[Verv]

Just so you know...

Japanese kids do not often get pregnant in their teens, overdose on drugs or join gangs as much as American kids.

It's different societies.

One acts out 'negative behavior' through wanton sexual indulgence, drug use and seeking father figures through joining violent, fraternal groups more than the other.

The other tends to seek recluse and isolation more.
----

1 week ago my friend witnessed a female college student kill herself at Oedae station, 1 stop north of here.

It was because of her grades.

At least she didn't join a gang and establish a neighborhood a kilometer north of where I live where I cannot go without fearing being robbed or beaten because of the color of my skin or the place where I am from.

[Dave]

The Dave – Noemon debate.
viewtopic.php?p=1810754#p1810754
and it’s effective postcript
viewtopic.php?p=1841177#p1841177

The "debate" consisted of the following factors:
[1]Noemon linking a study which found Ashkenazi IQ within Israel to be within the white mainstream, contrary to the findings on Ashkenazim in other Western countries. The two findings cannot be reconciled without further study which obviously neither of us can undertake.
[2]Noemon linking the "controversies" Wikipedia section on Lynn, noting particularly self-described "dialectical biologist" Leon Kamin's discredited attack on Lynn (whom I myself have criticized for employing linear correlations rather than more sophisticated statistical tools, as well as being too reductionist about IQ). Kamin's attack on Lynn was in fact refuted by Richard Dawkins, in an article I have linked here before. This is not to totally slam Kamin, he deserves great credit for discrediting the racist, scientifc fraudster Cyril Burt. Some of the samples in IQ and the Wealth of Nations, however, were in fact sloppy to say the least, and critics were right to point this out. What they don't point out however is that Lynn and Vanhanen in their subsequent work undertook more rigorous samples which largely corrected these deficiencies in their original work. Given that it seems that no one except freakin' Cheesecake Marmalade has bothered to review any of the scientific papers I've referenced this seems increasingly pointless.
[3]That whites are not superior to other races (which I have never maintained in the first place), and that blacks could be said to be superior to whites in some ways, which of course only supports racialism. Noemon cited kinesthetics, without any sort of backing, though I noted that in many ways blacks are indeed superior to whites.
[4]That Western superiority was not the result of racial superiority (which I have never claimed), followed by a link to a book about cultural factors which arose to Western success. I have long subscribed to cultural and environmental views explaining Western success in the modern period, though noting that a certain level of intelligence was necessary but certainly not sufficient. This puts me not far outside the Western mainstream and certainly not within the Nordicist camp of race-as-destiny.

It was actually much less of a deal than you are making it out to be, which is why it has languished. It seems to me that much ado about nothing has been made, largely due to the desperate religious belief in HNU by many posters here. Noemon made excellent points (particularly point one, which casts the existing Ashkenazi findings in doubt, and as such I have mostly refrained from raising this outside the context of the United States) but these were taken entirely out of context. That people took Kamin's subjective, unresearched claims seriously was embarrassing. None of this is to disparage Noemon, who made good, rigorous arguments.

To whit, I would consider the following points to be racialist claims that I employ:

[1]Race exists (unrefuted thus far)
[2]Racial differences in physiology and neurology exist (documented by me, unrefuted)
[3]Racial, hereditary differences exist in general intelligence (thus far unrefuted, although good counter-arguments have been made by Andres, though no-one else). One argument I've seen made against this, without any sort of evidence whatsoever, is that homo sapines evolved total neural plasticity (that is to say, the Blank Slate myth). Stephen Pinker wrote a nice popular work attacking this fallacy. The Flynn Effect also does not explain these differences, as I have noted in two separate debates with Andres where I have explained the probable causes of the Flynn Effect and noted examples of the Flynn Effect acting on populations from lower-scoring nations within the context of Western society.
[4]General intelligence is not culturally biased and has significant implications. I have explained why this is and referenced both scientific papers and popular scientific articles (in particular a Scientific American article on the subject) in support. Thus far this has been mostly accepted by other posters or ignored. Andres has noted that quantitative, causative proof of this does not exist (and I'm not sure it could exist). I believe Zyx tries to take up this debate but I almost always ignore his posts since he is insane.
[5]Sociobiology, or more specifically genetic similarity, make racial conflict inevitable (has not even been debated by anyone, except Demosthenes via the use of anecdotes)
[6]The non-existence of race and/or the non-existence of racial differences in intelligence is not explanatory via mainstream biology and implies either massive gaps in the record of human prehistory, massive gaps in our understanding of biology, or some sort of intelligent design.

A signature tactic by those arguing against this is to construct a reductionist strawman in which all human differences, in my view, are the result of racial ones. This is obviously not the case and nowhere have I maintained that it is, and I have noted many times the importance of other important factors in human differentiation, conflict, and development.

Your only post on the subject that I can recall beyond patting other people on the back was to ask if certain findings were corrected for socioeconomic status. I noted that they were, and pointed you in the direction where you could examine the issue more. I saw no further post from you on the subject, except in debating me with Dr. House or C_M. I have little interest in debating...Dave...so I've left that to everyone else.

My negative experience in debating this with many posters has left me resigned to the fact that this is a deeply held article of faith for most posters here, as such I debate it less than I once did and now largely treat it as a set of facts to be referred to in other discussions. Interestingly PoFo's Marxists (beyond closet liberals like KurtFF8) have given some of this the fairest hearing.

I'd like to close, Smilin' Dave, in pointing out that you are one of the better, if not the best, debaters here on PoFo, and extremely knowledgeable in your chosen areas of expertise. You're the only person I can think of who has embarrassed me in a debate (on the subject of Iran), and for that I congratulate you (that's not to say I haven't been wrong in other debates). Thus it behooves me to take any arguments or claims from you against certain beliefs I hold with a degree of seriousness.

[Zyx]

I believe Zyx tries to take up this debate but I almost always ignore his posts since he is insane.

I'm not insane.

You're the only person I can think of who has embarrassed me in a debate

I doubt this. I remember this IQ debate with an early Dave where he said "Asians" and "High IQs" and I showed him 'education data' differing for Asians such that the 'racial group' was senseless and 'ethnicities' showed large differences (hence a 'cultural argument.')

If you were never embarrassed in a 'debate' truthfully then it might be because you're rather silly and hard to take seriously.

I can confess to the same thing, but mostly when I am 'joking.' Something like, just recently, arguing that it is bad that Whites are underrepresented in the lower 1% of the American strata . . . seriously. If you were serious then you are quite unfit for dialog.

Dr House and Cheesecake_Marmalade may be impressed, but both posters have a history of being wrong often so it's no surprise, honest.

[Smilin' Dave]

Hey, sociology... another victory for on-topic I guess. If we work hard enough maybe we can get a split from the mother thread.

[1]Noemon linking a study which found Ashkenazi IQ within Israel to be within the white mainstream, contrary to the findings on Ashkenazim in other Western countries. The two findings cannot be reconciled without further study which obviously neither of us can undertake.

Sure, the theory cannot be completely substantiated without further testing, but, is Noemon's basic principle here unsound?

Some of the samples in IQ and the Wealth of Nations, however, were in fact sloppy to say the least, and critics were right to point this out. What they don't point out however is that Lynn and Vanhanen in their subsequent work undertook more rigorous samples which largely corrected these deficiencies in their original work. Given that it seems that no one except freakin' Cheesecake Marmalade has bothered to review any of the scientific papers I've referenced this seems increasingly pointless.

Sloppy work is putting it mildly, as Noemon pointed out. When your work is about the IQ of people from certain nations, those people had better be reasonably representative of those nations, not in a home for the developmentally challenged. If by later work you are thinking along the lines of Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis then we again have to raise the issue of how you can make racialist claims where the statistics are often not based on race (apparently this book went for a broader regional analysis) of the study groups. I see Hunt and Wittman’s (2008) critique on Lynn’s statistics extends to the 2006 offering as well.

[3]That whites are not superior to other races (which I have never maintained in the first place), and that blacks could be said to be superior to whites in some ways, which of course only supports racialism. Noemon cited kinesthetics, without any sort of backing, though I noted that in many ways blacks are indeed superior to whites.

Well if I can draw from the Wikipedia criticism you noted before: Crawford-Nutt (1976) found that South African blacks in good schools were doing better overall in standardised tests that white American students, and even suggested that simple perception of education quality might have been more important than expected. Further we have Shuttleworth-Edwards et al. (2004) who noted the role of first language in intellectual development. Given cognitive barriers to trying to work with two languages and problems of accessing quality education in some countries, I think this fairly relevant.

I think you have focused to too great an extent on the critique by Kamin, possibly because it is easier to demolish.

It was actually much less of a deal than you are making it out to be

I think it’s an issue when you use these views in combination with your anti-immigration politics and so forth. I also seem to remember you having something to say about miscegenation. Finally, when you do take the opportunity to say something outrageous to get a rise out of people, you or one of your cohorts is always quick to point to the supposed scientific basis to your bias. It seems that even when you are not talking about race realism, it’s lurking somewhere in the background.

I think I noted this earlier, but I also find it frustrating you tend to trigger these debates in Gorkiy Park, rather than an on-topic forum.

[1]Race exists (unrefuted thus far)

Quite who belongs to what race on the other hand seems to be at issue however (distinct single race backgrounds are becoming quite unusual if nothing else). What good is acknowledging race in intelligence or whatever when you can’t quite pin down definite racial groupings?

[2]Racial differences in physiology and neurology exist (documented by me, unrefuted)

Distinct group differences, even mutations, tend to ensue in any group that limits its gene pool. This is in turn a function of politics and geography, rather than race alone.

Racial, hereditary differences exist in general intelligence

Has causation on this point actually been proven? Much as a queried House on IQ generally leading to success, do you have anything other than statistical correlation to prove this point? You dismissed Noemon’s discussion on differences in the Ashkenazi population for lack of definitive research, but I don’t think there has been a definitive link established between race and intelligence. You may have a point about neurological differences and intelligence, but I think even that is controversial in science.

Stephen Pinker

Is this the same Pinker who suggested that people consider the science behind Kamin’s work rather than focus on his political short comings (as Dawkins appears to do)?

I believe Zyx tries to take up this debate but I almost always ignore his posts since he is insane.

Perhaps people tend to ignore your posts on race realism believing you to be a simple troll (I at least think you a sophisticated troll )? Excluding Zyx from debate is like excluding Richard Lynn because I don’t like his stance on cultural eugenics.

[5]Sociobiology, or more specifically genetic similarity, make racial conflict inevitable (has not even been debated by anyone, except Demosthenes via the use of anecdotes)

Conflict between human groups which are firmly separated by any means, particularly if there is a problem with resource allocation (the problem being determined by the politics in play) is just as inevitable. When you have peace between such human groups, it is because they have tired of conflict, rather than some innate rejection based on skin colour.

A signature tactic by those arguing against this is to construct a reductionist strawman in which all human differences, in my view, are the result of racial ones. This is obviously not the case and nowhere have I maintained that it is, and I have noted many times the importance of other important factors in human differentiation, conflict, and development.

It’s a fair mistake to make, since you spend far more time discussion your racialist views than other views in the same subject. Particularly when you raise those other factors as adjunct, even a justification, to your racial views. Such as the way you keep making a point of saying that you acknowledge other factors in intelligence like cultural development, but have devoted the bulk of your post to the race aspect.

Your only post on the subject that I can recall beyond patting other people on the back was to ask if certain findings were corrected for socioeconomic status.

Why would I comment if I thought others had raise perfectly valid arguments? Pursuit of a higher post count isn’t my reason for posting. Where have I been “patting other people on the back” anyhow?

Perhaps it says something about my personality, but I think it odd the way you associate arguments with people, rather than focus on the arguments/ideas themselves. Perhaps if you needed to reference I could understand this, but I am fairly aware of who Andres is and what is argument is...

Interestingly PoFo's Marxists (beyond closet liberals like KurtFF8) have given some of this the fairest hearing.

Are you thinking of Potemkin?

So to focus this debate a bit:
1. Do you have any proof of causation between race, heredity and intelligence?
2. On what basis to you think racial explanations for intelligence are as relevant, if not more so, than cultural and socio-economic explanations?

[Dave]

Hey, sociology... another victory for on-topic I guess. If we work hard enough maybe we can get a split from the mother thread.

Miracles do happen

Sure, the theory cannot be completely substantiated without further testing, but, is Noemon's basic principle here unsound?

No, his basic principle is not unsound, hence why I have refrained from referring to the alleged superior general intelligence of Ashkenazim now that it has been cast in doubt. With the new Israeli data and what we have long known of Jewish culture the superior intelligence of Ashkenazim is fully explainable through cultural factors. I have also not yet seen any sort of comprehensive brain imaging data on Ashkenazim.

Sloppy work is putting it mildly, as Noemon pointed out. When your work is about the IQ of people from certain nations, those people had better be reasonably representative of those nations, not in a home for the developmentally challenged.

Assuming that the IQ score taken is reasonably accurate (an assumption made for logical purposes here, not an endorsement of the sample), then such a population in the West would be considered developmentally challenged even if that level of general intelligence is normal for the population in question and perfectly adequate for its natural environment. Thus, the sample in question no longer appears as biased as at first appearance. African Bushmen, for instance, have an estimated IQ somewhere in the 50s. In the industrialized West this would be defined as mild mental retardation according to DSM-IV, and roughly comparable to the intelligence of an 8 year old child here. Yet this level of intelligence is more than sufficient for a hunter-gatherer society in that region of the world.

If by later work you are thinking along the lines of Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis then we again have to raise the issue of how you can make racialist claims where the statistics are often not based on race (apparently this book went for a broader regional analysis) of the study groups. I see Hunt and Wittman’s (2008) critique on Lynn’s statistics extends to the 2006 offering as well.

The work you note is a much better meta-analysis of global differences in intelligence. The broader regional analyses in the book do focus on human populations, meaning race, but goes beyond that (e.g. differences between Northeast Asians and Southeast are explored). The book goes so far as to include a table of human populations by estimated IQ. Lynn has also published since IQ and the Wealth of Nations, Race Differences in Intelligence (scientific paper), Intelligence (scientific paper), IQ and Global Inequality, and The Global Bell Curve: Race, IQ, and Inequality Worldwide.

In the latest work the data for Ethiopia have been corrected. Other data rely upon the original samples with finer statistical adjustment, and the controversy about these samples are noted.

Well if I can draw from the Wikipedia criticism you noted before: Crawford-Nutt (1976) found that South African blacks in good schools were doing better overall in standardised tests that white American students, and even suggested that simple perception of education quality might have been more important than expected.

This is an unremarkable finding not at odds with hereditarian theories of intelligence. Apartheid South Africa, surprisingly, did track intelligent black students when resources were available despite the appalling overall racial inequality of educational resources. The black students in good schools would themselves be superior examples and thus be expected to score better than mainstream whites in the United States. Blacks attending New York's elite Stuyvesant High School dramatically outscore ordinary whites on standardized tests as well.

Further we have Shuttleworth-Edwards et al. (2004) who noted the role of first language in intellectual development. Given cognitive barriers to trying to work with two languages and problems of accessing quality education in some countries, I think this fairly relevant.

I have not had the pleasure of reviewing their paper, but yes I agree that sounds relevant based on your description.

I think you have focused to too great an extent on the critique by Kamin, possibly because it is easier to demolish.

Mainly because of the prominent role it assumed in contrary arguments, actually.

I think it’s an issue when you use these views in combination with your anti-immigration politics and so forth.

It was indeed the development of anti-immigration politics which exposed me to race biology (for lack of a better term) in the first place, and the two positions could be said to parallel and reinforce each other.

I also seem to remember you having something to say about miscegenation.

I had some discussions with Red Army on the subject, although much of it ended up being discussed privately.

Finally, when you do take the opportunity to say something outrageous to get a rise out of people, you or one of your cohorts is always quick to point to the supposed scientific basis to your bias.

I can't speak for my cohorts, but I don't believe I've tried to legitimize outrageous trolling with science. Trash posting is trash posting. I've never made any secret of the fact that I enjoy this kind of posting and tend to make an effort to distinguish it from my serious posts by eliminating normal standards of grammar.

It seems that even when you are not talking about race realism, it’s lurking somewhere in the background.

Not untrue, but surely you admit the same could be said with most posters and their respective pet issues. The difference is that race realism is a more sensitive topic.

I would also like to say that patterns of response determine, to a degree, what I end up posting about. Originally the topic I discussed most on PoFo was economics, and to date my longest post (and best post, in my opinion) was a proposal on how to resolve the financial crisis and restructure the US economy. This resulted in very little discussion. Furthermore, most people in the economics forum basically restate their pet theories from their favored economic schools over and over. It's to the point where I hardly bother browsing the economics & capitalism forum any longer.

I think I noted this earlier, but I also find it frustrating you tend to trigger these debates in Gorkiy Park, rather than an on-topic forum.

If anything the issue is raised more often in on-topic forums, but due to the nature of on-topic posters compared to Gorkiy whores the discussions tend to be more refined and curt when they do take place in the on-topic forums, unless one of PoFo's self-anointed angry bright lights like NoRapture happen to be present. This being a political forum Gorkiy itself is also heavily politicized and not just by me.

Quite who belongs to what race on the other hand seems to be at issue however (distinct single race backgrounds are becoming quite unusual if nothing else). What good is acknowledging race in intelligence or whatever when you can’t quite pin down definite racial groupings?

Race as a biological concept is a bit like region as a geographical concept. It's something which very clearly exists but which is subject to some debate. A very large recent genomic analysis separated mankind into just three races: Eurasians (Europe, North Africa, the Near East, and the Subcontinent), Africans, Asians (which included Amerindians). However, if you study the clinal variation within these major groups one finds substantial genetic clustering which would legitimize the presence of numerous additional races. L.L. Cavalli-Sforza describes ten distinct human races (using the euphemism human population). Most of these categories validate the definitions created by past physical anthropologists like Carleton S. Coon (whatever their other flaws) as well, although theories like simultaneous evolution of homo sapiens in different parts of the world as an explanation for racial variation have certainly turned out to be false.

It is also worth noting that self-reporting of race, which obviously indicates our social conception rather than biological conception, shows very high accuracy, as Tang H, Quertermous T, Rodriguez B, et al. found in their paper Genetic structure, self-identified race/ethnicity, and confounding in case-control association studies.

Distinct group differences, even mutations, tend to ensue in any group that limits its gene pool. This is in turn a function of politics and geography, rather than race alone.

Naturally. A group which segregates itself, for whatever reason, will over time tend to diverge from its origin in phylogenetics.

Has causation on this point actually been proven? Much as a queried House on IQ generally leading to success, do you have anything other than statistical correlation to prove this point? You dismissed Noemon’s discussion on differences in the Ashkenazi population for lack of definitive research, but I don’t think there has been a definitive link established between race and intelligence. You may have a point about neurological differences and intelligence, but I think even that is controversial in science.

General intelligence is a psychological concept and not a biological one, so causation is not something that could be definitively proven. What is needed is a neurological theory of intelligence. Racial variation in brain size and in various parts of the brain has been proven, and there is a strong correlation between brain size (or more particularly, prefrontal cortex size and shape) and intelligence. None the less, until we have a documented neurological theory of intelligence there will not be definitive proof.

Is this the same Pinker who suggested that people consider the science behind Kamin’s work rather than focus on his political short comings (as Dawkins appears to do)?

Indeed it is. Dawkins, for his part, has also considered the science behind Kamin's work and praised him where appropriate. In light of the fact that Dawkins is left-wing (though not Marxist, as Kamin is) it would also seem unlikely that Dawkins would have a political axe to grind with Kamin. Dawkins does have something of a personal beef with Kamin due to Kamin's co-authorship of the frivolous, vicious attack on Dawkins' lifework (sociobiology). Kamin basically said that the field of sociobiology was concocted by the capitalist class to legitimize wage slavery and exploitation.

Perhaps people tend to ignore your posts on race realism believing you to be a simple troll (I at least think you a sophisticated troll )?

I have found that this tends not to be the case with most posters, although some certainly have written me off as a troll. When I originally posted at PoFo I was extremely respectful and polite, refraining from any trolling. Gradually I added fun (to me) posting, which of course corroborates the troll thesis.

Far more disheartening than those who ignore it are people who make pronouncements of unshakeable faith without even bothering to review the arguments (for or against), like this little gem from earlier in the thread:

Are you fucking kidding me?

It's a crock of pseudo scientific bullshit developed so that old white guys can invoke science when they discuss how much they dislike browner folks worldwide.

Excluding Zyx from debate is like excluding Richard Lynn because I don’t like his stance on cultural eugenics.

I debated seriously with Zyx on the racial origin of Egyptians and racism in antiquity. I completely refuted his thesis, which he not only refused to accept but accused me of lying (despite sourcing my points) and resorted to personal attacks. Zyx also makes a habit of belittling me in any encounter, and in completely unrelated subjects discussed my "wrongness" (in general not in particular). If you follow his posting closely you'll also note that he is an Afrocentrist who basically inverts the old Nordicist pseudo-science in support of his claims. Several posters, including our golden boy Noemon, have taken the effort to refute his claims, but he refuses to ever admit to being wrong on any point. This combination makes any discussions with Zyx completely unproductive and therefore I usually ignore his posts.

Conflict between human groups which are firmly separated by any means, particularly if there is a problem with resource allocation (the problem being determined by the politics in play) is just as inevitable.

I'm not quite sure I agree with this, but suffice to say that distinct groups of any type are capable of conflict and will come into conflict given an appropriate trigger.

When you have peace between such human groups, it is because they have tired of conflict, rather than some innate rejection based on skin colour.

Or because the conditions in support of previous conflict have disappeared for whatever reason. Racial conflict also does not necessarily mean open violence, but can be much more subtle and something as simple as self-segregation in social settings.

It’s a fair mistake to make, since you spend far more time discussion your racialist views than other views in the same subject. Particularly when you raise those other factors as adjunct, even a justification, to your racial views. Such as the way you keep making a point of saying that you acknowledge other factors in intelligence like cultural development, but have devoted the bulk of your post to the race aspect.

General intelligence is primarily hereditary, so naturally race comes to the fore particularly given its controversial modern nature. Not many people find the idea that smart people tend to have smart kids objectionable. This parallels the debate over The Bell Curve when it came out, which contained surprisingly little about race yet that ended up being the main focus of the debate on the book. I certainly agree with your point, however, that it is a fair mistake to make, and one which we can easily make in reverse when dealing with Marxist posters and class.

Why would I comment if I thought others had raise perfectly valid arguments? Pursuit of a higher post count isn’t my reason for posting.

I should hope that no one posts in pursuit of a higher post count. It can be helpful (from my point of view, you obviously think differently) to voice support of someone else's argument.

Where have I been “patting other people on the back” anyhow?

This thread itself.

Perhaps it says something about my personality, but I think it odd the way you associate arguments with people, rather than focus on the arguments/ideas themselves. Perhaps if you needed to reference I could understand this, but I am fairly aware of who Andres is and what is argument is...

People make arguments, and I remember arguments by the people who made them. That said, and perhaps I am rating myself too highly, but I tend to think that I do a decent job of treating arguments based on their merit rather than by the posters who made them.

Are you thinking of Potemkin?

He is one example, but others such as Vera Politica (he endorses race-IQ variation theory), Vladimir, Fallen Raptor, etc. come to mind. This is not to say that they endorse my theories, merely that they accept that they may have scientific merit and are worth exploring.

1. Do you have any proof of causation between race, heredity and intelligence?

No, and as noted previously such proof could not be found given the limits of our understanding of intelligence (or general intelligence in this case). Proof of causation between race, heredity, and neurology does exist, however.

2. On what basis to you think racial explanations for intelligence are as relevant, if not more so, than cultural and socio-economic explanations?

Primarily that the consensus psychological estimate for heritability of general intelligence is 80%, with low-end estimates hovering around 60%. Those psychologists (e.g. Richard Nisbett) who deny a genetic basis for racial variation in IQ (or deny race itself) tend to posit strange, mysterious factors for racial variation in IQ while not denying at all heritability of IQ in individuals.

[Zyx]

I completely refuted his thesis, which he not only refused to accept but accused me of lying (despite sourcing my points) and resorted to personal attacks.

This whole dedication to me is nonsensical. In the debate with noemon, I conceded plenty. I wasn't stubborn but exploratory. noemon was the condescending one, as his tone typically is, but that had nothing to do with me. I originally started out citing ancient greeks and he corrected me. I then changed my argument and laid it out logically but noemon rejected it because I wasn't a scientist and not on the merit of the debates (I said that humans evolved--but that's not my original claim which was appealing to Herodotus.)

As to your refutation, that's a clear falsity. You cited an ancient tablet that likely said "Nubian," as the emperor in question was, at the time, hostile to Nubia, but was retranslated on your website to be "Blacks." That's just ridiculous. The person was at war with Nubia yet you think that the whole of Egypt was hostile to Blacks? That's just silly and clearly a bastardization of human history and sense.

As to me calling you wrong, that's not 'trolling' but simply my interpretation. If you think that Marxists are 'wrong' then you're free to say so. If I think people like you are wrong, I exercise my freedom of speech. Maybe I'm not 'nice' but what can you expect of a Black person being called "stupid" in every post that he comes across of yours? Of course, even if I were not Black, I'd be hostile to your ideas, see NoRapture, but come on--I do not understand Potemkin one bit, I can't tell what exactly his 'appearances' are, just that he keeps one.

Besides, as for 'honest debates' where one refutes another there's this:

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1555236#p1555236

You didn't even have the decency to explain how your wrongheaded ideas were compatible with page 14 of this document: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-17.pdf

Dave, I'll ask you again.

If Asians have an average IQ of 106, which is very high, and educational attainment has to do with IQ, why is it that Asians ethnically/culturally differ so much in terms of educational attainment?

That is, follow the logic.

IQ can predict educational attainment. [Your assumption]
Ethnicity is cultural, race biological. [Fact]
Asians are biologically more intelligent than "average". [Your assumption]
Ethnically, all Asians should perform similarly. [What you'd predict]
Ethnically, some Asians way outperform others (Asian Indians 60% hold Bachelors, Hmong, Cambodians and Laotians barely get high school educations.) [Reality]
One of the above assumptions are wrong: "Asians are biologically more intelligent than "average"." [One of your assumptions are wrong--likely both, but it becomes useless for your purposes, if the former is wrong so I doubt you'll just admit it.]

Refute that.

[Potemkin]

I do not understand Potemkin one bit, I can't tell what exactly his 'appearances' are, just that he keeps one.

Potemkin - International Man of Mystery.

[Dave]

-The tablet said blacks, you claimed it said Nubians with no supporting evidence because it suited your narrative. Are you fluent in ancient Egyptian now? I also pointed out other examples of racism in antiquity and a body of academic scholarship dedicated to documenting it.
-Your race is irrelevant
-I did not read the post you just linked me originally, and in fact I didn't read it now. I don't read most of your posts.
-Regarding that document, the casting of Asians as a single group is wrong-headed, and Southeast Asians are significantly less intelligent than Northeast Asians and naturally perform worse.

[Zyx]

Potemkin - International Man of Mystery.

No doubt.

First it was FRS and that was confusing, then its Dave and Goebbels [j/k on Goebbels.]

I say, either you know how to smile at Fascists or you are one.

Reminds me of the conclusion to that dialog in the Columbian Orator between the Master and Slave.

http://digital.library.pitt.edu/cache/0/0/a/00acf6728m/02440240.tifs.gif

http://digital.library.pitt.edu/cache/0/0/a/00acf6728m/02450241.tifs.gif

http://digital.library.pitt.edu/cache/0/0/a/00acf6728m/02460242.tifs.gif

I fear that Potemkin may be the angriest of the whole Leftist lot.

--

Now less fun, as Dave is back.

-The tablet said blacks, you claimed it said Nubians with no supporting evidence because it suited your narrative.

You do not seem to believe in mistranslations or common sense. The emperor was at war with a Nubian kingdom. It makes sense that a 'keep out' sign would be directed at "Nubians" not the whole of sub-Saharan Africa--as the whole Sub-Saharan Africa didn't necessarily interact with Ancient Egypt.

But whatever. I just didn't find the translation decent as it couldn't make sense.

-Your race is irrelevant

And stupid, I know.

-Regarding that document, the casting of Asians as a simple group is wrong-headed, and Southeast Asians are significantly less intelligent than Northeast Asians and naturally perform worse.

For one thing, you named "Asians" before, now you are backtracking.

Either way, let's take this.

Map of Asia: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/Asie.svg/650px-Asie.svg.png



By Northeast Asia you mean East Asians, I assume.

The Indian and Pakistani, Southern Asians, outperform the East Asians.

Thailand, also performs near on par with the East Asians, much out of sync with its northern neighbors of Cambodia and Laos.

Interestingly, though the same population, the Indians significantly outperform the Pakistani.

The East Asians, to your credit, are fairly uniform.

All the same, you only earn one coincidence but your theories are not at all predictive.

You can make a retroclaim to Southern Asians being intellectually superior to Eastern Asians who are superior to Southeastern Asians, but that's just a retroclaim.

But seriously, I want you to explain this real data.

Why are "Indians" smarter than Pakistani people?

Why is Thailand an exception in South East Asia?

What does your theory predict or validate?

[Potemkin]

First it was FRS and that was confusing, then its Dave and Goebbels [j/k on Goebbels.]

I say, either you know how to smile at Fascists or you are one.

Actually, Dave is not a fascist. He is a self-described reactionary and a 'race realist'. I disagree with almost everything he asserts, but he's usually rational and knowledgeable in his arguments, albeit sometimes deliberately provocative. And being polite to people whose views you despise is a useful capability. In the 1930s, Kim Philby posed as a fascist sympathiser in Spain and was able to gain access to the highest levels of the Falangist hierarchy, thereby obtaining invaluable intelligence information which he immediately relayed to the Soviet government. Now isn't that more valuable than marching down a street with a banner, shouting angrily?

Reminds me of the conclusion to that dialog in the Columbian Orator between the Master and Slave.

http://digital.library.pitt.edu/cache/0 ... 0.tifs.gif

http://digital.library.pitt.edu/cache/0 ... 1.tifs.gif

http://digital.library.pitt.edu/cache/0 ... 2.tifs.gif

I fear that Potemkin may be the angriest of the whole Leftist lot.

You're probably correct.

[Smilin' Dave]

Assuming that the IQ score taken is reasonably accurate (an assumption made for logical purposes here, not an endorsement of the sample), then such a population in the West would be considered developmentally challenged even if that level of general intelligence is normal for the population in question and perfectly adequate for its natural environment.

But when you are supposed to be getting IQ scores that are representative of a nation, you shouldn’t be using subjects who are in a facility because of their disability (which makes them somewhat exception), and IIRC, a home that wasn’t even located in the nation the statistics were supposed to represent. Should physicists test their theories of dark matter with black paint, on the basis that it shares some assumed resemblance to the subject being studied?

Other data rely upon the original samples with finer statistical adjustment, and the controversy about these samples are noted.

Are you referring to the adjustment made in results in accordance with “g” or am I thinking of something else?

This is an unremarkable finding not at odds with hereditarian theories of intelligence. Apartheid South Africa, surprisingly, did track intelligent black students when resources were available despite the appalling overall racial inequality of educational resources. The black students in good schools would themselves be superior examples and thus be expected to score better than mainstream whites in the United States. Blacks attending New York's elite Stuyvesant High School dramatically outscore ordinary whites on standardized tests as well.

I would have thought the common element in the test I raised and the other you mention is that quality education gives people something of a leg up in intelligence tests. Nurture, rather than nature, seems to be the lesson to be learned.

I had some discussions with Red Army on the subject, although much of it ended up being discussed privately.

Well aren’t you a tease.

Not untrue, but surely you admit the same could be said with most posters and their respective pet issues.

Ah, but those pet issues are often not a question of science. It’s hard to definitively dismantle someone’s ideology, if nothing else they can continue to believe in a utopian image. A scientific claim on the other hand can be disputed on a scientific basis.

Eurasians (Europe, North Africa, the Near East, and the Subcontinent), Africans, Asians (which included Amerindians). However, if you study the clinal variation within these major groups one finds substantial genetic clustering which would legitimize the presence of numerous additional races.

So how are these races categorised, be they 10 or 1,000,000?

Naturally. A group which segregates itself, for whatever reason, will over time tend to diverge from its origin in phylogenetics.

Would it be fair to say characteristics that are considered to be a ‘racial feature’ are only the product of politics, geography or whatever, rather than some existing secret in the blood?

What is needed is a neurological theory of intelligence. Racial variation in brain size and in various parts of the brain has been proven, and there is a strong correlation between brain size (or more particularly, prefrontal cortex size and shape) and intelligence.

Yet neurological development is also heavily influenced by nutrition, which in turn is often a product of social structures and socio-economic factors. The mechanical function of the brain itself (never mind how we actually use it at the ‘conscious’ level) is still something of a black box. For example certain parts of the brain have been identified as centres of activity of certain types (be it emotion, analytics etc.). But on the other hand studies have shown that the brain can be reasonably effective in shifting those functions as a result of locational damage. So correlation on brain size/shape is perhaps not as important as you might think.

Far more disheartening than those who ignore it are people who make pronouncements of unshakeable faith without even bothering to review the arguments (for or against), like this little gem from earlier in the thread:

To be fair, Konulu’s characterisation isn’t too far off the original purpose of the Pioneer Fund.

I'm not quite sure I agree with this, but suffice to say that distinct groups of any type are capable of conflict and will come into conflict given an appropriate trigger.

Thus race/ethnicity isn’t too far different from other modes of association. So why exclude based on ethnicity, as your immigration argument seems to follow, when conflict will take place anyway on different basis?

Or because the conditions in support of previous conflict have disappeared for whatever reason. Racial conflict also does not necessarily mean open violence, but can be much more subtle and something as simple as self-segregation in social settings.

Subtle conflicts over power are not remotely unusual in any society, it would probably be unhealthy not to have them. Following from the concept of similarity, self-separation takes place in a class analysis too, it’s a physical mechanic that enhances group-think.

Not many people find the idea that smart people tend to have smart kids objectionable.

I’m sure people like the idea, but in my experience it isn’t true. Intelligence without structure/support is wasted anyhow.

This thread itself.

Nope. I entered this thread on a fairly negative tone, and simply referenced the work of others. I didn’t even add commentary about who I thought was particularly right in the threads referenced, I left that judgement to others. Referencing isn’t really a pat on the back, for example I will reference from Wikipedia because it is convenient, not because I think it’s the best resource.

Proof of causation between race, heredity, and neurology does exist, however.

I thought you had actually established that the neurology angle in brain size and intelligence (remember you only had correlation, not established causation) required further investigation.

Primarily that the consensus psychological estimate for heritability of general intelligence is 80%, with low-end estimates hovering around 60%. Those psychologists (e.g. Richard Nisbett) who deny a genetic basis for racial variation in IQ (or deny race itself) tend to posit strange, mysterious factors for racial variation in IQ while not denying at all heritability of IQ in individuals.

That is an endorsement for heredity, not racial intelligence theories. I think race exists to some extent, but I think they are only considered/maintained distinct in the modern world through political mechanisms.

[Dave]

But when you are supposed to be getting IQ scores that are representative of a nation, you shouldn’t be using subjects who are in a facility because of their disability (which makes them somewhat exception), and IIRC, a home that wasn’t even located in the nation the statistics were supposed to represent. Should physicists test their theories of dark matter with black paint, on the basis that it shares some assumed resemblance to the subject being studied?

No disagreement here. I'm merely pointing out that the sample is not necessarily as scandalous as it appears. For a general work where truly representative samples are unavailable a reasonable facsimile can be appropriate, but it must be very clearly noted so that no one is bamboozled. Lynn did not do this, and was rightly condemned for it. Sadly the methodology of most contemporary social scientists is even sloppier.

Are you referring to the adjustment made in results in accordance with “g” or am I thinking of something else?

Lynn adjusted for the Flynn Effect originally which led to certain Third World populations having their IQs underestimated (and in two instances overestimated).

I would have thought the common element in the test I raised and the other you mention is that quality education gives people something of a leg up in intelligence tests. Nurture, rather than nature, seems to be the lesson to be learned.

Quality education does give people a leg up, as intelligence is not entirely hereditary. Nature and nurture are the lessons to be learned. And regardless, despite the predominance of hereditary factors in general intelligence this does not tell us everything we need to know about skills and knowledge. Someone with an IQ of 80, for instance, is quite capable of having a good career as a machinist, a well-compensated industrial job. A good education system takes this into account (without forcing people into categories) to allow people, whatever their abilities, to lead a rewarding life and benefit society.

Well aren’t you a tease.

I am opposed to miscegenation for largely personal reasons (mainly that I wish for my children to resemble their ancestors, for the record I do find women of other races to be quite lovely ) but do not think any action should be taken against it. The data suggest that miscegenation reduce parent-child bonding and increase social conflict, but the former factor is not significant and the latter factor becomes irrelevant if everyone miscegenates (e.g. Latin America). Biologically miscegenation has various advantages and disadvantages which also depend on the populations their parents belong to.

Ah, but those pet issues are often not a question of science. It’s hard to definitively dismantle someone’s ideology, if nothing else they can continue to believe in a utopian image. A scientific claim on the other hand can be disputed on a scientific basis.

I don't think anyone's pet issue is a question of science, but the pet issues in question may have scientific validity. For the record this became my pet issue because of scientific inquiry. While I never denied race and always have told racist jokes (most people do), it's not something I had any particular interest in or placed much stock in. I endorsed cultural theories as an explanation of racial variation in performance and on questions like immigration I swallowed the tripe of, "jobs Americans won't do."

An example of a pet issue of mine that I did not acquire via scientific examination is my disgust for most of the welfare state, which parallels that of most American conservatives.

So how are these races categorised, be they 10 or 1,000,000?

Taxonomically a race is any distinct inbreeding group. Members of a race share a set of phylogenetically concordant phenotypic characters. A genetic approach would involve noting where there is significant genetic clustering of a population within the continuum of clinal variation.

Would it be fair to say characteristics that are considered to be a ‘racial feature’ are only the product of politics, geography or whatever, rather than some existing secret in the blood?

For certain traits, certainly. Victorian racists commonly asserted that Mediterraneans and various tropical races were naturally lazy because they slept in the middle of the day, but in fact sleeping in the middle of the day made perfect sense in a hot climate. Thus these "superior" Northern Europeans were nearly boiled alive in demonstrating their "superiority" by doing physical labor in Africa at noon.

Yet neurological development is also heavily influenced by nutrition, which in turn is often a product of social structures and socio-economic factors.

Indeed, that is likely the strongest explanation for the Flynn Effect. Micronutrient defiency, for instance, likely depesses the average IQ in sub-Saharan Africa by at least 5 points. It has also been found that for humans with certain genetic markers that breastfeeding increases adult IQ by 3-5 points. Interestingly black Americans tend not to breastfeed their children, so a government campaign to increase breastfeeding could have profound socioeconomic effects.

The mechanical function of the brain itself (never mind how we actually use it at the ‘conscious’ level) is still something of a black box. For example certain parts of the brain have been identified as centres of activity of certain types (be it emotion, analytics etc.). But on the other hand studies have shown that the brain can be reasonably effective in shifting those functions as a result of locational damage. So correlation on brain size/shape is perhaps not as important as you might think.

It has also been found that even localized damaged in the brain that causes no IQ depression tends to effect functioning in some manner. And of course most "rational" thinking tends to take place in the prefrontal cortex, and general intelligence is something which involves mostly reason. Brain damage could completely destroy your sense of kinesthenics, for instance, while leaving your general intelligence in tact. Yet without a sense of kinesthenics living a healthy life becomes very difficult indeed.

But you are right to point this out, as even prefrontal cortex size is not everything. Northeast Asians and Eskimos have the same brain size, including "parts" of the brain, yet Northeast Asians show significantly higher IQ. To a degree this is cultural, but it also has to do with the widespread presence of two genes in Northeast Asians which enhance brain functionality.

Variations in parts of the brain matter as well. For instance dogs have much smaller brains than humans, but their olfactory cortex has ten times as many neurons. The result of that is the predictable canine superiority in processing scents (which of course dogs also gather much more effectively by virtue of their very large and sensitive noses).

To be fair, Konulu’s characterisation isn’t too far off the original purpose of the Pioneer Fund.

The Pioneer Fund had two original purposes:
[1]The study of heredity and human differences
[2]Private efforts at eugenics (this was later abandoned though a pilot program with the Air Corps did produce some children)

The founder of the fund (I don't recall his name) was a white supremacist and strict segregationist, but this was unremarkable for the United States in the 1930s.

Thus race/ethnicity isn’t too far different from other modes of association. So why exclude based on ethnicity, as your immigration argument seems to follow, when conflict will take place anyway on different basis?

Race cannot be changed, unlike culture, and even with identical culture self-segregation takes place. Thus it is a cleavage more significant than other factors. Robert Putnam's (an anti-racist disturbed by his own findings) sociological research has confirmed this, noting that ethnic diversity is the factor most strongly correlated with reduced levels of trust (including interracial trust ) and civic engagement. Naturally this does not preclude the recognition of other factors, and I for instance have long argued that Muslims should not not be permitted to immigrate to the West at all, even though most Muslims are caucasoid (if not what people recognize as "white").

And as you are right to point out, differences and fissures are not insurmountable. Where possible I feel it is productive to minimize them, however.

Subtle conflicts over power are not remotely unusual in any society, it would probably be unhealthy not to have them. Following from the concept of similarity, self-separation takes place in a class analysis too, it’s a physical mechanic that enhances group-think.

Of course. People always desire to live and associate with those similar to themselves, aside from certain eccentrics and bohemians. I greatly enjoy the company of foreigners, but I'm not everyone. Have you ever heard of a neighborhood with a black cardiologist living side-by-side with an Asian short order cook? It has also been found that people even associate on the basis of shared genetic traits, unknowingly, and that this association is stronger the greater the heritability of the trait. A bizarre friendship correlation based on wrist size exists, for instance.

I’m sure people like the idea, but in my experience it isn’t true. Intelligence without structure/support is wasted anyhow.

Agreed. I would also add that intelligence is overrated.

I thought you had actually established that the neurology angle in brain size and intelligence (remember you only had correlation, not established causation) required further investigation.

Causation between genetics and brain size and shape exists. Causation between brain size and intelligence does not exist, only a strong correlation.

That is an endorsement for heredity, not racial intelligence theories. I think race exists to some extent, but I think they are only considered/maintained distinct in the modern world through political mechanisms.

Race is heritable, and even if you don't accept popular racial classifications most of these groups do in fact inbreed.

[Smilin' Dave]

For a general work where truly representative samples are unavailable a reasonable facsimile can be appropriate

How could he know he had a reasonable equivilent sample without being able to do the test in the first place? Either someone else had managed to do the work before (providing an IQ to measure against), which means the job was possible to do, or the author had an excellent opportunity to pick a sample which suited his desired result.

Quality education does give people a leg up, as intelligence is not entirely hereditary.

Your previous post suggested only 20-40% of intelligence came from non-hereditary factors. The most significant factor in the works being referred to isn’t heredity necessarily but environment. If non-hereditary intelligence factors are so marginal, why was the result so apparently determined by those non-hereditary factors?

I don't think anyone's pet issue is a question of science... For the record this became my pet issue because of scientific inquiry.

Isn’t this kind of contradictory?

Taxonomically a race is any distinct inbreeding group.

Wouldn’t some isolated dark-ages-type villages be classified as races from this definition? Perhaps in modern times these are relatively uncommon, but that just suggests that race isn’t locked in, but redefined with time. It is also not a genetic definition, which would make it incredibly hard to support a link between a scientific definition of race and intelligence, since race isn’t being determined by hard science as such.

For certain traits, certainly.

So what precisely doesn’t it effect?

It has also been found that even localized damaged in the brain that causes no IQ depression tends to effect functioning in some manner.

To be sure the ‘diverted’ tasks done by a damaged brain are not to the same standard as the intact brain, but the point is that elements of the brain are not single use devices, but flexible.

But you are right to point this out, as even prefrontal cortex size is not everything. Northeast Asians and Eskimos have the same brain size, including "parts" of the brain, yet Northeast Asians show significantly higher IQ. To a degree this is cultural, but it also has to do with the widespread presence of two genes in Northeast Asians which enhance brain functionality.

Do Eskimos fall into the Amerindian genetic sub-group you identified in your previous post?

The Pioneer Fund had two original purposes:
[1]The study of heredity and human differences
[2]Private efforts at eugenics (this was later abandoned though a pilot program with the Air Corps did produce some children)

The founder of the fund (I don't recall his name) was a white supremacist and strict segregationist, but this was unremarkable for the United States in the 1930s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_fund
- Finance for Willis Carto, who I think it fair to say is a racist.
- Distribution of Nazi party propaganda on eugenics.
- Involvement with Corrado Gini (advisor to Mussolini) and Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer (mentor to Josef Mengele).
- One source (admitted unnamed) stating Draper "wished to prove simply that Negroes were inferior.”
All these things are just a little bit exceptional from my perspective.

Race cannot be changed, unlike culture, and even with identical culture self-segregation takes place. Thus it is a cleavage more significant than other factors. Robert Putnam's (an anti-racist disturbed by his own findings) sociological research has confirmed this, noting that ethnic diversity is the factor most strongly correlated with reduced levels of trust (including interracial trust) and civic engagement.

To what extent are these factors governed by people’s belief (separate from actual proof) that race is a significant factor in an individual’s behaviour and capabilities? Race might not be changeable, but I personally think it can be ignored. Even from a hereditary genetic analysis, I’m not convinced race is anything other than a clumsy tool for grouping people with certain genetic characteristics, rather than focusing on the characteristics.

Have you ever heard of a neighborhood with a black cardiologist living side-by-side with an Asian short order cook?

Just as an aside, Asian might not be a very specific descriptor but ‘black’ really is useless. Even in the U.S you have a native ‘black’ population, a Caribbean ‘black’ population and a growing African ‘black’ population. I’m not sure what the status of ‘blacks’ from say, Brazil, is in the U.S. This is before we expand on these sub-groups like say the national Somali and Sudanese groupings.

Causation between genetics and brain size and shape exists. Causation between brain size and intelligence does not exist, only a strong correlation.

You basically stated in your last post that there was causation for all of these factors, now you are stating there is only correlation for the latter.

Race is heritable

In the sense that race is simply a cluster of common characteristics grouped under a title, sure. The usefulness of the race grouping however must be questioned, especially when you have two ‘races’ combining genetic material (which given the previous discussion on how race is determined, is clearly common throughout history). And there is still no causal relationship between race and intelligence.

[Dave]

How could he know he had a reasonable equivilent sample without being able to do the test in the first place? Either someone else had managed to do the work before (providing an IQ to measure against), which means the job was possible to do, or the author had an excellent opportunity to pick a sample which suited his desired result.

If the sample in question represented a reasonable cross-section of Equatorial Guineans within Spain, then in the absence of an immigration sorting mechanism it would not be a poor facisimile. The alternate explanation of course is that it is an outright bad and even dishonest sample.

Your previous post suggested only 20-40% of intelligence came from non-hereditary factors. The most significant factor in the works being referred to isn’t heredity necessarily but environment. If non-hereditary intelligence factors are so marginal, why was the result so apparently determined by those non-hereditary factors?

I'm not sure how what I said contradicts with predominantly hereditarian general intelligence.

Isn’t this kind of contradictory?

No. Do you have any pet issues? If so, why? Likely because they interested you for whatever reason, which is not a logical response. Developing interest in something for emotional reasons does not eliminate room for analyzing the subject in question scientifically, however.

Wouldn’t some isolated dark-ages-type villages be classified as races from this definition? Perhaps in modern times these are relatively uncommon, but that just suggests that race isn’t locked in, but redefined with time. It is also not a genetic definition, which would make it incredibly hard to support a link between a scientific definition of race and intelligence, since race isn’t being determined by hard science as such.

Most of those villages were connected via trade to the rest of the world and were not in breeding isolation at all. However, in much of Europe it is in fact possible to distinguish between different villages by looking at the genetic markers. In the 1970s some villages were found in Siberia which were so isolated that they had never heard of World War 2 or the USSR. I've never seen a genomic analysis of these people, but that would be interesting indeed. The genetic definition of race is simply a genetic cluster. The relative imprecision of taxonomical classification does not eliminate its validity as a sorting tool.

So what precisely doesn’t it effect?

Racial variation can theoretically affect anything, and I just gave you an example of a trait that I am almost positive is entirely cultural. Another obviously cultural trait: the tendency of Germans to be punctual and Greeks to be late.

To be sure the ‘diverted’ tasks done by a damaged brain are not to the same standard as the intact brain, but the point is that elements of the brain are not single use devices, but flexible.

Indeed. A most remarkable organ.

Do Eskimos fall into the Amerindian genetic sub-group you identified in your previous post?

No, and Eskimos do not show the mutation on the Y-chromosome which American Indians have. They are genetically closer to Siberian peoples.

- Finance for Willis Carto, who I think it fair to say is a racist.

Indeed he is. The appropriate question is not whether individuals associated with the fund are racist, but if their scientific research has any validity. What exactly did Carto do with the money he is alleged to have received? I did not find an answer on wikipedia.

- Distribution of Nazi party propaganda on eugenics.

38 US states and 28 countries had eugenics programs at this time, so this does not strike me as remarkable. One would also ask what the Nazi propaganda in question said.

- Involvement with Corrado Gini (advisor to Mussolini) and Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer (mentor to Josef Mengele).

Distasteful to say the least, but both men were good scientists with good reputations for their research. Verschuer also held a major professorship in West Germany and was well respected in the postwar scientific community, indicating that the Pioneer Fund in this instance was unexceptional.

- One source (admitted unnamed) stating Draper "wished to prove simply that Negroes were inferior.”

Unnamed but possibly true. This is obviously bad science, but in fairness it is no better than a research who wishes to prove simply that Negros are not inferior. Both are examples of abusing science to reach a pre-arranged conclusion. This was also unexceptional for the 1930s.

To what extent are these factors governed by people’s belief (separate from actual proof) that race is a significant factor in an individual’s behaviour and capabilities?

Good question. I tend to think that people are basically fair, but others might say that people are basically unfair. Both statements are conjecture.

Race might not be changeable, but I personally think it can be ignored.

Given how incredibly obvious it is, I'm not sure how it can be ignored. Naturally it can be ignored as a qualification or disqualification in administration.

Even from a hereditary genetic analysis, I’m not convinced race is anything other than a clumsy tool for grouping people with certain genetic characteristics, rather than focusing on the characteristics.

Race originally focused on the characteristics in question, as it is a taxonomical classification which predates the knowledge of genetics or DNA. Modern genetic research has clarified these issues and aided us in the study of human biodiversity. As a tool it is no clumsier than genus is.

Just as an aside, Asian might not be a very specific descriptor but ‘black’ really is useless. Even in the U.S you have a native ‘black’ population, a Caribbean ‘black’ population and a growing African ‘black’ population. I’m not sure what the status of ‘blacks’ from say, Brazil, is in the U.S. This is before we expand on these sub-groups like say the national Somali and Sudanese groupings.

Blacks of West Indian and African descent in the United States perform better than our homegrown population. Examples of West Indian descended blacks in America include former Secretary of State General Colin Powell and current Attorney General Eric Holder. These blacks seem to have significant caucasian admixture. African blacks in the United States, barring refugees, seem to be the cream of African society and highly educated.

You basically stated in your last post that there was causation for all of these factors, now you are stating there is only correlation for the latter.

I certainly didn't state that, so what does "basically stated" here mean?

In the sense that race is simply a cluster of common characteristics grouped under a title, sure. The usefulness of the race grouping however must be questioned, especially when you have two ‘races’ combining genetic material (which given the previous discussion on how race is determined, is clearly common throughout history).

Miscegenation produces a racial hybrid which is more than possible to categorize using our existing taxonomic tools, much in the same way we would categorize orchid hybrids. Casual usage, that is our social conception of race, also has terms for dealing with these hybrids like mulatto, mestizo, etc.

And there is still no causal relationship between race and intelligence.

Why did you emphasize still? General intelligence is a psychological concept. Let's try a thought experiment, Smilin' Dave. How would you go about establishing a causal relationship between race and general intelligence in the first place?

[Smilin' Dave]

If the sample in question represented a reasonable cross-section of Equatorial Guineans within Spain, then in the absence of an immigration sorting mechanism it would not be a poor facisimile.

The stats as far as I know, were not supposed to representative of Equatroial Guineans in Spain. The sample is messed up when you select a sample group that isn’t representative of the broader group. In this case:
- People in a facility due to their disability
- People who are immigrants
Now, the added problem is the sample also can’t be said to prove general (racial if you like) hereditary traits alone, because the people in this sample group clearly have a number of exceptional features and a somewhat unusual background. I am staggered by your attempt to defend this kind of shoddy scholarship.

I'm not sure how what I said contradicts with predominantly hereditarian general intelligence.

The discussion you quoted isn’t an issue of what you said, it’s a question of the evidence from a study done by others. In that study, hereditary, racial, features were not found to be significant, instead it was environment, possibly even psychological. Given you only attribute 20-40% of intelligence to non-hereditary factors, this seems at odds with your view.

Most of those villages were connected via trade to the rest of the world and were not in breeding isolation at all. However, in much of Europe it is in fact possible to distinguish between different villages by looking at the genetic markers. In the 1970s some villages were found in Siberia which were so isolated that they had never heard of World War 2 or the USSR. I've never seen a genomic analysis of these people, but that would be interesting indeed. The genetic definition of race is simply a genetic cluster.

Clearly my casual efforts have discovered a new “race” for you to profile. Don’t just sit there, get busy!

The relative imprecision of taxonomical classification does not eliminate its validity as a sorting tool.

Well I suppose the old system of scales and marked weights might have been imprecise and prone to manipulation to someone’s advantage, but it sort of works for all it’s problems? Why bother even considering any other method of measurement.

Racial variation can theoretically affect anything, and I just gave you an example of a trait that I am almost positive is entirely cultural. Another obviously cultural trait: the tendency of Germans to be punctual and Greeks to be late.

I think you misunderstand me; I was after a non-cultural variation, not another cultural example.

Indeed he is. The appropriate question is not whether individuals associated with the fund are racist, but if their scientific research has any validity. What exactly did Carto do with the money he is alleged to have received? I did not find an answer on wikipedia.

I assume he rolled it up and smoked it, which he enjoyed . As he presumably gained some advantage from receiving that money, I would prefer he didn’t get it, and think anyone that gave him the money to advance his organisation should be considered complicit.

38 US states and 28 countries had eugenics programs at this time, so this does not strike me as remarkable. One would also ask what the Nazi propaganda in question said.

It was a eugenics film it just so happens, but Nazi eugenic policies were grounded on racist theory rather than science, so it wasn’t directly comparable to the U.S programs of the time (although I must confess not knowing much about them).

Given how incredibly obvious it is, I'm not sure how it can be ignored.

It’s not always that obvious, as you noted yourself in your last post, Arabs can be considered caucasiod, yet are apparently different at first glance. I would struggle to tell and Greek and an Italian apart at a glance, but both certainly have different genetic make-up. Basically if you are not explicitly aware of some rule that says “X is African, therefore he [insert trait 1 here]”, you tend to perceive that person as an individual first, not a racial label.

Naturally it can be ignored as a qualification or disqualification in administration.

If we are to believe your thesis that intelligence is inherited in a hereditary manner along with other racial markers, then that would seem an odd position for you to hold. If you believe certain people to be less intelligent than others (with 60-80% certainty apparently), why wouldn’t you set the bar at a certain height... or should we say, race?

Race originally focused on the characteristics in question, as it is a taxonomical classification which predates the knowledge of genetics or DNA. Modern genetic research has clarified these issues and aided us in the study of human biodiversity. As a tool it is no clumsier than genus is.

The narrative you just provided suggests that genus at least as more modern, expanded knowledge, backing for it.

I certainly didn't state that, so what does "basically stated" here mean?

A trip down memory lane then. Initial statement:

Proof of causation between race, heredity, and neurology does exist, however.

So you stated causation for all factors, but when challenged on the strength of your own statements:

Causation between genetics and brain size and shape exists. Causation between brain size and intelligence does not exist, only a strong correlation.

You acknowledge that some of your line of logic is proven only by correlation, not the aforementioned causation.

Miscegenation produces a racial hybrid which is more than possible to categorize using our existing taxonomic tools, much in the same way we would categorize orchid hybrids.

In science hybrids are often treated as a new creature/plant altogether. Some things are easier to define in ways other than tracing what percentage of their past belongs to which previous concept groupings. When we study the role of computers, do you insist that we trace it back to typewriters and memex?

Let's try a thought experiment, Smilin' Dave. How would you go about establishing a causal relationship between race and general intelligence in the first place?

Well I’d start by coming up with a better definition for race than you have. Otherwise any work I do will be undone by establishing that what I was studying was not race related at all. I would probably also await further research on the brain and probably also consciousness (if we assume the brain is a sort of organic machine, the consciousness could be considered ‘software’). Or has there been an IQ test that gets results for unconscious responses?

[Dave]

Hey Dave 2 (Dave 1 since I reg'd after tyou? ) good post I am enjoying this discussion but I am now a bit drunk so I will respond in detail later

[Wolfman]

Think of sepukku, a samurai would commit suicide at the smallest loss of face

I feel the need to talk about this paragraph. Sepukku didn't really start until well after the unification of Japan. There were instance of it happening, but the major numbers didn't start until a 100 years or so later. Before The Unification, if you failed as a Samurai, you were either forgiven, killed in battle, or your master was killed and you simply found someone else to fight for. As time passed the Samurai felt a need to justify there own existence, and began to glorify there past, and sometimes make shit up. One of them was Sepukku. It was also orginally not about loss of face, but as a way to not admit defeat (the first recorded instance being when a Samurai who was defending an island killed himslef when he realised he stood not chance of sinking the oncoming ships).

not because he's a coward, but because his honour and his family's honour demands it.

As I said, Sepukku, was orginally a way of not admitting defeat. Most of the other cases were times when the Daimyo (feudal lord) order it (do to a significant failure), breaking a law (following out on an illegal vendetta was often punished by ordering sepukku), or a significant personnal failure. BUt, as the peaceful times conitnued, it became more and more importent for the Samurai to following this code, which largely was created during times of peace.

Japanese society is still burdened with elements of Bushido culture

Actually, most of the Japanese populace were not part of Bushido until WWII. Until then it was only for the Samurai, who had actually been officially disbanded as a social class pre-WWII, because of an unsuccuessful coup attempt.

[Nattering Nabob]

Out of this whole thread...no one wondered if these folks have an internet connection in their rooms?

[Sgt Pepper]

Japanese is culture is so f***ing tense! Screw up once and you gotta do harakiri (seppuku) in the name of your family. You don't want them to feel humiliated, don't you? Maybe those kids think that it's better to be alone.

[Apostrophe]

There is actually a cute movie that depicts this phenomenon: "Tokyo!" (the third part)