They seem to truly believe that their behaviour is correct and justified by whatever reasons they cite.

 

[Zero]

Russ, I agree with you that the attempts at scientific credibility are rationalization for racist belief, and not the cause of it. I doubt it has swayed anyone to become racist, but I would guess that it has absolutely cemented racism in some people to the point where nothing will convince them otherwise.

Evo, you are certainly right about people not wanting to accept the stigma of racism, while at the same time being obviously and vocally racist. For instance, those people who will post something straight out of Nazi propaganda, and yet say that there is nothing racist about it. After all, their argument seems to be, how can you be a racist when black people are so obviously inferior?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Evo
What I find interesting is that so many people who are obviously racist will so vehemently deny it. They seem to truly believe that their behaviour is correct and justified by whatever reasons they cite.

So if they really think they are right, shouldn't they be proud of it? I've thought about that question a lot and have yet to find an answer that makes any sense.

 

[NateTG]

Originally posted by Kerrie
i think racism also goes beyond color, but it also incorporates gender, age, and wealth...

So there's a problem because professional sports are dominated by people between 15 and 35, and it's legal discrimination that infants are not allowed to drive, and that there is an age of consent at all?

Why not throw beauty on that list while you're at it? Beautiful people typically have an easier time in life, getting jobs and so on.

While it's easy to point at a disparity in our society, and claim that that disparity is a problem, it's not always as easy to show what the root cause of the problem.

For example, I can claim it's a problem that there is a disproportionate underrepresentation of blind people with driver's licences which indicates that the DMV discriminates against blind people. While this is obviously a straw man, it illustrates that there is a need to distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable discrimination at some level.

I'm not claiming that there is necessarily a correlation between 'race' and performance, or that such correlation, if it exists, is not purely the result of social discrimination, but if that type of correlation exists, then some level of 'racial' discrimination is reasonable.

Even if there is reasonable justification for racial discrimination, it does not demonstrate that there is not a social or political race-related problem that should be discussed or adressed.

This, of course, leads to a reason to 'cling' to racism - pragmatism. For many notions of race, it is easy to observe, and if race has reasonable performance predicting value, racial discrimination can be beneficial.

Similarly, a 'white' person in a predominantly 'black' neighborhood, a latino person in a predominantly 'asian' neighborhood or anyone else whose 'race' makes them stand out is likely to be an outsider, and will consequently receive different treatment than people who are perceived to be locals.

For things like 'police profiling' the question is usually not whether race is a factor in decisionmaking, but whether race affects decisionmaking disproportionately with its predictive value.

 

[NateTG]

Originally posted by russ_watters
So if they really think they are right, shouldn't they be proud of it? I've thought about that question a lot and have yet to find an answer that makes any sense.

There is a stigma associated with racism. People who are thought of as racists are liable to be ostricised and unreasonably discriminated against.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by NateTG
There is a stigma associated with racism. People who are thought of as racists are liable to be ostricised and unreasonably discriminated against.

"Unreasonably"? It depends on how much of the charge of racism is actually true, right?