I wish I had more time to type a reply but in all honesty I’m late for work. I only read the top half of the comment I’m replying to so if anything I say is addressed later on I apologize.
I wanted to reply to this right here. I have taken physiological psychology classes in university, so i have a pretty good handle on how the brain works (no expert, but better than average understanding). The brain is very malleable. If we took identical twins and raised them in completely different environments, their brains at age 30 would be unrecognizably different.
In the case of your evidence, it’s worth pointing out that in higher income households, parents on average are much more invested in their child’s learning and read to them when they’re young. Simply reading to your child greatly expands their cerebral cortex and heightens their IQ. So, even though you show correlation in your evidence, it doesn’t necessarily show that people have different incomes because they have different brains, I’d argue exactly the opposite. They have different brains because of their different incomes.
What IS true is that IQ is somewhat determined by genetics. Essentially, everyone is born with an IQ range they can attain, depending on their circumstances. Someone born with great genetics with parents who have IQs of 130ish, could see their IQ fall to 100 if they grow up in poor living conditions. Conversely, someone with parents IQs of 80ish could see theirs reach 110 if they grow up in the right conditions. It’s an attainable range.
So yes, genetics plays a significant factor, but it’s not the most significant, not nearly.
@LexB Good points.
Lack of socioeconomic success, in the aggregate, would in fact have an effect on developmental brain pathology or simple lack of brain development. I won’t argue with this, it is clearly true. Your arguments are leaning towards the nurture argument, mine is built on the nature argument, but both of these are relevant as we all agree.
However, they are locked in a reciprocal relationship where a prolonged inter-generational lack of nurture, will exhibit a slower evolution of genetic progress (nature). Also, the better a race/species is at manipulating their environment due to an advanced state of natural progression (primarily brain size in the latter part of our development as a species), the more stimulation their lifestyle will be able to provide to the developing brains of their offspring when young.
It’s definitely a reciprocal relationship, and this drives evolution forward within the different genetic bottlenecks we call race. Pygmies have a lack of need for a growth spurt after adolescence, thus they have evolved not to grow past a certain size, for some unknown environmental reason which perplex scientists.
IMPORTANT : The study I cited above (among many others) demonstrates that the size of a humans brain is correlated very closely with their potential IQ (upper limits, etc…). But the technique this study utilized to make these assertions, is that of extraneous morphological indicators (proxies for cranial size that are NOT specifically related to a direct cranial measure). It’s explained in the study, which is simply a survey and correlation exercise across a broad swathe of different data - it was a landmark survey and analysis of dozens of other landmark studies.
What it shows is what scientists have been saying for decades; that there are biological features specific to RACE (genetics) that indicate POTENTIAL for the accommodation of larger brains. What this means is that the upper limit of brain size is totally determined by genetics. This is undoubted at this point. We know this.
Some of the more recent genetic studies are singling out the 1000’s of specific genes related to IQ, and are allowing the creation of genetic testing proxies that seem to match the average IQ of tested subjects like a glove - regardless of their socio-economic situations. I have a geneticist friend who studies this exact subject who does not question this anymore based on the modern literature.
Whether an individual fills into their potential brain biology in the healthiest way possible, is obviously an important factor in this argument. You are both quite right. But I draw a line here :
I don’t believe this to be true, because it is asserting that non-white disadvantaged people can’t play with - stimulate - their babies or afford a mobile to hang over the crib, or second hand toys, etc…
I have a problem with this argument because it starts down the slippery slope of laying disadvantage and pathological parenting practices at someone else’s door. The question needs to be asked: If black society is MORE dysfunctional than it was before the US Civil Rights movement (ie, far more fathers at home), and blacks were back then still in the lowest of socio-economic groups, why are they still in this rut after all the welfare payments have been unleashed and consumer products such as books, mobiles, toys, etc, have become so much cheaper? Charities provide most of these for free.
Also, I know this is a hypothetical, but if we were to layout a scenario where EVERYONE regardless of race were equal, every race sharing the same schooling and healthy parenting practices, the upper limits of brain volume and reduction of brain developmental pathologies could be attained. Because of the aforementioned morphological proxies relating to the possible upper limits of brain volume, the sub-Saharan races would still be at a great disadvantage to the Eurasians.
In this hypothetical scenario (the socialist/communist utopia attained), the sub-Saharans could still not compete with the Eurasian society they are trapped in, and the job offerings would be no different. A pure meritocracy would still see them trapped below the whites who they would still resent, and they would seek out a method with which to bridge the competition gap … which would be the demagogue wing/s of the political spectrum. This is what in-groups do, as soon as they realize their own race is not competing, an organic mostly subconscious movement to alter the status quo arises.
This same thing happens in pure white societies when the underclass rises up, throwing their support to revolutionaries who then lash out by destroying the intellectuals and upper to upper-middle class, working their way down the ladder as the society implodes. These revolutions are almost always fueled by the masses in the lower sections of the social order. It just happens in the USA at present, that sub-Saharans and most Latino’s fill most of this space.
This is the basis of my argument that the Democratic Party, having morphed into a clear anti-white anti-hegemonic alliance of minorities, is not causing the disadvantage of these peoples which are trapped for mostly biological reasons, but the Democratic Party is merely the materialization of their NEEDS; call it an egregore, if you will. Now it has become a reciprocal relationship where the disadvantaged in-groups are leading the policy of the Democratic Party, and the leaders of the same see the opportunity in preaching to the choir, causing even higher ressentiment to rise.
Now, there are two final questions to ask :
1) Could the gap be bridged better if childhood development issues were addressed better? Of course, but the increase would not be sufficient enough - nowhere near - to prevent the in-group/race from still perceiving itself as the underdog, thus materializing the aforementioned demagogic egregore. Probably it would be somewhat less pronounced, but it would still follow the same pattern of an outbreak of what Nietzsche called ressentiment.
2) If welfare in the form of monetary inducement doesn’t work to improve the childhood development opportunities and outcomes, are the white people supposed to FORCE blacks to become better parents? I’m an Australian, we tried this with Aboriginals but this has now caused the ‘stolen generation’ fiasco in which whites are blamed for ‘forcing’ Aboriginals to comply with a more advanced civilization (they had an average lifespan of 30yrs before whites, now it’s over 60yrs and they’re still complaining that whites live on average to the late 70’s thus we are causing their rampant alcoholism and biological limitations caused by 40k years of wandering in the wilderness as hunter gatherers without brain and digestive system development due to lack of access to sugars, dairy, domesticated grains).
So I’ll conclude with that. How exactly is a white person supposed to solve a problem where he is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn’t?
Obviously it is futile and the roots of the problem are simply biological. I for one am not going to make excuses for other people’s anymore above a certain threshold - disabled people excepted - and as each year passes and the demagogues make it more of an issue, that threshold is tightening.
I cannot come up with a way to change an entrenched, and deeply defensive culture of victimhood. There would have to be a grand partnership with enormous buy in from both sides- a ‘New Deal’ of social comportment. This would include an about face in the Black community regarding education, music, fatherhood, and a long list of other socializations. The White community would help financially and in whatever other ways it can.
The problem is that there is far to much inertia among the intergenerational poor, and far too much personal and political profit in race hustling (e.g. Maxine Waters; Shiela Jackson Lee). There is also a for profit prison system which makes a great deal while draining the nations’ coffers incarcerating millions of Black males.
The bigger problem is that the left has so charmed the young with its simplistic siren songs of equality, social justice, and other un-workables, that any ‘deal’ would be one sided- like the reparations the DNC is quietly planning. The left’s plan is to force punishment on the White population through gigantic expansion of Section 8 into every decent town in America, under the guise of ‘housing equality’, further lowering of standards in education to accommodate, rather than train up, and likely hate speech laws similar to the UK to ensure smiling faced compliance.
http://www.kjplanet.com/amp-31-10-726.pdf - Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, examining the IQ of numerous children of different races in an environment wherein they were raised by a higher income family. If one affirms the reality of evolution, different groups exposed to distinct environmental and sociological forces over a significant period of time (Europeans tend to be around 40,000 years genetically separate from sub-Saharans Africans) WILL change, the extent of this change depends on the extremity of such environmental pressures. This has manifested in the form of differing levels of bone density, musculature, height averages (adjusted for nutrition/other factors), brain size and testosterone levels. It’s absurd that one would assert, with the plethora of differences clearly visible between human taxa (or more obscurely) races, that these changes would not ALSO significantly be found in the most powerful, energetic and important organ in the body: the brain. Pygmies are an excellent example of an extreme example of such evolutionary divergence.
Truthfully, the vast majority of Chinese researchers acknowledge the reality of racial differences. Darwin recognised this. We’re willing to accept physiological differences between the races, yet not neurological differences. I strongly believe this is due to the presumed implications of such an admission; a world of racial supremacy and subjugation. If this is your view, then you demonstrate you love not truth, but pragmatism.
Fair points, but I just see this as a Sisyphean (impossible) task, and like Atlas I have been convinced to shrug off that burden (no Ayn Rand innuendo here, I can’t stand Ayn Rand).
Thanks for the study link. I’ll check that one out.
As I had said above, my intent wasn’t to create some definitive essay addressing the overall argument which seems to be race centric and the dynamics of biological vs. social issues that affect the dialogue but it was direct rebuttal to the often used ad hominem comments which have absolutely no basis in fact… I.E. MLK’s comment wasn’t to prove that people are prone to segregation… his comment directly address the institutional nature of racism. Pointing out that Sickle Cell was a genetic defect of the ‘black man’ is simply not true and while I did not specifically site a reference, it just isn’t that hard to fact check.
The problem with this ‘discussion’ is that some people have hardened views, not only about the negative effects of mass migration from one culture to another which I have considerable sympathy with and the overt opinions of racial superiority which manifest itself in the kinds of comments I responded directly to. I would also note as I said at the beginning much of the research that is presented as evidence is often gathered with bias or cherry picked to present a desired conclusion that is not entirely objective.
The Cavali Sfoza tree that you put up is interesting but it hardly makes a statement about the relative intelligence of any of the groups. Sforza’s research to many it the go to for the ‘Auh Ha’ argument but what is a clear contradiction to some of the of the points the reader takes as ‘racial evidence are his own clear statements about the subject of race.
Cavalli Sforza – The Great Human Diasporas
“The idea of race in the human species serves no purpose. The structure of human populations is extremely complex and changes from area to area; there are always nuances deriving from continual migration across and within the borders of every nation, which make clear distinctions impossible” (p. 237; again, the explanation is seemingly in contradiction with the underlying thesis of the book).
“It is because they are external that these racial differences strike us so forcibly, and we automatically assume that differences of similar magnitude exist below the surface, in the rest of our genetic makeup. This is simply not so: the remainder of our genetic makeup hardly differs at all” (p.124 ).
I believe even though he admits the contradiction with race, his previous (and early) genetic work is striving diligently to a desired outcome. Many reviewers of his work point to the many ‘exceptions’ he gives to his own conclusions. Some are keenly aware that his list of exceptions is quite extensive and at some point we have to entertain the possibility that the exception rather than the rule might have more merit than he gives it.
Later you post an abstract of the study of Transracial Adoption Study. I gave this a fair read but I saw a couple of things that stood out to me that were not addressed specifically as reasoned exceptions to the test results.
First the IQ scores while lagging behind the adults birth children does show a marked improvement over the scores of similar minority children who stayed with their birth parents. One flaw of this study was that it was relatively small in number 66 children across multiple ethnic and probably social boundaries.
We have learned a couple of things about the hierarchy of ‘experience’ that relates to a child doing well on an IQ test in later years. One that sits at the top of the list is language development that starts at birth (and potentially before).
A couple of points that are not address or are described unknowns are:
the birth parents IQ – Without understanding that genetic benchmark it is hard to make any assumptions about the result of the child.
Breast feeding ( a 3-4 point advantage in a healthy mother) and over all exposure to toxins such as lead (physical environment)
The Language/vocabulary ability of the birth mother or the carers around the child. Vocabulary, pronunciation, inflection etc all go into early language understanding. One study I read spoke specifically about the early handicaps being around people who’s vocabulary was quite simple compared to a child listening and absorbing a more diverse lexicon. This has more to do with what would be considered neglect but then again, inherent in most adoptions is an element of a mother emotionally or physically being unable to be particularly attentive to a child they intend to put up for adoption. Early Affect of Neglect
The amount of attention and interactivity the child experiences. Early development (0-6 months) is critical to both interpersonal relationships and according to the Kees-Jan Kan study disproves much of the genetic disposition for heritability.
The attachments of the child that must be broken and reformed after adoption. This is particularly problematic if there is an intermediate caregiver in the process.
Bonding with other siblings that interact with the newly introduced infant.
A lot of unanswered questions for a test result that contains 1/6 (plus) of the child’s first 3 developmental years.
I don’t disagree with the basic premise of the fact that if you introduce into a culture, in mass, a different culture, negative results for the original culture are bound to occur. I like our culture (for the most part) and do not wish to see an invasion of any other set of cultural norms destroy the ones with base around ‘western values’. I do have some concern that we really don’t have a consensus as to what those values actually are and just as importantly, who is driving this rather deliberate restructuring of the worlds population but never the less I concede that massive numbers from a third world existence regardless of their race would be harmful and I also concede that the Islamic faith is generally not compatible either with western values or Christianity. I don’t agree with laying the problem at the feet of racial difference because regardless of how one views the development of ‘traditional values’ of a group, scientific … progressive advancement… or the lack thereof is not a good test of a western IQ test and far more must be learned before we can blame genetics and not be able to definitively say how genetic is directly involved.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/03/12/dna-tests-can-predict-intelligence-scientists-show-first-time/ - A rough scale to demonstrate the extents to which groups differ genetically can be displayed through a scale from genetic similarity to genetic dissimilarity (with some notable exceptions) i.e. taxon-race-ethnicity-family. Sociological markers like ethnicity and race often correlate sharply with BIOLOGICAL differences. These markers can often function as genetic clusters (there’s even genetic differences between Britons and Germans which are detectable) due to these groups in question having been isolated in a specific environment over time. Given that intelligence is highly heritable and significantly depending on DNA (see article), and given that race/taxon function as genetic clusters, it’s therefore HIGHLY likely that race has huge and partially immutable genetic implications. An excellent book which collects data and aims to rebut the same arguments you raise regarding the limitations of appealing race as an explanation for behavioural differences is ‘The Color of Crime (2005)’. Its author is certainly biased but it’s a literal collection of statistics with conclusions drawn from the data.
Some interesting statistics also: https://randomcriticalanalysis.wordpress.com/2015/11/16/racial-differences-in-homicide-rates-are-poorly-explained-by-economics/
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(15)00671-5 (genetic clusters and race)
https://archive.is/NmfF3 - high melanin content in other animals linked to behavioural differences (likewise humans, as articulated in the study)
https://archive.is/C6hMy - poor white children overperforming richer blacks
https://archive.is/zX5p9 - Europeans and Asians are subject to more recent evolutionary changes.
http://philipperushton.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/iq-race-south-africa-rushton-personality-individual-differences-12-2001.pdf - gap between blacks and whites in America same as that in South Africa
https://archive.li/6DrIo - IQ gap remains despite significant increases in social equity for blacks
The cumulative case for the importance of genetic differences by race/taxon is a very strong one, in my opinion. The elephant in the room that is persistently ignored due to the inconvenience of its truth is truly one which cannot be ignored. It’s a glaring testament to the realities of genetics in terms of its effects on our behaviour. I do not doubt in the slightest the method by which the child is raised, the level of nutrition, exposure to trauma and so forth are noteworthy factors, however it is by no means the sole determinant of one’s POTENTIAL intelligence if all of those factors are met.
But do black people only behave this way because they are taught to be victims? There is a connection between black behavior and the government and politicians constantly making special accomodations for them and their feelings. I hate it. I wonder though if that didn’t happen then would their behavior change. Maybe we wouldn’t see things like this…
The 1964 Civil Rights Act bar none was the worst thing in the world for blacks being able to make their own way and create their own business and communities… I was yet another leash sold in the name of benevolence.
…and LBJ nailed it when he described the predicted results of his signing the bill would garner the black votes for 200 years.
Lyndon Baines Johnson 1963… “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference… I’ll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years”.