Category: IQ and Heredity
There cannot be many of us who do not owe a debt of gratitude to Phil Rushton, both for his theoretical brilliance, allied to an unswerving devotion in most difficult professional circumstances to the cause of unpopular scientific truths, and for his steadfast, loyal European heart. How much poorer would we all have been had Rushton not possessed these qualities ... had he merely shied away from the race question and lived an ordinary academic’s life, a quiet life, the life of an unquestioning product of his political times.
I did not discover Rushton until early in 2003. It was at that time when I had decided to contribute something to the cause of white survival. There was a particular question which troubled me, and which I saw as holding a key to changing the fortunes of white advocacy. To answer it I needed a crucible, and to get that ... to construct something people would feel worthwhile writing for and reading ... I had to generate some kind of internet presence.
Cue Race, Evolution, and Behaviour. When I came across it at Rushton’s own Darwin site, it had already been published eight years, and Rushton himself had said that he had run out of opponents to debate. I certainly hadn’t, though. I had found what I needed, and promptly devoured it in one sitting, reading in bed until the small hours. For the next fourteen or fifteen months I blasted around the political blogosphere provoking every liberal, every racial egalitarian, every race-denier, every anti-racist I could into a hopeless battle about human differences and hereditarianism (hopeless courtesy of Rushton’s superb analysis), psychometrics, and gene issues generally.
A surprising number of my opponents knew of Rushton, and had a ready put-down - second- or third-hand of course. I do not believe that a single one of them escaped the shredder. REB’s central theory of r/K and child development was just too perfect in its internal fit. Most of the liberal rif-raff, of course, didn’t know about this “controversial” (meaning courageous) Anglo-Canadian psychology professor, born on the Dorset-Hampshire border a couple of miles from my own birthplace and eight years distant in time. They would, in any case, have considered their political truths inviolable to attack by one supposed racist using the theories of another. They never had a chance. There was metaphorical blood everywhere.
Thanks to the carnage I had something to gesture towards when the moment came, in the summer of 2004, to put together a slate of writers for a website to be titled majorityrights.com. I never knew Rushton, and only corresponded with him very briefly. I wish now I had had the opportunity to explain how much I extracted from his thesis and to what purpose I had put it. He would probably have wanted to know, like most scientists, if I had correctly and faithfully represented his thought. The answer was that REB was so beautifully and clearly written, that was an easy task.
There is not another Phil Rushton in this world. White Nationalism has lost a true champion. He did not live nearly long enough - gone at just 68. But for his life and his talents and his work we equally loyal-hearted sons and daughters of old Europe can be extraordinarily grateful. I know I am.
A recent proposal has argued that nationalists should try to seek reproduction with higher IQ whites so that:
“They will naturally rise to the highest levels of society and victory will be inevitable. This is how the white race will be saved.”
The prospects can be empirically evaluated. Richard Lynn has extensively summarized IQ studies on Jews. Most studies are non-representative. A representative American study reported a Jewish (Ashkenazi) verbal IQ of 107.5. Two representative British studies have reported Jewish (Ashkenazi) IQs as 108.5 and 107.7 (verbal = 107.3, non-verbal = 108.0). The best reading of American and British Ashkenazi IQ is 110. The average white IQ in these regions is 100.
In the U.S., there are about 200 million whites and 6.5 million Jews. Assuming a standard deviation of 15 in both populations, we get the following.
As anyone can see, Jews haven’t achieved their spectacular success (e.g., control of the mainstream media, ZOG, etc.) as a result of IQ; they achieved it by acquiring control of the money supply. Nationalists are advised to target getting back control of the money supply instead of trying to increase IQ. I’m not against increasing IQ, but IQ just isn’t relevant to the matter.
Posted by R-news on Wednesday, January 11, 2012 at 09:44 PM in Anthropology, European Nationalism, Global Elitism, IQ and Heredity, Jewish Diaspora, That Question Again, White Nationalism
Henry Harpending and Gregory Cochran’s recent book, The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution, puts to rest the Left’s anecdotal assertions that genes don’t matter and that evolution ceased prior to humans leaving Africa 50~100 thousand years ago. In addition, they expound on Kevin MacDonald’s work on the history of Jewish culture and traditions that created the eugenic program of the Ashkenazi Jews in the Diaspora. They also explain the correlation between the recessive genes that contribute to modern Ashkenazi Jews’ high intelligence and genetic disease—genes that were beneficial in the highly literate niche that Jews dominated for hundreds of years.
They assert, “Stephen Jay Gould’s position that 50,000 or 100,000 years is an ‘eye blink,’ far too short a time to see ‘anything in the way of evolutionary difference,’ is simply incorrect. We are surrounded by cases in which selection has caused big changes over shorter time spans, often far shorter; everything from the dog at your feet to corn on the cob is the product of recent evolution.” And, there is no difference between natural and artificial selection—they both change gene frequencies within populations under varying ecological conditions. The mechanisms are identical whether breeding dogs, humans, or urban rats.
They point out that “evolution has taken a different course in different populations. Over time, we have become more and more unlike one another as differences among populations have accumulated.” Humans have increasingly differentiated themselves into specialized ecological niches—from new cults to occupational specialization to radical differences in exposure to technology versus exposure to deprivation. Humans both within nations and between nations are exposed to ever increasing differences in how they go about conducting their lives, with genetic changes following closely behind.
Richard Lynn, sometimes along with Tatu Vanhanen, has been publishing books challenging the economists and social scientists to look at average national intelligence as an important factor in how well off a nation is including health, wealth, earnings, democracy, etc.
This latest book is an excellent source to give someone who is doubtful about racial hierarchies around the world. Country by country Lynn looks at the races making up a country and explains historically how they became what they are today. Over and over again such themes such as when slavery ended in different parts of the world, Blacks refused to work, and usually East Asians and/or Asian Indians were brought in to do the manual labor, and eventually moved up taking over entrepreneurial sectors of the economy.
This pattern was also shown by Amy Chua in “World on Fire,” though that was not the intent of her book. Lynn shows that wherever there is a mixture of races the pecking order follows the average intelligence of each group: Ashkenazim Jews, East Asians, Whites, mestizos of different hybrids, Amerindians, and Blacks—to name just a few. Only aggressive affirmative action in many of these countries can keep the smaller, more intelligent minority from totally dominating the economy.
Again, of Lynn’s books, this is probably the easiest read and the most convincing arrangement of arguments to convince the skeptic that intelligence does matter and that it is highly genetic.
The book Before The Dawn: Recovering The Lost History Of Our Ancestors by Nicholas Wade, 2006, has some interesting observations with regards to European evolution that seems to have passed without much notice. If not, then I apologize for my own failure to catch the items below.
Wade pints out that “The question of behavioral modernity is of great significance because it appears to be the last major step in the emergence of the ancestral human population. The components of modern behavior appear most prominently around 45,000 years ago in Europe. At sites throughout Europe, the staid culture of the Neanderthals begins to yield to a set of new and more inventive techniques. There is a new set of stone tools, more carefully crafted to attain specific shapes. There are complex tools made of bone, antler and ivory. The bringers of the new culture made personal ornaments, of materials such as punctured teeth, shells and ivory beads. They played bird-bone flutes. Their missile technology was much improved. They were avid hunters who could take down large and dangerous game. They buried their dead with rituals. They could support denser populations. They developed trade networks through which they obtained distant materials.”
Two arguments about the maths gap, spotted by John Ray - the first from World Science:-
It’s been a long, sometimes vicious controversy: are boys better at math than girls? Some say they are, because boys tend to outscore girls in math. Opponents blame that on sexist upbringing.
Males may have an edge in spatial thinking abilities, which are useful in math, evolutionarily speaking, and this advantage may be very ancient.
Deep-rooted though this difference may be, females can surmount it with just a little work. “The so-called gender gap in math skills seems to be at least partially correlated to environmental factors,” said Paola Sapienza of The Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University in Illinois. “The gap doesn’t exist in countries in which men and women have access to similar resources and opportunities,” added Sapienza, summarizing the results of a new study published in the May 30 issue of the research journal Science.
In it, Sapienza and colleagues analyzed data from more than 276,000 children in 40 countries who took an internationally standardized test of math, reading, science and problem-solving. The data came from the 2003 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Programme for International Student Assessment.
The researchers found that globally, boys outperformed girls in math by 10.5 points on average on this test. But this advantage vanished in some of the most progressive and gender-equal countries such as Iceland, Sweden and Norway.
Now that the apparent good news is out, does this mean anyone who dared suggest the existence of natural gender differences in math was being sexist?
Not necessarily, if one believes other studies suggesting sexism isn’t the only reason for the math gap. Some research has attributed that gap to a deeper discrepancy in spatial reasoning abilities. One new study even suggests an evolutionary reason: better spatial reasoning in males might be related to larger range size in their ancestral environment.
This discrepancy may extend all the way down the evolutionary tree to invertebrates, according to the research, which focused on cuttlefish and appears in the May 27 online issue of the research journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
“Evidence of sex differences in spatial cognition have been reported in a wide range of vertebrate species,” but never the simpler invetebrates, the authors wrote. The investigators found that male cuttlefish both range over a larger area, and have better orienting abilities than female cuttlefish. “The data conform to the predictions of the range size hypothesis,” they wrote.
Nevertheless, differences in spatial cognition are easily surmountable, if one believes yet a third study, which might help explain why ultimately girls and boys can perform equally in math. Published in last October’s issue of the journal Psychological Science, this study found that malefemale differences in some tasks requiring spatial skills are largely eliminated after both groups play a video game for 10 hours.
“On average, women are not quite as good at rapidly switching attention among different objects and this may be one reason why women do not do as well on spatial tasks,” said the lead author, University of Toronto psychology doctoral student Jing Feng. But “both men and women can improve their spatial skills by playing a video game,” he added, and “the women catch up to the men. Moreover, the improved performance of both sexes was maintained when we assessed them again after five months.” The game used was a first-person shootemup game, “Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault.”
The game “may cause the expression of previously inactive genes which control the development of neural [brain] connections that are necessary for spatial attention,” said Ian Spence, director of the university’s engineering psychology laboratory. “Clearly, something dramatic is happening in the brain” thanks to the playing.
“One important application of this research could be in helping to attract more women to the mathematical sciences and engineering,” he added. “Since spatial skills play an important role in these professions, bringing the spatial skills of young women up to the level of their male counterparts could help to change the gender balance in these fields that are so important to our economic health.”
And now for the demolition:-
Howard Gardner and his team of researchers/propagandists have been pushing the theory of “multiple intelligences” since 1983, without empirical data. They rely on anecdotal stories to show that all humans are equally intelligent—they just have different intelligences that each person has compared to others. The primary purpose of this program is to try and provide an alternative explanation for what constitutes intelligence, so that Jensenism/Spearman’s g can be undermined as the only empirical program that has any real validity. (See Wikipedia for a good explanation of the “MI” theory and its failures.)
When I ordered the above book by Gardner, I thought it would be expanding on his primary work on multiple intelligences. Instead, “The five minds posited in this book are different from the eight or nine human intelligences. Rather than being distinct computational capabilities, they are better thought of as broad uses of the mind that we can cultivate at school, in professions, or at the workplace.” The only thing I got out of the book was how muddled Gardner’s thinking is with regards to human biology, so I’ll elaborate on just a few anomalies I found.
Gardner admits that, “We now have well-developed, empirically based theories of intelligence, problem solving, and creativity—along with the tools, software, and hardware based (or purportedly based) on these scientific advances.” Yet his whole program is based on undermining those very empirically based theories. His multiple intelligences program is primarily used within the educational community as an excuse for racial differences in intelligence. With this book, he tries to lay out ways of advancing or programming children in such a way that they will exhibit these five traits or abilities: “discipline”, the ability to “synthesize”, “creativity”, “respect” for others, and “ethical” behavior.
One of the most perplexing dilemmas for me is trying to come up with mechanisms, articles, programs, etc. that could open up a true debate on the heritability of intelligence. Since The Bell Curve, all of the empirical data has supported Jensenism/hereditarianism while the equalitarian/naïve environmentalists have taken up the defensive position of attacking Jensenists (primarily their motives), while providing no alternative explanations for the persistence of the IQ-gap in average intelligence between different races.
In reading Michael Shermer’s book Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design (2006), many of the arguments put forth by Intelligent Design advocates (Creationists) are reflective of the arguments used by equalitarians against Jensenists. What is interesting is that it is accepted that Creationism is pseudoscience and universally rejected in the biological sciences, while equalitarianism is still considered to be an alternative theory for explaining the differences in average intelligence between the races.
Well, this fine straight-talker’s first test wasn’t long in coming:-
Four books that I have read in the last month highlight the dilemma that the nature/nurture debate faces. I’ll discuss each one to show how politicized and confused the issue becomes when science clashes with universal egalitarianism.
Wrestling with Behavior Genetics: Science, Ethics, and Public Conversation, edited by Parens, Chapman & Press. 2006. This book has chapters written from different perspectives by different authors. Only one, Kenneth F. Schaffner, contributes without hesitation what is involved in genetic/environmental studies. He states, “As I mentioned a little earlier, some researchers think a good heritability-of-IQ estimate for ‘the’ general, contemporary U.S. population is closer to 0.8 and others think it’s closer to 0.3 or 0.4. Matt McGue and colleagues, for example, examine much of the data collected during the twentieth century and conclude that by the time we are adults, about 80 percent of the variation with respect to IQ is due to genetic variation.”
From the Independent:-
The study sample was huge: 65,000. One would, of course, expect that as a fraction of their respective populations Chinese participation in higher education would surpass whites. But one would also expect that Gauss would get ‘em in the end, and the best degrees will go where the right-hand curve is longest.
However, this being a government study I doubt that Jews were eliminated from the “white” contingent. Also, South Asians weren’t mentioned at all - perhaps because on average Pakistani students could be expected to weight SA results downward, and the distribution was, therefore, unremarkably general.
I must admit to being puzzled by the report’s finding that women out-perform men, though. That is calling Gauss a thorough-going liar, so what’s at work here?
The most rational of scientists can fall into pseudoscience when their personal bias is allowed to take over. The book “Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine”, by Richard P. Sloan (2006) is such a book. Sloan defines what science is and how it is practiced, and then goes on to show how those who try to connect religion with healing in medicine have been very loose with the scientific facts. The book is excellent except when he takes several jabs at eugenics and intelligence, where his egalitarianism overpowers his science.
He has compiled a lot of data about science and its fundamentals. For example he states, “[from a 2005 Gallup poll], 75 percent of those polled believed in at least one of ten common pseudoscientific phenomena, while only 27 percent believed in none at all. Other polling data show similar findings.” I find this fascinating, because along with increasing a population’s intelligence, we must also improve rational thought. Perhaps, forming a eugenic group based partially on testing for not holding any pseudoscientific convictions, would be one way of bringing about rationality (see my review of “The Robot’s Rebellion”).
This is a book review of “Breeding between the lines: Why interracial people are healthier and more attractive,” by Alon Ziv, 184 pp., Barricade Books, 2006, ISBN: 1569803064. My preliminary impression that the book most likely doesn’t have decent data in it is confirmed.
Posted by J Richards on Saturday, October 14, 2006 at 12:06 AM in Anthropology, Books, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, IQ and Heredity, Psychology, Race realism, That Question Again
High IQ Kids Have Different Brain Growth Pattern: “The brains of high IQ children show a distinct pattern of development, according to a study from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland. The cortex, or outer mantle of the brain, starts out thinner and thickens more rapidly in very intelligent children, say the researchers. It then peaks at around 11 or 12 years old before thinning rapidly in the late teens. This developmental pattern, rather than sheer brain size, may have more to do with intelligence said Philip Shaw, lead author of the NIH study. He said the changes are subtle and what is driving them is a mystery. The scientists discovered the association between intelligence and brain development by taking MRI scans of 307 healthy children and teenagers, aged 5-19, over 2-year intervals as they grew up.
Even alkalinity differs: “Researchers at England’s John Radcliffe Hospital, in Oxford, report that our brain’s pH—how acidic or alkaline it is—might be a clue to our intelligence. Using a technique called magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS), researchers examined the brains of 42 British schoolboys. Just as its close cousin MRI creates vivid images of a person’s internal anatomy, MRS lets doctors study an organ’s chemistry. When the British scientists compared the lads’ IQ scores with their MRS results, they uncovered an intriguing relationship: the smarter the boy, the more alkaline his brain. Although the relationship between alkalinity and aptitude didn’t hold for every aspect of intelligence, verbal skills and reading comprehension seemed especially linked to pH, the Radcliffe team reports in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London.
This looks like some independent confirmation that Richard Lynn is right and that the average IQ score for women is lower. To get men and women showing up as scoring equally (on average), the test authors deducted points from the scores of men.
I have just posted here the original Lynn & Irwing paper. The ferocity of the attack on the paper is exactly what we would expect of a genuine contribution to the advancement of knowledge. Work that overturns what has long been believed will of course be resisted. So to allow the general reader to see for himself/herself that the paper is utterly sound, I have reproduced it. Out of respect for copyright, however, I have omitted the Tables and References (Essential to serious scholars).
Most readers of the paper will be amazed to recognize nothing in it that resembles what critics like Blinkhorn have said about it. Those who know of the uneasy relationship that Leftists have with the truth will not be surprised, however.
Both Chris Brand and I have recently put up elsewhere comments about the Frank Ellis case—where Leeds university students in the UK are trying to get one of the teachers there sacked for “racism”. See here and here.
An excerpt from The Guardian:
Statements such as those made by Ellis have been normal among psychometricians (specialists in psychological measurement) for nearly 100 years. As most people reading here would know, you can find them summarized in the book Ellis refers to. But making such statements in public always attracts wrath. Ellis is one of those rare people who puts telling the truth as he sees it above his own self-interest. It is heartening that his university is resisting the calls to sack him. There would not be much left of academic freedom in Britain if they did sack him.
“Genetics can play a bigger role in determining a child’s reading ability than teaching, an Australian researcher says. An international study showed some children were born with “an unfortunate deal of the genetic deck” when it comes to reading skills, said study co-author Brian Byrne, professor of psychology at the University of New England in northern NSW. No “magic bullet” of encouragement and tutoring would fully improve their reading abilities, he said. Published in the latest issue of the British-based Journal of Research in Reading, the study showed the influence of parents reading to their children diminished significantly a year or so after they started school. “The home environment doesn’t leave its mark much on children as they start to go through school, which is surprising to a lot of people,” Byrne said. “What seems to determine most of the differences amongst children, just in the normal school setting in terms of their reading skills, are genetics.”
[Anybody who knows the high correlation between IQ and early reading ability will of course not be at all surprised by the finding]
Chris Brand comments on the finding too
There is data on IQ by State for the United States from 1965. Supporting the belief of many, the correlation is indeed negative between IQ and rural population (1990 census), r=-.24 N=47, and is almost significant at p=1/21. However, if one excludes the States with the highest number of blacks per capita, (basically the Confederacy), the correlation reverses to r=.25 N=36, and isn’t quite as significant at p=1/14 (which is to be expected when you reduce N). As might be expected, the correlation between IQ and blacks per capita is very and significantly negative, r=-.58, N=47 and p=1/85,844. The 5 highest IQ States as of 1965 were, in order, Montana, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Idaho, Nevada. Nevada would have been significantly more rural in 1965 as Las Vegas is among the fastest growing areas of the US, so I suspect 1965 census data would yield a more significant and higher correlation between rural white population and IQ.
It seems to be just about universal that rural populations test out with lower average IQs. And popular culture recognizes that with words like “hick”, “yokel” and “bumpkin” being used to characterize rural dwellers. So I am in no doubt that the phenomenon is real. The only interesting question is: Why?
The usual (and grossly insulting) explanation that I hear is that smart people migrate to the city, leaving the drooling idiots behind. That implies a selective pressure that should give us a rural population that is of GENETICALLY lower intelligence. An alternative explanation however is that country life is dull when compared to the big city and that a less stimulating environment in early childhood leads to the brain not reaching its genetic potential in at least those ways that are irrelevant to rural life. It has long been claimed that lots of stimulation is needed in early childhood for the brain to undergo maximum development but the existence of some discordant studies leads me to what should be the obvious conclusion—that the disadvantage is not an overall one but rather a disadvantage when it comes to typically urban tasks (such as IQ tests). And in some rural tasks (such as marksmanship) I would expect rural populations to do better. The Flynn effect (rising average IQ) is sometimes tied to the widespread presence of TV in modern homes—with the stream of visual and auditory diversity (if I can use that word) that TV provides. I myself have argued that improvements in perinatal care are the main driver of the Flynn effect but there is undoubtedly evidence for some educational value of TV and it clearly has some potential to “equalize” rural and urban environments.
So how do we decide? Which explanation for the lower IQ is correct? Are both of them correct? I think the case of the Afrikaners is enlightening. Up until recently they were a mainly rural population and they do test out well below the European norm (I forget the figure and am too lazy to look it up). So are the Afrikaners genetically disadvantaged? Most Anglo-South Africans would cheerfully assert that they are and would have a fund of Van der Merwe jokes that parallel American redneck jokes. But that is just ethnic rivalry. The two groups did have a rather nasty war, just over 100 years ago, you might remember. Afrikaners certainly remember.
On my two trips to South Africa I stayed on both occasions with Afrikaners and in moving about the country I had plenty of opportunity to observe Afrikaners too. And the idea that they are genetically inferior really is risible. They are just the same efficient, orderly, capable, meticulous, energetic people as Dutchmen from the Netherlands. They are exactly what their Northern European (mainly Dutch) ancestry would lead one to expect.
And that was evident long ago. During the utterly disgraceful war of Imperialist aggression, the British had roughly as many troops in South Africa as the USA had in Vietnam and yet a relative handful of Boers (Dutch farmers) held them off for years (with their good marksmanship being a definite factor in that) and would have held them off indefinitely if the British had not started killing their women and children in droves. At that point of course the Boers gave in. And if you think that a military resistence of that effectiveness is compatible with a low IQ, you know nothing of warfare. The rural “gooks” of Vietnam did pretty well too, of course, though they needed the US Congress to help them win.
So that is why I think that the low IQ of rural populations everywhere (including India) does not necessarily indicate genetic disadvantage.
Steve Sailer has a post up linking to a very interesting Slate piece about IQ and its correlation with performance:
What’s interesting to me is that it shows - in no uncertain terms - the link between the two, in mission-critical terms.
Kevin Drum sallied forth:
I commented fairly acerbically in April 2004 on the latest gambit among psychologists for explaining away low average black IQ and educational attainment. It is the “stereotype threat” theory. The theory seems to have a number of incarnations but at its wackiest, it says that blacks do poorly because they are afraid of letting down their race! Nonsense as gross as that hardly needs comment but let me simply ask: If such fears exist at all, why do they not make the student try harder and thus do better?
A somewhat more reasonable theory is that blacks “drop their bundle”: They know that they are on average unlikely to do well so don’t really try to do well. All the studies that I have heard of over the years tend to show, however, that blacks have unusually HIGH motivation in the testing situation—so that theory need not detain us.
In that situation, psychologists have had to devise ever more dubious experiments to support their ideas. The latest appears to be a study reported here of which we read: “In their spring study of 81 students at Boca Ciega High School in Gulfport, Brett Jones and Tom Kellow investigated “stereotype threat,” a phenomenon in which students worry their failure might confirm a negative belief about their race’.
I recently had an email discussion with Steve Sailer on the topic of Hispanic IQ which I reproduce here
Didn’t see this one coming. Looks like I’ll have to develop a new Weltansicht.
White Genocide Project
Also see trash folder.
Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.
Endorsement not implied.
Nationalist Political Parties
Whites in Africa