Unpopular Opinions.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I suppose I'd espouse one particularly unpopular opinion in the current climate.

I believe that - on average - people of negroid origin are less intelligent than other people. Various forms of intelligence tests (and some physiological ones) have indicated this in the past, placing some Jews top of intelligence tables, followed by East Asians, with caucasians a little above the global average and blacks about 15% back on average.

But doing such research is considered racist now because we all must consider everybody to be equal in capabilities (even though there hasn't been a white 100 metre sprinter of note in nearly 40 years.) Now, I've no problem with black people. I've been all over Africa, and enjoyed their company immensely. But they do seem to lack some forms of abstract thinking and can be much quicker to emotive responses, I find (anecdotally). I'm speaking averages here - obviously there are outliers and overlapping bell curves, which means that of course there are some immensely intelligent black people just as there are some incredibly dumb whites and Jews.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

This meta-study was quite revealing.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx

It debunks all the usual rejoinders offered to IQ testing differences. Nurture is ruled out by trans-adoption studies, cultural specificity of the test is ruled out by the fact that East Asians consistently outperform Europeans who developed the test, historicity is ruled out by virtue of consistent results over a 90 year period using variations of intelligence testing, and there is a provable correlation in relation to cranial capacity and intelligence (wherein east asians have on average an extra cubic inch of brain capacity compared to whites, who have five cubic inches more than blacks)

Richard Nisbett wrote:

J. P. Rushton and A. R. Jensen (2005) ignore or misinterpret most of the evidence of greatest relevance to the question of heritability of the Black–White IQ gap. A dispassionate reading of the evidence on the association of IQ with degree of European ancestry for members of Black populations, convergence of Black and White IQ in recent years, alterability of Black IQ by intervention programs, and adoption studies lend no support to a hereditarian interpretation of the Black–White IQ gap. On the contrary, the evidence most relevant to the question indicates that the genetic contribution to the Black–White IQ gap is nil.


Source: HEREDITY, ENVIRONMENT, AND RACE DIFFERENCES IN IQ A Commentary on Rushton and Jensen (2005) Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2005, Vol. 11, No. 2, 302–310

Link

Leonard Lieberman wrote:

In the 19th century measurements of cranial capacity by Morton and others supported a “Caucasoid > Mongoloid > Negroid” hierarchy of intelligence. This continued through most of the 20th century but was challenged by a nonhierarchical view originating with Boas. Beginning in the 1980s Rushton correlated cranial and IQ measurements and presented a hierarchy with “Mongoloids” at the top. Each of these periods relates to its social context: the 19th-century hierarchy paralleled the height of European world domination; the nonhierarchy of the 20th century reflected world wars, worldwide depression, and the breakup of empires; the “Mongoloid > Caucasoid > Negroid” hierarchy followed the economic success of several Asian nations. Morton’s cranial ranking was the result of his sampling error and his acceptance of the hierarchical thinking of his time. But how is it possible for Rushton to support the M > C > N ordering while using the data of several anthropologists who have rejected racial hierarchies on empirical grounds? The answer to this question involves a critique of Rushton’s use of the race concept, his aggregation of diverse populations into three traditional races, his claim to explain differences in “cultural achievements” on the basis of variation in brain size, and a number of other problems. The study concludes by noting that the major consequence of these hierarchies is the apparent justification for the exploitation of those at the bottom.

Source: How “Caucasoids” Got Such Big Crania and Why They Shrank From Morton to Rushton Current Anthropology Volume 42, Number 1, February 2001

link

Joseph Graves wrote:

The last decade of the 20th century experienced a resurgence of genetically based theories of racial hierarchy regarding intelligence and morality. Most notably was Herrnstein and Murray’s The Bell Curve (1994), that claimed genetic causality for long-standing racial differences in IQ. In addition, it raised the time worn argument that the over-reproduction of genetically deficient individuals within our population would lead to a serious decline in average American intelligence. These authors provided no specific rationale for why these genetic differences should exist between human ‘races’. Instead, they relied heavily on the work of Canadian psychologist J. Philipe Rushton (in The Bell Curve, 1994, Appendix 5: 642–3). Rushton has advanced a specific evolutionary genetic rationale for how gene frequencies are differentiated between the ‘races’ relative to intelligence. He claims that human racial differences result from natural selection for particular reproductive strategies in the various racial groups. Rushton’s theory is based entirely on the concept of r- and K-selection, first explicitly outlined by MacArthur and Wilson in 1967. This article examines both the flaws in the general theory, and specifically Rushton’s application of that same theory to human data. It concludes that neither Rushton’s use of the theory nor the data that he has assembled could possibly test any meaningful hypotheses concerning human evolution and/or the distribution of genetic variation relating to reproductive strategies or ‘intelligence’, however defined.


Source: What a tangled web he weaves: Race, reproductive strategies and Rushton's life history theory Anthropological Theory Vol 2(2): 131–154

link

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Wow, a link and multi quotes ? Took me ages to do that.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I suppose I'd espouse one particularly unpopular opinion in the current climate.

I believe that - on average - people of negroid origin are less intelligent than other people. Various forms of intelligence tests (and some physiological ones) have indicated this in the past, placing some Jews top of intelligence tables, followed by East Asians, with caucasians a little above the global average and blacks about 15% back on average.

But doing such research is considered racist now because we all must consider everybody to be equal in capabilities (even though there hasn't been a white 100 metre sprinter of note in nearly 40 years.) Now, I've no problem with black people. I've been all over Africa, and enjoyed their company immensely. But they do seem to lack some forms of abstract thinking and can be much quicker to emotive responses, I find (anecdotally). I'm speaking averages here - obviously there are outliers and overlapping bell curves, which means that of course there are some immensely intelligent black people just as there are some incredibly dumb whites and Jews.

Joseph Graves wrote:

Now, if you were to ask yourself, "Is it likely that an Alaskan Eskimo is going to become a center in the NBA?", well, probably not, because height has something to do with your performance at that position in the NBA. So, we can see that in the gross scale it's likely that physical differences may have something to do with various forms of athletic performance.

But when we talk about subtle things like, for example, whether a given population is going to be fastest in sprinting, then it's not so simple. The fact is that most of the world record holders in the 100-meter dash are of Western African descent, but they also tend to be African-Americans who have mixed with Europeans and American Indians. So it's not easy for us to determine whether it's being African that might have something to do with them being so fast, or whether it's the fact that they have European and American Indian ancestry that might have helped them be so fast.
And all of those genetic factors have to be tempered in terms of the environment in which individuals train. For example, if you look at those sprinters of Western African ancestry, they all got their records because they trained in the United States, Canada, Great Britain, or even in the Caribbean. If you look at the Western African countries where those sprinters' ancestors supposedly came from, none of those countries have ever produced any world record holders in the sprint events.

So if it was something uniquely about being African that makes you a fast sprinter, then you'd expect that Western African countries would be holding all these records too, but in fact they don't. It has something to do with genetic predisposition, it has something to do with environment, it has something to do with training regimes, and particularly at the level of world-class athletic performance.



Source

Joseph Graves wrote:

Despite the psychometricians' inflated claims about the genetic basis of intelligence, almost none of them have any real or practical knowledge of experimental quantitative genetics. Parroting evolutionary and ecological concepts, many of them apply these paradigms uncritically as they search for simplistic explanations for extremely complicated aspects of human society (Graves & Place, 1995). The proper utilization of core evolutionary and quantitative techniques would shatter the psychometricians' program. For example, efforts to test g experimentally would be rife with difficulties-of course, that could explain why the psychometricians avoid such a critical test. Additionally, there are several other alternative hypotheses concerning generalized intellectual ability the psychometricians have yet to test.

Source: The Pseudoscience of Psychometry and The Bell Curve The Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 64, No. 3, Myths and Realities: African Americans and the Measurement of Human Abilities (Summer, 1995), pp. 277-294

Rushton and Jensen wrote:

A basic law of evolution links brain size to what Wilson [186] termed r-K Life-History Theory. This refers to a genetically organized group of traits that evolved together to meet the trials of life -- survival, growth, and reproduction. The term r stands for the natural rate of reproduction (the number of offspring) and K stands for the amount of care parents give to insure that their offspring survive. Plants and animals have different life-histories. Some are more r and others more K, which are sometimes referred to as “fast” and “slow” life-histories, respectively, because of the different speeds of development they entail.


In Race, Evolution, and Behavior, Rushton [23] documented that the races differed not only in brain size and intelligence but also on a suite of 60 life-history characters (Table 5). People of East Asian and African ancestry fall at the two ends of a continuum, with Europeans falling intermediate in speed of maturation and longevity, personality and temperament, family stability and crime, and sexual behavior and fertility [23].


Source: Race and IQ: A Theory-Based Review of the Research in Richard Nisbett’s Intelligence and How to Get It The Open Psychology Journal, 2010, 3, 9-35

Joseph Graves wrote:

1. Rushton's arguments rely on r- and K- life history theory. These designations are general descriptions of investment in reproduction and somatic tissue on opposite ends of a spectrum (r- = more reproduction/less soma and K- = less reproduction/more soma.) The problem with this notion is that it has been shown to be incorrect in a series of experiments with a wide variety of organisms. No one took this theory seriously after about 1990.

2. Even if r- and K- theory were correct, I showed that Rushton applied it backwards. By the theory, Africans should be K- selected (K selection occurs in stable environments, such as the tropics) while r-selection was to be favored in fluctuating environments, such as the temperate zones. So by Rushton's reasoning, Africans should be more genetically capable of intelligence, and Europeans/Asians less.

3. Throughout his work, Rushton selectively uses examples to support his ideas. I have caught him manipulating data in unclear ways, for the purposes of making his points.

4. Rushton requires the existence of biological races, which humans do not have. The existence of geographically based genetic variation is not the same as proving races exist, or that in life history features all Africans are different from all Europeans.

Joseph Graves wrote:

The evolutionary arguments are more important than any physical measurements because they address why and how any physical difference could exist. If Rushton cannot explain the mechanism that is responsible for any reputed difference, then his argument collapses like a house of cards. This is why his 1994 book was entitled Race, Evolution and Behavior: A Life History Perspective. Its goal was to explain using evolutionary theory (the only scientific means to explain human variation) why racial differences in intelligence exist. As I point out in my work, evolutionary science does not support this conclusion.

As for supposed physical differences in head (or brain size). First, there has been no systematic measurement of cranial sizes for sufficient numbers of populations in humans. This is important because Africa and Asia are huge continents with many populations/ethnic groups. No physical measurement taken from 1 or a few populations could be expected to represent all Africans or Asians.

Second, the relationship between "intelligence" and brain size/body ratio holds broadly over species level, but not within a species. So we can infer that Velicoraptor was more intelligent than T. Rex, but we can not infer that any specific raptor was more intelligent than another due to differences in that ratio. In the same way we cannot infer that a larger brain gives more cognitive power in humans. Frederich Gauss, one of the greatest mathematicians of all time, had an incredibly small head and brain. Autopsy of his brain did reveal that his cerebral cortex had an incredibly high number of folds. But even if we could determine that there was a difference in cerebral cortex folding between Africans and Asians, we could not determine that that difference was due to genetic differences.

The brain's development (and hence that of the intellect) is profoundly influenced by environmental and developmental factors. Genetically identical groups of rats deprived of environmental stimuli were measured as less intelligent and had less cerebral folding than rats given environmental stimuli. In the modern world, there is no equivalence of social and physical environments between Africans/African Americans and Europeans/Euro- and Asian Americans. Therefore any intelligence difference one might measure (say in mean SAT scores, AFQT Tests etc.) cannot be shown to have anything to do with genetic differences between groups. There are far easier explanations for these differences, including social discrimination (stereotype threat), toxic environment, and malnutrition (which are all differentially visited upon African Americans.) The heritability of intelligence (how much the trait is determined by genes or environment) has been estimated at around 0.50. This means that intelligence is about 50% genes and 50% environment. With this much environmental contribution, only experimental or observational designs that can equalize environment can give you any reasonable explanations. For the most part, this is impossible in racially stratified societies.

I made all these points to Rushton directly in our 1997 debate at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. To say the least he really had no cogent response.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zrhMjS5dAk

J Philippe Rushton wrote:

Several years ago Joseph Graves did write a book chapter critique of my life-history explanation of race differences. I no longer recall it in detail except that he had ducked the main part, that is, the data.

As you know, most race research focuses on Black-White differences in the US in IQ, education, crime, and marital stability. My research went a lot further to cover some 60 variables such as speed of maturation, brain size (three separate indicators), rate of producing twins at birth, longevity, testosterone, sexual behavior, etc. Moreover, I looked at African descended people in the Caribbean, Canada, the UK, and sub-Saharan Africa. and found the same Black-White differences where ever they were studied. Most crucial, I looked at East Asians on all the same 60 characteristics and found they had higher IQ scores, larger brains, less sexual activity, less crime, fewer twins per 1,000 births etc.

In other words, a highly consistent three-way pattern of racial differences exists in brain size, intelligence, sexuality, personality, speed of maturation, life span, crime, and family stability in which East Asian descended people fall at one end of the spectrum, African descended people fall at the other, and European descended people fall intermediate, typically close to East Asians. East Asians are slower to mature, less fertile, less sexually active, with larger brains and higher IQ scores. They also engage in greater social organization and less crime than Africans who are at the opposite ends in each of these areas. My 1995 book, Race, Evolution, and Behavior summarized these theories and the evidence supporting them.

So, the fundamental question is, how do we explain the consistent three-way pattern? No environmental theory alone can do so. Only evolutionary theory in which genetics are crucial can account for the pattern If Dr. Graves can come up with a better theory or show the data is different than I described, he should do so. But he has not done so.

I hope this helps.

Sincerely,

Phil Rushton

Joseph Graves wrote:

Rushton's memory of my critique is quite limited. First, it began with an evaluation of the efficacy of r- and K- theory in general. Professional life-history evolutionists (of which I am, and he is not) no longer regard r- and K- theory as a useful research paradigm. This dismantling occurred due to a series of experiments that tested the predictions of r- and K-theory and showed that they did not hold up in a wide variety of species. Second, I demonstrated that Rushton misapplied r- and K- theory; indeed by MacArthur and Wilson (the originators of r- and K-theory) Africans would be K-selected and Europeans and East Asians (r-selected); just the opposite of what Rushton claimed. Third, I demonstrated that much of the data he cited to make his case was flawed either in collection or source; particularly data like "social organization" and "crime". Thus at three levels his r- and K-theory approach to human life history variation fails. So I challenge the notion his 3-way spectrum is real; secondly even if it were real, he has not presented an evolutionary theory that could explain it; and third that environmental differences could easily explain much of what he reports.

smegmar wrote: »

Who is the fastest swimmer in the world: Michael Phelps, American, of White European decent.