The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Russian Reaction BlogTeasers
Africa and Cognitive Colonialism
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_143582296
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Chanda Chisala’s article on black/white IQ differences has been making quite the stir in the HBDsphere. It is well worth reading in its entirety, as some of the points he makes – e.g., the evidence for high IQ amongst certain African ethnic groups such as the Igbo – are quite compelling and novel even to those well versed in this debate. But the central plank of his argument is ultimately a strike against the “hereditarian position” in IQ on the basis that the children of African immigrants are failing to regress to the mean.

The predictable response of the hereditarians is to adopt the environmentalist argument of super high immigrant selection to explain this unexpected trend: where some environmentalists propose that these immigrants are the most driven achievers in their countries, the hereditarians say they are the most intellectually elite, the ones from the topmost segment of the IQ bell curve in their countries; the outliers who got some lucky genes in an otherwise poor-gene environment. But like the hyper-driven-personality hypothesis, this argument cannot explain the equally, if not more impressive, achievements of their children: lottery winners never have children who also win the lottery. The stubborn refusal of their children to conspicuously regress to the much lower African genetic mean IQ (and not even to the African American mean IQ) predicted by hereditarians is simply inexplicable under their racial genetic hierarchy.

The problem is that African IQs from all social groups are highly repressed because of Third World factors like malnutrition and parasitic load. Very significantly so – around 15 points, or one standard deviation. When Third Worlders migrate to the First World, they experience a sort of “accelerated Flynn Effect” as their children with one plane ride get to enjoy advantages such as superior nutrition, medicine, etc. that had taken their host countries a century to build up. It’s not so much that regression to the mean isn’t happening but that it is being cancelled out by Flynn. This is a point that with apparently just one exception on the part of the IQ blogger Pumpkin Person has been overlooked in both Chisala’s article and the comments to it.

Let’s do a few back of the envelope calculations based on several plausible scenarios to demonstrate this.

The (commonly accepted) phenotypic IQ of Sub-Saharan Africans is typically estimated at 65-80, with 70 being a particularly common estimate. Their genotypic IQ is around 85 extrapolating from African Americans (there are issues such as ~20% Caucasian admixture, selection effects during slavery, diversity in Africa itself, etc. but let’s keep things simple). As is also well known, and cited by Chisala himself, African immigrants to both the UK and the US tend to be highly credentialed (more credentialed in fact than any other ethnic immigrant group). A reasonable estimate of their average phenotypic IQ would be 100, i.e. two S.D.’s above the Nigerian/Ghanaian/etc. average (three S.D.’s would be too implausible since there are so very few of them), and a genotypic IQ of 115.

Some at this point would object that the genotypic/phenotypic difference diminishes for higher IQ Africans since they’d be wealthier and more “elite” on average than the commoners, and hence have access to better food, medicine, etc. This is a good argument, but actual height data indicates that in the Third World entire populations are shifted down – both commoner and elites – relative to their counterparts in the First World. You can see the same phenomenon not only geographically but historically, e.g. average US Presidential heights, which increased by more than three inches between 1776 and today (and that is despite the US being very well fed by global standards even two centuries ago).

Assume the standard method of calculating offspring IQ: The average of the father’s and mother’s IQs, plus some degree of convergence to the mean of the parents’ racial genotypic IQs, i.e. what is otherwise known as regression to the mean, which is usually estimated at 40%.

Now let’s assume our African immigrant is an economic migrant, i.e. an educated and credentialed Nigerian, as opposed to a semi-literate refugee from wartorn Somalia or DRC. (Average IQ of Black African immigrant offspring in the UK is about 93 according to the CAT tests, as Chisala points out and as I mentioned three years back. Since this group will include a lot of these very low IQ Somali/Eritrean/etc. refugees, the average IQ of children of African economic migrants should logically be a lot higher, i.e. maybe around the White average. This hypothesis will be further supported below).

Let’s assume our African immigrant is male for simplicity’s sake – plus the fact there are somewhat more men than women amongst African immigrants anyway – and that he made some of the following marriage choices:

  • Marries another cognitively elite Black immigrant woman just like himself, i.e. phenotypic IQ of 100, and genotypic IQ of 115, resulting in average offspring IQ of 107, i.e. standard “model minority”-level performance. It would not be particularly surprising or strange if Britain’s best performing secondary student in one particular year – Chidera Ota, prominently featured in Chisala’s article – was to come from the high end of this particular group’s bell curve.
  • Marries a Black immigrant woman whom he married back at home, thus she did not undergo the selection for higher IQ that is the selection process for economic migrants, thus has a phenotypic IQ of 85 and a genotypic IQ of 100. Resultant average IQ of offspring: 101.
  • Marries an African American woman with a phenotypic and genotypic IQ of 100 (i.e. associational mating). Expected offspring IQ: 101.
  • Marries a Caucasian woman with a phenotypic and genotypic IQ of 100 (i.e. associational mating). Expected offspring IQ: 103.

Here’s a summary:

Genotypic IQs F (ego) F (race) M (ego) M (race) S & D
Black immigrant (elite) + Black immigrant (elite) 115 85 115 85 107
Black immigrant (elite) + Black immigrant (nonelite) 115 85 100 85 100.5
Black immigrant (elite) + US Black (assoc) 115 85 100 85 100.5
Black immigrant (elite) + US White (assoc) 115 85 100 100 102.5

So you see the pattern? Cognitively, the children of African immigrants are basically Caucasians, i.e. a standard deviation above African Americans, but nowhere close to an elite cognitive group like Ashkenazi Jews or US Indians who are almost a full S.D. above Caucasians. They will come to form a population group with a fixed cognitive profile set around 100 or slightly higher (since regression to the mean stops after one generation), and as such they will do fairly well socially and economically. Most likely, better then Caucasians, since they will benefit from affirmative action policies in education and employment designed to benefit 1 S.D. duller African Americans while in fact being cognitively similar to Caucasians (think Ashkenazi Jews counting as Whites in university admissions). All of this, in fact, seems to be happening in real life.

Chisala might not have “disproven” the hereditarian or HBD position (at least its nuanced, non-White Nationalist part that pays due respect to auxology and Flynn dynamics). But he did demonstrate that African immigrants are doing fairly well for themselves. Indeed, as a cognitively elite Zambian immigrant, Chisala would presumably be quite the expert on it.

And don’t get me wrong, this is a genuinely attractive message, at least so long as you are an egalitarian blank slatist (US liberals), a cultural supremacist (US conservatives), or even a cognitive elitist who doesn’t attach any value to racial particularism. Liberals can point to them as living proof that Blacks are just as mentally gifted as Whites, and it is structural racism which is keeping African Americans down. As such, there needs to be more affirmative action, more racial quotas, more laws against hate speech, etc. to end it. Conservatives too would welcome it. They will praise the work ethic and family values of these African immigrants, citing the lack thereof amongst African Americans as the real cause of why they lag so much behind other ethnic groups in the US. That in turn will enable them to continue to wage their culture war against genuine African American culture. The economists and economic rationalists will be happy. Surely this is a good reason to expand immigration from Sub-Saharan Africa? More jobs, more skills, more entrepreneurialism. If anything, the only unhappy people would be the White Nationalists, and who cares about those primitive troglodytes anyway?

Even so, it should be pointed out that this argument can be critiqued even from morally universalistic, if still cognitively elitist, principles. An argument could be made that accepting African cognitive elites might improve the host societies, at least in the views of non-nativists: By increasing the size of the middle class, solving skills shortages, and providing fuel for the egalitarian narrative which – whatever its problems with logic, reason, and data – is nonetheless morally superior to “kneejerk” ideologies based on real racism and exclusion.

But proponents of these views should also seriously consider what effect their policies are going to have on the African societies that the high IQ immigrants are abandoning. It is becoming increasingly accepted in development economics that countries with high numbers of “smart fractions” – either via a high average IQ, like China, or at least a substantial “Brahmin” class, like India or South Africa – tend to do much better than low IQ and cognitively homogenous countries, like… most of Sub-Saharan Africa. The region has very few cognitive elites to start off with, and a large percentage of them are getting sucked up into Western societies that frankly have orders of magnitude less need of them than their own cognitively-strapped countries. These losses are not just financial, though those are no small matter even just by themselves: It takes a lot of money to train a doctor or an engineer, money which Sub-Saharan Africa generally doesn’t have. Even worse are the cognitive losses, as the stock of competent administrators and businessmen dwindles, reducing the size of Africa’s smart fractions even further and resulting in even more poverty and dysfunction.

It is adaptive to adopt the language of the Left on this issue. Enabling educated African immigration at a large scale is Western cognitive colonialism against the African continent, and is nothing more than a subtler version of the resource rapine that it subjected Africa to back in the days when imperialism was overt and didn’t bother concealing its iron fist beneath a velvet glove. Colonialism is bad and morally unjustifiable, and all foes of the global plutocratic elites must unite against it.

 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. The children of British Black-Caribbean migrants score about 1/3 of a SD below the White British mean. The BC migrants were overwhelmingly commoners, not professional migrants.

    To me, the data on BCs is more conclusive than the data on Africans, as African migration was more selected. It’s interesting that BC children do so well on cognitive tests. It’s also interesting that BC children and African children score similarly, which suggests that the African cognitive mean may be much higher than previously thought.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chuck
    " The BC migrants were overwhelmingly commoners, not professional migrants."

    Might you have some data? How educated were West Indian movers as compared to stayers? Below is from a review of Suzzane Model's book:

    "Model compares West Indian immigrants in New York, Toronto, London, and Amsterdam, and finds that, despite variation in the labor markets and ethnic composition of these cities, Caribbean immigrants in these four cities attain similar levels of economic success. Model also looks at “movers” and “stayers” from Barbados, Jamaica, Trinidad, and Guyana, and finds that emigrants leaving all four countries have more education and hold higher status jobs than those who remain. In this sense, West Indians immigrants are not so different from successful native-born African Americans who have moved within the U.S. to further their careers. Both West Indian immigrants and native-born African-American movers are the “best and the brightest”—they are more literate and hold better jobs than those who stay put." (West Indian Immigrants: A Black Success Story?)

    I recall looking through Barro and Lee's data base a while back and seeing a fair degree of selection (circa 1960 to 1980). But I don't recall the magnitude.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /akarlin/africa-and-cognitive-colonialism/#comment-989732
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. E. Harding says: • Website

    So first-generation African immigrants have lower phenotypic, but higher genotypic IQs than Whites? African immigrants to the U.S. clearly show upward mobility in educational achievement.

    http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/11/african-immigrant-fact-of-the-day.html

    Read More
  3. This chart, based on a cognitive test administered to British school children of 11 years of age, shows that British Black-Caribbean children and African children score very similarly. We’d expect that only if the African children were representative of the broader African population, which obviously includes the non-selected Caribbeans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    The test may be dumbed down to an extraordinary extent, like many other things in modern British education.
  4. whahae says:

    Thankfully I’m a supporter of the global plutocratic elite so I can continue to support immigration of high-IQ people.

    Also if you look at how cognitive elites have done in lower IQ countries (Idi Amin’s expulsions of the Indians, mass killings of Igbos in Nigeria, anti-Chinese riots in Indonesia & affirmative action for Malays in Malaysia) they would be crazy to care about cognitive losses in their countries instead of trying to get out.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    You (and also Mr. K.) can look to the book by Amy Chua
    "World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy
    Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability",
    http://www.amazon.com/World-Fire-Exporting-Democracy-Instability/dp/0385721862/
    $ 0.01 + $ 3.99 S&H (used).
    Derbyshire wrote a review about the book:
    http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Reviews/HumanSciences/worldonfire.html
    Amy Chua is a pretty interesting authoress,
    may be not the one with the most charm to my taste, but serious researcher.
    See Wikipedia about her:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Chua .
    Wikipedia contains also a lot of info about here outstanding relatives
    (again not the nicest, to my feelings.)
    Your F.r.
    , @Dain
    This. It's lefty to even care how the hell the plutocratic elite - and there will ALWAYS be one - benefit from individuals just pursuing the good life.

    And brain drain is good because it means more money for the old country in the form of remittances generated by good first world jobs. Keeping smart people stuck in hellholes doesn't do anyone any good.

  5. K. says:

    I don’t belong to a cognitive elite, so help me out here. Is this meant to be satire?

    Read More
  6. Immigrant from former USSR [AKA "Florida Resident"] says:
    @whahae
    Thankfully I'm a supporter of the global plutocratic elite so I can continue to support immigration of high-IQ people.

    Also if you look at how cognitive elites have done in lower IQ countries (Idi Amin's expulsions of the Indians, mass killings of Igbos in Nigeria, anti-Chinese riots in Indonesia & affirmative action for Malays in Malaysia) they would be crazy to care about cognitive losses in their countries instead of trying to get out.

    You (and also Mr. K.) can look to the book by Amy Chua
    “World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy
    Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability”,

    http://www.amazon.com/World-Fire-Exporting-Democracy-Instability/dp/0385721862/

    $ 0.01 + $ 3.99 S&H (used).
    Derbyshire wrote a review about the book:

    http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Reviews/HumanSciences/worldonfire.html

    Amy Chua is a pretty interesting authoress,
    may be not the one with the most charm to my taste, but serious researcher.
    See Wikipedia about her:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Chua .
    Wikipedia contains also a lot of info about here outstanding relatives
    (again not the nicest, to my feelings.)
    Your F.r.

    Read More
    • Replies: @whahae
    Well, if Amy Chua's argument that smarter ethnic minorities exploit the majority population in developing countries is right then Aanatoly Karlin's statement that countries with such minorities do better is wrong.

    In that case humanitarian leftists should support immigration of these cognitive elites to the west. Western countries would be helping poor developing countries by taking their oppressors away.

  7. JayMan says: • Website

    Good post!

    A few technical quibbles:

    The problem is that African IQs from all social groups are highly repressed because of Third World factors like malnutrition and parasitic load. Very significantly so – around 15 points, or one standard deviation.

    I wouldn’t say 15. Maybe 5-10 (assuming the sub-Saharan genotypic average IQ is 80, and tests at 70-75). But even then those proposed causes are still just assumptions at this point.

    Their genotypic IQ is around 85 extrapolating from African Americans (there are issues such as ~20% Caucasian admixture, selection effects during slavery, diversity in Africa itself, etc. but let’s keep things simple).

    That ~20% admixture should be expected to add around 4 points, so the 85 value for American Blacks should reflect a genotypic African IQ of ~80.

    But well said here: selection of an elite sample will produce a permanently elite (and at slightly regressed IQ) population in the next generation. That fact shouldn’t be surprising.

    It’s hard to say what the overall effect of the drain of the cognitive elite from poor countries is. Sure, these countries suffer brain drain, but emigrants also send money and ideas back home…

    Read More
    • Replies: @David
    I didn't live in Honduras before there were massive cash remissions coming from the US (which really took off after Hurricane Floyd), but I believe the plentiful cash is a big factor in social decline there. In a country with 1/30 to 1/40 the per person income of the US, the price of land and housing is 1/2 to 3/4 for a comparable environment. Ask anyone living in a modern house and they'll tell you about their relative in the US. Getting to the US is the likeliest way a man can build a better life for himself and family. His economic competition is already here bidding up the cost of life there.
  8. inertial says:

    You can see the same phenomenon not only geographically but historically, e.g. average US Presidential heights, which increased by more than three inches between 1776 and today .

    Yes, but how much of this are the effects of (a) giving women the vote and (b) television?

    Read More
  9. 5371 says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    This chart, based on a cognitive test administered to British school children of 11 years of age, shows that British Black-Caribbean children and African children score very similarly. We'd expect that only if the African children were representative of the broader African population, which obviously includes the non-selected Caribbeans.

    http://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Chisala-4.png

    The test may be dumbed down to an extraordinary extent, like many other things in modern British education.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    It doesn't matter if the test is dumbed down, as an IQ gap will still remain. Pass rates can be affected, but the Z score gap will remain. If that doesn't make sense, read this: http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/adverse.htm

    The point is that even if the test is dumbed down, it's remarkable that the black-white gap is so small.
  10. whahae says:
    @Immigrant from former USSR
    You (and also Mr. K.) can look to the book by Amy Chua
    "World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy
    Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability",
    http://www.amazon.com/World-Fire-Exporting-Democracy-Instability/dp/0385721862/
    $ 0.01 + $ 3.99 S&H (used).
    Derbyshire wrote a review about the book:
    http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Reviews/HumanSciences/worldonfire.html
    Amy Chua is a pretty interesting authoress,
    may be not the one with the most charm to my taste, but serious researcher.
    See Wikipedia about her:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Chua .
    Wikipedia contains also a lot of info about here outstanding relatives
    (again not the nicest, to my feelings.)
    Your F.r.

    Well, if Amy Chua’s argument that smarter ethnic minorities exploit the majority population in developing countries is right then Aanatoly Karlin’s statement that countries with such minorities do better is wrong.

    In that case humanitarian leftists should support immigration of these cognitive elites to the west. Western countries would be helping poor developing countries by taking their oppressors away.

    Read More
  11. soren says:

    if Amy Chua’s argument that smarter ethnic minorities exploit the majority population in developing countries

    I didn’t actually reader her books, but I highly doubt that a market dominate minority who married someone from another market dominate minority would put it in that perspective.

    Read More
  12. AshTon says:

    Marries a Black immigrant woman whom he married back at home, thus she did not undergo the selection for higher IQ that is the selection process for economic migrants, thus has a phenotypic IQ of 85

    This assumption doesn’t make sense. Do you believe there is no class system in Nigeria? Would a university-educated Nigerian marry a gap-toothed village farmer? Or another university-educated Nigerian?

    Read More
  13. @Svensson,

    Phenotypic IQ of 85 is still 1 S.D. above the mean there. Not a gap toothed village farmer in all likelihood.

    Highly associative class mating even in the US only started to appear in the past 50 years (see Bell Curve/Coming Apart). In SSA this can be expected to be less developed.

    Re-Chua/WoF,

    Yes, I’ve read it. I don’t think it’s particular relevant here. The cognitive elites I’m talking about here are largely the upper bell curves of the indigenous populations, not higher IQ market dominant minorities. There are some genuine issues with the latter. But the former are almost always a great and unambiguous boon for their own societies.

    @JayMan,

    Fair enough.

    My logic is that India seems to have a similar gap (phenotypic IQ = 80; genotypic = 95) and rates of malnutrition and parasitic load appear to be broadly similar between it and SSA. Though your assumptions are also plausible.

    The 20% admixture should indeed be expected to add 3-4 points, BUT there’s also two countervailing factors when it comes to AAs:
    1) Negative initial selection – People made into slaves were probably on average less intelligent in the first place.
    2) The well documented dysgenic trends amongst AAs observed during the 20th century, which are far less ambiguous than for US Whites.

    So I suspect they cancel out, and that West African Black genotypic IQ is indeed now similar to that of 20% admixed African Americans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AshTon

    Highly associative class mating even in the US only started to appear in the past 50 years (see Bell Curve/Coming Apart). In SSA this can be expected to be less developed.
     
    What an odd argument. Why can it 'be expected to be less developed'? Class-based marriages are hardly a sign of American modernity that the rest of the world is only now catching up on. India has had the system for over 3000 years, for instance. What were they doing - unconsciously copying 1960s Oklahoma dentists?
    , @JohnnyWalker123
    What about the Black-Caribbean pupils? What could explain their relatively high IQ scores?
    , @Numinous

    My logic is that India seems to have a similar gap (phenotypic IQ = 80; genotypic = 95)
     
    How were these IQs calculated? Do you have any good (and preferably brief) sources I can read?
  14. AshTon says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    @Svensson,

    Phenotypic IQ of 85 is still 1 S.D. above the mean there. Not a gap toothed village farmer in all likelihood.

    Highly associative class mating even in the US only started to appear in the past 50 years (see Bell Curve/Coming Apart). In SSA this can be expected to be less developed.

    Re-Chua/WoF,

    Yes, I've read it. I don't think it's particular relevant here. The cognitive elites I'm talking about here are largely the upper bell curves of the indigenous populations, not higher IQ market dominant minorities. There are some genuine issues with the latter. But the former are almost always a great and unambiguous boon for their own societies.

    @JayMan,

    Fair enough.

    My logic is that India seems to have a similar gap (phenotypic IQ = 80; genotypic = 95) and rates of malnutrition and parasitic load appear to be broadly similar between it and SSA. Though your assumptions are also plausible.

    The 20% admixture should indeed be expected to add 3-4 points, BUT there's also two countervailing factors when it comes to AAs:
    1) Negative initial selection - People made into slaves were probably on average less intelligent in the first place.
    2) The well documented dysgenic trends amongst AAs observed during the 20th century, which are far less ambiguous than for US Whites.

    So I suspect they cancel out, and that West African Black genotypic IQ is indeed now similar to that of 20% admixed African Americans.

    Highly associative class mating even in the US only started to appear in the past 50 years (see Bell Curve/Coming Apart). In SSA this can be expected to be less developed.

    What an odd argument. Why can it ‘be expected to be less developed’? Class-based marriages are hardly a sign of American modernity that the rest of the world is only now catching up on. India has had the system for over 3000 years, for instance. What were they doing – unconsciously copying 1960s Oklahoma dentists?

    Read More
  15. Glossy says:

    the evidence for high IQ amongst certain African ethnic groups such as the Igbo

    In Rwanda the Tutsis seem to be smarter than the Hutus. From the Wikipedia: “During the 1980s, school principals reported that, although secondary school admissions were proportional to the groups within the country and were made by competition within ethnic groups (in accordance with quotas mandated by the Habyarimana government), the students of Tutsi origin (14% of intake) comprised nearly 50% of graduates, on average.”

    average US Presidential heights, which increased by more than three inches between 1776 and today (and that is despite the US being very well fed by global standards even two centuries ago).

    Some 19th century US presidents grew up poor. Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, US Grant, probably others too. Has the average height of European royalty and aristocracy increased over time – that’s a more interesting question. THOSE guys really were well-fed in childhood throughout history.

    As for African immigrants, the ones I see in New York have a much better attitude than traditional US blacks and a moderately better attitude than Caribbean Blacks. Dealing with an African immigrant bank teller or shop clerk feels the same as dealing with a White or an Asian one. They tend to be quiet and polite.

    But how many African immigrant doctors have I seen here? Can’t think of one. IT guys? Same thing. So they’re not going into cognitively-demanding professions here. Don’t know if this is true in Britain.

    US Blacks have a media-driven sense of grievance. Caribbean Blacks have a lot less of it and African Blacks, at least the ones that I know, lack it completely. That could explain some of the difference in attitude. “Hip hop” culture must have a negative influence on everyone exposed to it. I’m assuming that it isn’t as big in Africa as in the US.

    Civilization is in a worldwide decline. I don’t know if real fish really rot from the head, but civilization definitely does. Africa is the ultimate perifery, so some declinist trends must be reaching it with delay.

    Secondary education was screwed up in the West in the 1960s, but in Russia that only happened in the 1990s. Russia picked up Wesern Civilization with a delay and it’s shedding it with a delay as well.

    I remember someone saying that current educational methods in some parts of Africa resemble early 20th century British methods. That makes sense to me. Africa is so peripheral that some of the decadent nonsense from the 1960s (“children don’t need to memorize anything”, etc.) might still not have reached some parts of it. And the same could be true of manners and lots of other things. I know African immigrants with Old World manners.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Simon in London
    "I remember someone saying that current educational methods in some parts of Africa resemble early 20th century British methods. That makes sense to me. Africa is so peripheral that some of the decadent nonsense from the 1960s (“children don’t need to memorize anything”, etc.) might still not have reached some parts of it. "

    That certainly fits my experience doing graduate admissions - the quality of a degree attained in an African ex-British-colony is vastly superior to a UK degree. On the UK degree scale (1st-2.1-2.2-3rd) a Nigerian 2.2 is at least as good as a UK 2.1, a Nigerian 2.1 is like a UK 1st class degree.
    India though is the reverse, an Indian 2.1 is like a British 2.2.
  16. 22pp22 says:

    He places a great deal of emphasis on GCSE’s which are easily falsified. London now has a back up education system similar to Korean hagweon. You get your tutor to do your assignments for you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Simon in London
    I don't think that is generally what is happening. It's more that GCSEs are not heavily G-loaded and industriousness beats high IQ (they were designed to be girl-friendly). So a moderately high IQ population with high industriousness will beat a higher IQ less industrious population. Black African immigrants combine moderately high IQ with high industriousness, while white working class boys have fairly high IQ but low industriousness (being demoralised by single motherhood & other trends).
  17. @5371
    The test may be dumbed down to an extraordinary extent, like many other things in modern British education.

    It doesn’t matter if the test is dumbed down, as an IQ gap will still remain. Pass rates can be affected, but the Z score gap will remain. If that doesn’t make sense, read this: http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/adverse.htm

    The point is that even if the test is dumbed down, it’s remarkable that the black-white gap is so small.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    No sense. The size of the gap depends on the marking scheme, not just its existence.
  18. @Anatoly Karlin
    @Svensson,

    Phenotypic IQ of 85 is still 1 S.D. above the mean there. Not a gap toothed village farmer in all likelihood.

    Highly associative class mating even in the US only started to appear in the past 50 years (see Bell Curve/Coming Apart). In SSA this can be expected to be less developed.

    Re-Chua/WoF,

    Yes, I've read it. I don't think it's particular relevant here. The cognitive elites I'm talking about here are largely the upper bell curves of the indigenous populations, not higher IQ market dominant minorities. There are some genuine issues with the latter. But the former are almost always a great and unambiguous boon for their own societies.

    @JayMan,

    Fair enough.

    My logic is that India seems to have a similar gap (phenotypic IQ = 80; genotypic = 95) and rates of malnutrition and parasitic load appear to be broadly similar between it and SSA. Though your assumptions are also plausible.

    The 20% admixture should indeed be expected to add 3-4 points, BUT there's also two countervailing factors when it comes to AAs:
    1) Negative initial selection - People made into slaves were probably on average less intelligent in the first place.
    2) The well documented dysgenic trends amongst AAs observed during the 20th century, which are far less ambiguous than for US Whites.

    So I suspect they cancel out, and that West African Black genotypic IQ is indeed now similar to that of 20% admixed African Americans.

    What about the Black-Caribbean pupils? What could explain their relatively high IQ scores?

    Read More
  19. 5371 says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    It doesn't matter if the test is dumbed down, as an IQ gap will still remain. Pass rates can be affected, but the Z score gap will remain. If that doesn't make sense, read this: http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/adverse.htm

    The point is that even if the test is dumbed down, it's remarkable that the black-white gap is so small.

    No sense. The size of the gap depends on the marking scheme, not just its existence.

    Read More
  20. The marking scheme didn’t give the differences in test scores. The scheme gave the differences in probabilistic “Z” scores, which can be converted into IQ. The probabilistic gap tends to remain constant between groups, even if pass rates converge.

    If you want to understand this distinction in more detail, read the link I provided above. The point is that while pass rate differences can be impacted whether a test is “easy” or “hard”, IQ gaps remain.

    Read More
  21. Truth says:

    As such, there needs to be more affirmative action, more racial quotas, more laws against hate speech, etc. to end it

    Damn, you started off so strongly.

    Read More
  22. since regression to the mean stops after one generation

    I’ve never heard this before. Wouldn’t it make more sense to stop, um…, at the mean?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/the-breeders-equation/
  23. iffen says:

    the language of the Left on this issue

    The PC left values the autonomy of the individual. If you deny this to the elite of the 3rd world you are denying them something that you take for granted for yourself.

    Read More
  24. Numinous says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    @Svensson,

    Phenotypic IQ of 85 is still 1 S.D. above the mean there. Not a gap toothed village farmer in all likelihood.

    Highly associative class mating even in the US only started to appear in the past 50 years (see Bell Curve/Coming Apart). In SSA this can be expected to be less developed.

    Re-Chua/WoF,

    Yes, I've read it. I don't think it's particular relevant here. The cognitive elites I'm talking about here are largely the upper bell curves of the indigenous populations, not higher IQ market dominant minorities. There are some genuine issues with the latter. But the former are almost always a great and unambiguous boon for their own societies.

    @JayMan,

    Fair enough.

    My logic is that India seems to have a similar gap (phenotypic IQ = 80; genotypic = 95) and rates of malnutrition and parasitic load appear to be broadly similar between it and SSA. Though your assumptions are also plausible.

    The 20% admixture should indeed be expected to add 3-4 points, BUT there's also two countervailing factors when it comes to AAs:
    1) Negative initial selection - People made into slaves were probably on average less intelligent in the first place.
    2) The well documented dysgenic trends amongst AAs observed during the 20th century, which are far less ambiguous than for US Whites.

    So I suspect they cancel out, and that West African Black genotypic IQ is indeed now similar to that of 20% admixed African Americans.

    My logic is that India seems to have a similar gap (phenotypic IQ = 80; genotypic = 95)

    How were these IQs calculated? Do you have any good (and preferably brief) sources I can read?

    Read More
  25. @Numinous

    My logic is that India seems to have a similar gap (phenotypic IQ = 80; genotypic = 95)
     
    How were these IQs calculated? Do you have any good (and preferably brief) sources I can read?

    Lynn – Intelligence is quite comprehensive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous
    Thank you. I'll read it at leisure, though I did glance through part of the chapter that describes the measurement methodology. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems the estimates of national IQs are based purely on the results of tests taken by students (at various levels). Now, my observation is that the typical educational facilities and the quality of teachers in government schools (which make up a large majority of the schools in India) are beyond abysmal. Only a small percentage of private schools, to which only the middle class or higher can afford to send their kids, really have decent teachers and facilities. Indian graduates who go abroad to highly ranked undergraduate or grad schools tend to emerge disproportionately from these well-endowed schools.

    Is it possible that the test scores are simply a reflection of the poor quality of teachers? And, by implication, that estimated Indian IQ is simply an indication of Indian society's skewed priorities rather than of its peoples' innate abilities?
  26. @Pseudonymic Handle

    since regression to the mean stops after one generation
     
    I've never heard this before. Wouldn't it make more sense to stop, um..., at the mean?
    Read More
  27. @Truth

    As such, there needs to be more affirmative action, more racial quotas, more laws against hate speech, etc. to end it
     
    Damn, you started off so strongly.

    And I myself argue for it where? ;)

    Read More
  28. The late Rick (Franz) Heber, Director of the Milwaukee Project, spent the last 26 months of
    his life in “mystery land” is now seems. He got early release from parole (convicted on getting funny with money–verdict on July 30, 1981 at federal court in Madison, WI ) in October 1985 to go to University of Gothenburg (Sweden), where he had been on very frequent travels and for a time on at least one of his sabbaticals. He was installed as Research Director for a privately funded (e.g., one donor was the Volvo Corporation according to a letter sent Heber on
    March 01, 1985, and put in evidence at the hearing in his case on September 30, 1985) entity
    to do international research on mental retardation–read: research on the sorts of mental retardation within severely environmentally deprived settings from which early on in childhood
    some intercessions could free up IQ development to gain up to 10 IQ points beyond what “benign neglect” would cause to happen. OK, his very close personal and professional
    underlying at Madison, Mary Alice Slater (PhD 1980), visited Heber early on after Heber started serving time (in Texas, mostly). She was accompanied by an official of the Swedish Education Ministry in three September 1982 visits. In 1984, she left Madison and became a
    researcher at the Texas Tech. U. Health Science Center in Amarillo. She seems to have been
    research linked to Heber all along…but no one knows what that linkage produced.

    In October 1985, Heber was released early from parole to be Research Director of the international research entity IDRERI of the University of Gothenburg in Sweden for
    research into the environmental aspects of mental retardation internationally in Europe and
    Central Africa. We now know he had never envisioned leaving academe or research in mental retardation at any time before his trial verdict or after. As noted, on August 18, 1981, under
    the letter head of IDRERI and the University, a glowing letter of praise of Heber was written
    to a federal parole official in Madison, Wisconsin, in the hope Heber’s sentence would not impose actual prison time. It did. And it did because the trial judge had perceived all sorts of
    lack of genuine remorse on Heber’s part; exploitation of others attendant to his misdeeds; etc.
    In both this letter and the letter written under the same letter head on March 01, 1985–there is just no evidence concern at all about Heber’s offenses, his trial, etc. One wonders if the Volvo
    Corporation, as a major donor to IDRERI, was ever informed of Heber’s past? Heber’s odd
    evasions, manipulations, misinformation strategies can be viewed in several ways and all should be given regard. But one haunting possibility suggested by someone doing a retrospective on him is whether he was taken on board by the CIA in the 1957-59 period of his
    career. It probably will never warrant discussion..for want of evidence one way or the other.

    One of the 1987 plane crash victims (in which both Heber and Slater were killed along with
    several persons linked to research at Texas Tech University ) was Thomas Allen Askelson of
    Syracuse, Ill. His company on the surface appeared to be in routine home décor sales and installation. In fact, it was devoted to inlaid carpeting designed to be cognitive stimulating to
    young children and to be educationally interesting to them. Thus, it was directly and intimately linked to Heber’s expertise (and that of Slater,as well). Askelson went to the Waisman Center in Madison (UW Madison) in 1982 and almost certainly was linked to Slater there–this in forming his product. The Company Askelson Associates, appears to have been
    formed in late 1982 or 1983. Heber entered prison in February 1982, after an ostensible appeal effort (likely withdrawn by him but maybe acted upon and affirmed ?) . Askelson apparently when Heber went to Europe and into African travels–more or less followed along.
    Heber was half time with Askelson and half time with IDRERI of U. of Gothenburg. He and Heber could justify their presence anywhere at any time , one way or the other. It may not
    be linked to Langley….but it would be “further” from Langley if more illumination existed on
    whether or not actual research on humans was carried out or linked to this ex-con Rick Heber and his passionate devotee, Mary Alice Slater of TTU HSC. Not a good way to provide society with needed safeguards re research on humans to have no illumination at all. Langley?? Hope not.

    The most likely area of Africa for research relevant to Heber’s brilliance and Slater’s abilities, as well–and to their focus and interests and backgrounds in research–would have been either the African Bushmen or the Batwa pygmy tribe. Just a few hours before the mysterious fatal plane crash, the so-called “photo safari” (there actually was one, but research, unacknowledged overtly, was turning the crankshaft, so to say ) location they were departing form was Diane Fossey territory–inhabited conjointly by mountain gorillas and the Batwa. That the CIA (?)
    and the Volvo Corporation (named in the March 01, 1985, letter under the IDRERI University of Gothenburg letter head as a major donor to IDRERI ) would be linked to race, IQ, nature/nurture research covertly in Central Africa sounds like scary sci fi…but if there ever was a person in terms of personal brilliance and love of excitement jags and risk taking who would fit the role of Director it was Rick Franz Heber (a/k/a Richard Frank Heber / R. F. Heber/
    Franz Richard Heber/ etc. etc. Could we get out of TTU or U. of Gothenburg or some attorneys acting for Volvo—a little bit of even candle light level illumination of what did or didn’t happen?? After 27 years of “don’t ask; don’t tell” ???

    In the summer of 1967 Heber and some associates at a conference in Eugene Oregon, delivered a paper regarding nature/nurture. This paper, along with Heber’s 1957 dissertation, removes any notion he was a “Blank Slate” devotee. Rather , as an entrepreneurial academic in the
    consultation biz bit time (and brilliantly effective ), he was focused on what might be done and not what couldn’t be done. A bank balance framework. He had prepublication to a relevant paper of Jensen’s, betokening that they communicated very well and likely had gone on well if/as I’ve been told/ they met in Milwaukee about late 1966 or early 1967?? At any rate, the
    whole Eugene program was Heber orientated. He was the big power man in the field at that time. This reveals that Heber quietly had long been interested in international studies of mental retardation—an anthropological illuminations of variations, etc. His close associates knew that for years he had made frequent trips into and out of Central Africa..going back into
    the mid 60′s or so. One visited with Heber only about one’s own work relevant to his role. He compartmentalized all information and did not look with the least bit of favor on people who
    “nosed” around outside of their focus within his domain. The late 1970′s IQ studies of the
    Batwa by Witkin et al. had a definite anti-nature bent. It turned out to be much ado about very little useful findings. Heber would have had a clear landscape to get real there? Did he?

    The estimated average IQ of the Batwa of Central Africa (54, cf. Lynn et al. ) helps convey
    that “racism” is not an invention of Whites. The surrounding indigenous peoples had long
    deplored any social contact with the Batwa, considering them “primate” and “sub human”.
    By the time Heber might have been doing covfert work (was he? ) in the mid / late / 80′s,
    the removal of the Batwa from their natural habitat was an impending necessity. If their
    situation could be studied thoroughly, the discrimination against them when they were removed form the forest into small villages etc. in Rwanda , say, could have been much
    mitigated by the findings and intercessions formulated by Heber and Slater (and associates).
    This falls short of indicating what happened. It does capture motive and means and opportunity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bob Woodwort
    The measurement and assessment of the average general mental ability of varied evolved African population groupings, is perhaps well informed by part of Prof. Howard Garber's Report (1988) on Heber's Milwaukee Project (Wikipedia has terse information on the Project) . It was a Project not so much to boost low IQ among children born to mentally retarded
    mothers in the Black inner city of Milwaukee--as to liberate the inborn potential of any of the 20 treatment subjects from erosion and destruction by severe environmental limitation. (By the mid 70's Arthur Jensen had conduct research on this "cumulative deficit" topic sufficient for him to revise his earlier view and conclude that significant (but no dramatic)
    IQ gains could come from children so situated if severely deprived environments were supplanted by normal levels of stimulations and of yoked child-mother interactions Garber makes the excellent point that undue/ premature/ concerns about overall group IQ comparisons, can deflect from the details of research that in carried forth with scientific
    objectivity and lack of political intrusion can likely define "IQ gain potential" in terms of specific population features--e.g., would introverted male children tend to have liberated IQ gains significantly greater than extraverted ones? Are children born to socially-emotionally responsive, if mentally retarded, mothers going to fare better than those born to MR mothers who are less socially and emotionally responsive. The broad brush can obscure more than it reveals.

    An off shoot question is why no academic studies were ever directed at the odd delays, delays, delays, in issuing the final Milwaukee Project Report. Garber--in as close contact as anyone associated with a Director (Heber) who was present about 5% of the time, and now and then, not routinely by any schedule--presented the final Report to Heber in about May 1980, as Heber was beginning to sense that he, Heber, might be under investigation (He was ). Heber brushed it aside on the pretext that a few additional comments were needed. By December 05, 1980, Heber had been banned from campus at US Mad(ison). In 1982--according to a local
    item in the Madison Capitol Journal, it had been submitted for publication. On Dec. 26, 1983, Milwaukee reporter Susan Trebacn, reported it had been submitted and accepted and would be published in the Spring ( 1984--indeed). Didn't happen. Her information was direct and impeccable. No explanation is known. By 1986, Prof. Ellis Page had published in a larger work ( Spitz) a lengthy culmination of his monitoring and research of the Milwaukee Project, giving it forth, not unjustly at the time, as an example of fraud. It is puzzling why the UW Mad(ison_) would appear "hands off" to such repeated delays, giving rise in 1986 to a then credible commentary suggesting fraud ( dissipated by Garber's 1988 detailed report ).

    , @Bob Woodwort
    "Heber would have had a clear landscape to get real (in Central Africa re research of low IQ)."The Canadian J.W. Berry et al. did work, including some focus upon the very low IQ Batwa pygmies (est.average IQ of 54 ! ), in the 1976-79 time frame. The results were not much in evidence until about 1983 or so. It was an approach implicitly elevating "nurture" to
    central significance and "nature" to sidebar distraction. The work of Hans Eysenck and Arthur Jensen--and others, such as Travis Osborne--by 1983 had ushered these assumptions toward the dustbin. Heber's own letter in oblique response to the offer from IDRERI/ University of Gothenburg was dated (infelicitously?) on April 01, 1985, and referred to the position of
    Research Director as "a research project". IF by 1983, a complement to the Milwaukee Project had been in focus, research giving due regard to "nature" with respect to low IQ in Central Africa would very much incline to lots of cloud cover, lots of façade, and lots of decoy. If
    so, it is all the more reason 30 years later to get a clear restrospective and contemplate just how much longer must illumination be evaded. Mary Alice Slater's family knew in detail what she had been doing re research. Her obit and an accompanying eulogy (both inserted into the Congressional Record--Senate , Dec. 11, 1987--at about page 35284 or so ) clearly reveal that research was the salient issue in what overtly was termed "photo safari". For something like this to be surrounded by a cluster of dark question marks for 30 years is certainly ill becoming to the two universities linked to it all and to the major Swedish corporation that was openly identified in the March 01, 1985, as a donor to IDRERI/ University of Gothenburg. For the American academic community to have been so tunnel vision into "publish or perish" as not to contemplate the larger issues is indeed a monument to "knowing more and more about less and less" It is also, BTW, an indication to how on Campus America "prudence is the better part of valor"
  29. Chuck says: • Website

    “the evidence for high IQ amongst certain African ethnic groups such as the Igbo – are quite compelling”

    Did you bother to read the source papers e.g., “Raising the Achievement of Black African Pupils: Good Practice in Schools”?

    “Six secondary schools with a high number of Black African students that serve disadvantaged communities were selected for case studies. The case study schools’ GCSE results were exceptionally good.. Key criteria for the selection of schools were as follow:
    –an above‐average proportion of students who are eligible for free school meals
    –‘outstanding’ or ‘good with outstanding features’ grades overall in the most recent Ofsted inspection
    –exceptionally good results, high standards
    –sustained GCSE improvement over the last 10 years”

    Or to take a look at the sample sizes:

    “Of the 411 Black African students who took GCSE, 21% spoke English at home, 22% Yoruba, 13% Somali, 9% Twi‐Fante, 5% French, 4% Igbo, 4% Krio…”

    Compelling? Really?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bob Woodwort
    Since the letter that was put in exhibit (hearing for Heber's early release from parole--granted) in his fed case at the end of September 1985--a letter under the IDRERI and University of Gothenburg (Sweden) letterhead and over the signature of semi-retired Swedish prominent political figure Gunnar Hedlund--since this letter (a) had no reservations re Heber or even
    allusions to his prison time; (b) was filled with praise of Heber; (c) offered ex-con Heber the position of Research Director of IDRERI; (d) noted that it could be half time (which allowed it to accommodate to Heber's interesting involvements with Thomas Allen Askelson of Askelson Associates (himself killed along with Heber in the Dec. 1987 plane wreck ) (e) noted the IDRERI role would involve an appreciable amount of travel into and from sub Sahara Afica/ (f)_ noted the VOLVO CORPORATION as an example of the private donors that supported IDRERI.....One would hope that a major international Swedish firm like Volvo could smoke out at long last why no assurances one way or the other have surfaced regarding what research went on in the 26 months from release from parole and Heber's death and what linkages it had, if any, to TTU Assoc. Prof. Mary Alice Slater, also killed in the plane wreck. VOLVO does itself no favors by being linked to any sort of "lock the doors and turn out the lights" policy re research involving humans--the more so in Africa by those investigating nature/nurture.
    , @Bob Woodwort
    The observed day to day "assessments" of groups--in trades, semi-skilled labor, unskilled work,social interactions--over time give rise to folklore characterizations that are arrived at with about the same honesty and effort that folklore weather "forecasting" is arrived at over
    generations. The social-judgments about the capacity of Africa evolved groupings like the Bushmen and especially the Batwa pygmies are not challenged by modern test data, overall. The market value of the very expensive American slaves was not enhanced by social judgments that overall (with noteworthy exceptions) they were markedly less "smart" that Euro-Americans. It was just a honest observation that helped conserve the well being of the slavesat work and the safety of equipment, etc. Test measurement is as much an extension of noteworthy social assessment as weather meteorology is of folklore efforts at weather prediction. It is quite possible to structure work situations and social situations to attain very accurate assessments of relevant general mental ability. If mental testing in America had been less dominantly shaped by extremely profitable test publishing companies--academic use of mental ability testing would much more emerge from intelligent assessment than it ever does in reality. There is some hint that a face off about this matter may have taken place during the World War I Army/Beta program--this between Bingham and Yerkes---Bingham being rather more devoted to seeing testing emerge from, and integrated with, intelligently conducted assessment. Micro-
    miniaturization of audo-video technology certainly calls for a better
    academic integration of structured assessment and standardized testing.,
    , @Bob Woodwort
    It is wise to focus "one bite at a time" on the astounding mystery world Rich Heber was allowed to cultivate and hide within during the 22 years he was (rather nominally, in a sense ) at U. of Wisconsin , Madison. One small matter would be an exact chronology concerning the preparation of the final Report of the Milwaukee Project. Local news items--especially attendant to the scandal that brought down Heber (and gave him two years in federal prison) --
    note that about May 1980, Prof. Howard Garber, working under Heber, brought to Heber, what he, Garber, considered the final Report--anticipating Heber's approval and then the submission of the Report for publication. Garber had been in close communication with Heber--notwithstanding that Heber was often away and within contact only by phone or Fax, etc. The Report was noted by Heber, if a bit tersely, in an archival interview he was forced to give on May 14, 1979. Heber never gave interviews. In this instance, however, someone within the hierarchy at UW Madison (Prof. Glen Eye? ) directed Heber as an element of contract to
    submit to an archival interview. It is likely this was done, in reality, as part of what may have been an incipient investigation of Heber that ripened into his being banned from campus (Dec. 05, 1980) and indicted in federal court (April 1981) and prosecuted and convicted on 13 felony
    counts (July 1981). In the May 14, 1979, archival interview, Heber notes that the Report on the Milwaukee Project is being "pulled together" and that the massive detailed data from the Project have been under detailed analyses. By 1979, R. J. Herrnstein was among a growing
    number of academics bemused by the endless delays in providing data about the Project. In 1972, Professor Ellis Page had begun meticulously documented questioning about the lack of data from the Project vis a vis the glitzy journalistic claim ( in an article in a U.S. Office of Education publication that Heber had covertly arranged to be written) re the Project "Miracle in Milwaukee". Thus, by May 14, 1979, Heber had plenty of reason to be "pulling together" the Report in a rather top priority fashion. In context, then, it is odd indeed that somehow Garber "fails" to include material that Heber--out of nowhere--suddenly decides in May 1980 needs to be added to what Garber had faithfully and very capably put together. In this connection, it is interesting to note from pre-sentencing interviews with Heber and other comments elicited from Heber via the federal judicial system upon his conviction on the 13 felony counts--that Heber had begun clearly to sense by April or May of 1980 that he was an object of investigation. He states in response to pre-sentence commentary elicited from him
    circa August 1981 that "for fifteen months " he has been under great pressure from being an object of investigation. It is most likely that his imposing delay on the May submission for publication of the Milwaukee Project Report was determined by some sense of strategy re his situation rather than by any genuine sense that more information needed to be infused into the Report as presented by Garber. In a newspaper article, in 1982, Rob Fixmer--the investigative journalist whose articles re Heber left Heber in disgrace at UW Madison--noted that the Milwaukee Project Report was being submitted for publication. Yet it did not see publication. On Dec. 26, 1983, investigative reporter Susan Trebach, then writing for the Milwaukee Sentinel, published an article based on interviews with several persons that noted specifics of the Report that had been accepted for publication and would be formally published in the Spring of 1984. Details were given for what clearly was then a consummated publication agreement. Yet the Report was not published in 1984. By 1985 Herman Spitz book on research fraud was in an advanced stage of preparation and Prof. Ellis Page had pulled together his 13 years of meticulous investigation / questioning/ of the Project into a major contribution to that text. The Spitz book was published in 1986. Heber was killed in a yet mysterious plane wreck--along with his long time companion and research associate, Mary Alice Slater, on Dec. 03, 1987, Slater by that time, a prolific academic researcher of mental retardation, having gone from Madison to the Texas Tech University Health Science Center (Amarillo) in June 1984.
    Toward the end of 1988, the Report finally got into print. Arthur Jensen in a definitive review, while having some criticisms and reservations, was generally laudatory about Garber's effort and the detail of it and the honesty and competence of it. But what is the "Cui Bono?" of
    all the delays???? And there is no overt indication that the University of Wisconsin at Madison was ever really much perturbed by the delays. And it appears the federal grantors of the $14 million that went into the Project were not militantly objecting to the Report delays. There is no indication Garber wished the Report delayed. Sooo?
  30. Chuck says: • Website
    @JohnnyWalker123
    The children of British Black-Caribbean migrants score about 1/3 of a SD below the White British mean. The BC migrants were overwhelmingly commoners, not professional migrants.

    To me, the data on BCs is more conclusive than the data on Africans, as African migration was more selected. It's interesting that BC children do so well on cognitive tests. It's also interesting that BC children and African children score similarly, which suggests that the African cognitive mean may be much higher than previously thought.

    ” The BC migrants were overwhelmingly commoners, not professional migrants.”

    Might you have some data? How educated were West Indian movers as compared to stayers? Below is from a review of Suzzane Model’s book:

    “Model compares West Indian immigrants in New York, Toronto, London, and Amsterdam, and finds that, despite variation in the labor markets and ethnic composition of these cities, Caribbean immigrants in these four cities attain similar levels of economic success. Model also looks at “movers” and “stayers” from Barbados, Jamaica, Trinidad, and Guyana, and finds that emigrants leaving all four countries have more education and hold higher status jobs than those who remain. In this sense, West Indians immigrants are not so different from successful native-born African Americans who have moved within the U.S. to further their careers. Both West Indian immigrants and native-born African-American movers are the “best and the brightest”—they are more literate and hold better jobs than those who stay put.” (West Indian Immigrants: A Black Success Story?)

    I recall looking through Barro and Lee’s data base a while back and seeing a fair degree of selection (circa 1960 to 1980). But I don’t recall the magnitude.

    Read More
  31. David says:
    @JayMan
    Good post!

    A few technical quibbles:

    The problem is that African IQs from all social groups are highly repressed because of Third World factors like malnutrition and parasitic load. Very significantly so – around 15 points, or one standard deviation.
     
    I wouldn't say 15. Maybe 5-10 (assuming the sub-Saharan genotypic average IQ is 80, and tests at 70-75). But even then those proposed causes are still just assumptions at this point.

    Their genotypic IQ is around 85 extrapolating from African Americans (there are issues such as ~20% Caucasian admixture, selection effects during slavery, diversity in Africa itself, etc. but let’s keep things simple).
     
    That ~20% admixture should be expected to add around 4 points, so the 85 value for American Blacks should reflect a genotypic African IQ of ~80.

    But well said here: selection of an elite sample will produce a permanently elite (and at slightly regressed IQ) population in the next generation. That fact shouldn't be surprising.

    It's hard to say what the overall effect of the drain of the cognitive elite from poor countries is. Sure, these countries suffer brain drain, but emigrants also send money and ideas back home...

    I didn’t live in Honduras before there were massive cash remissions coming from the US (which really took off after Hurricane Floyd), but I believe the plentiful cash is a big factor in social decline there. In a country with 1/30 to 1/40 the per person income of the US, the price of land and housing is 1/2 to 3/4 for a comparable environment. Ask anyone living in a modern house and they’ll tell you about their relative in the US. Getting to the US is the likeliest way a man can build a better life for himself and family. His economic competition is already here bidding up the cost of life there.

    Read More
  32. Numinous says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Lynn - Intelligence is quite comprehensive.

    Thank you. I’ll read it at leisure, though I did glance through part of the chapter that describes the measurement methodology. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems the estimates of national IQs are based purely on the results of tests taken by students (at various levels). Now, my observation is that the typical educational facilities and the quality of teachers in government schools (which make up a large majority of the schools in India) are beyond abysmal. Only a small percentage of private schools, to which only the middle class or higher can afford to send their kids, really have decent teachers and facilities. Indian graduates who go abroad to highly ranked undergraduate or grad schools tend to emerge disproportionately from these well-endowed schools.

    Is it possible that the test scores are simply a reflection of the poor quality of teachers? And, by implication, that estimated Indian IQ is simply an indication of Indian society’s skewed priorities rather than of its peoples’ innate abilities?

    Read More
    • Replies: @rec1man
    The PISA scores, which are a function of schooling, show an Indian IQ = 75


    http://www.docstoc.com/docs/172418022/2015-National-Merit-Semifinalists-in-California

    this has California National Merit

    and many Indians can decode from Name to Caste

    The results are very lopsided, most Indian castes, 60%, never make it to the list
    certain castes are over-represented
  33. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    In terms of immigration, IQ is only one consideration and does not diminish the consequences of inviting racial aliens into your territory.

    Read More
  34. “Cognitively, the children of African immigrants are basically Caucasians”

    That seems true of the West Africans. From what I can see in London, west African migrants tend to go into the lower(ish) middle class, and have similar ability to us natives, though probably less ‘social capital’ – not being the heirs of a ‘guilt culture’. Probably around 103-105 mean IQ.
    I don’t think it’s true of the Somalis, although they are mostly the children of middle class Kenyan fake-refugees and not that dumb.

    Re Afro-Caribbean children scoring similar on IQ to black-African children: I think this may be an artefact of black-African covering numerous different groups with different mean IQs, who happen to have an overall mean similar to the much more homogenous Afro-Caribbean population. Afro-Caribbeans tend to go into the middle-working-class. Probably around 93 mean IQ.

    By comparison, east European migrants (non-gypsy) tend to typically go into the upper-working class, a bit below Nigerians, above Afro-Caribbeans. Probably around 98-100 IQ. But some, notably the Poles, have superior social capital.

    Read More
  35. @Glossy
    the evidence for high IQ amongst certain African ethnic groups such as the Igbo

    In Rwanda the Tutsis seem to be smarter than the Hutus. From the Wikipedia: "During the 1980s, school principals reported that, although secondary school admissions were proportional to the groups within the country and were made by competition within ethnic groups (in accordance with quotas mandated by the Habyarimana government), the students of Tutsi origin (14% of intake) comprised nearly 50% of graduates, on average."

    average US Presidential heights, which increased by more than three inches between 1776 and today (and that is despite the US being very well fed by global standards even two centuries ago).

    Some 19th century US presidents grew up poor. Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, US Grant, probably others too. Has the average height of European royalty and aristocracy increased over time - that's a more interesting question. THOSE guys really were well-fed in childhood throughout history.

    As for African immigrants, the ones I see in New York have a much better attitude than traditional US blacks and a moderately better attitude than Caribbean Blacks. Dealing with an African immigrant bank teller or shop clerk feels the same as dealing with a White or an Asian one. They tend to be quiet and polite.

    But how many African immigrant doctors have I seen here? Can't think of one. IT guys? Same thing. So they're not going into cognitively-demanding professions here. Don't know if this is true in Britain.

    US Blacks have a media-driven sense of grievance. Caribbean Blacks have a lot less of it and African Blacks, at least the ones that I know, lack it completely. That could explain some of the difference in attitude. "Hip hop" culture must have a negative influence on everyone exposed to it. I'm assuming that it isn't as big in Africa as in the US.

    Civilization is in a worldwide decline. I don't know if real fish really rot from the head, but civilization definitely does. Africa is the ultimate perifery, so some declinist trends must be reaching it with delay.

    Secondary education was screwed up in the West in the 1960s, but in Russia that only happened in the 1990s. Russia picked up Wesern Civilization with a delay and it's shedding it with a delay as well.

    I remember someone saying that current educational methods in some parts of Africa resemble early 20th century British methods. That makes sense to me. Africa is so peripheral that some of the decadent nonsense from the 1960s ("children don't need to memorize anything", etc.) might still not have reached some parts of it. And the same could be true of manners and lots of other things. I know African immigrants with Old World manners.

    “I remember someone saying that current educational methods in some parts of Africa resemble early 20th century British methods. That makes sense to me. Africa is so peripheral that some of the decadent nonsense from the 1960s (“children don’t need to memorize anything”, etc.) might still not have reached some parts of it. ”

    That certainly fits my experience doing graduate admissions – the quality of a degree attained in an African ex-British-colony is vastly superior to a UK degree. On the UK degree scale (1st-2.1-2.2-3rd) a Nigerian 2.2 is at least as good as a UK 2.1, a Nigerian 2.1 is like a UK 1st class degree.
    India though is the reverse, an Indian 2.1 is like a British 2.2.

    Read More
  36. @22pp22
    He places a great deal of emphasis on GCSE's which are easily falsified. London now has a back up education system similar to Korean hagweon. You get your tutor to do your assignments for you.

    I don’t think that is generally what is happening. It’s more that GCSEs are not heavily G-loaded and industriousness beats high IQ (they were designed to be girl-friendly). So a moderately high IQ population with high industriousness will beat a higher IQ less industrious population. Black African immigrants combine moderately high IQ with high industriousness, while white working class boys have fairly high IQ but low industriousness (being demoralised by single motherhood & other trends).

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    GCSE: well, somebody has to be industrious, but not necessarily the examination candidate.
  37. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Some of you are ridiculous. I don’t exactly trumpet it or anything, because I don’t need that sort of amateur analysis intruding into my private, comfortable, life, but some of this group walk amongst you, subscribed to the same 
“HBD” blogs, reading the same voices. Most of the time, I feel I am more enlightened about the actual state of world and how it might be improved through my reading. On the other hand, very ocassionally, like I feel upon reading these comments, I am conflicted: Is the preening, useless arrogance of the Left worth forsaking for possibly odious and idiotic biases that may motivate the alt-Right?

    You probably wonder whence my annoyance stems. Precisely: Where are you getting these ridiculous estimates of immigrant IQs? What plausible reason is there to give estimates lower by as much 20 points from the cutoffs I’ve seen (120 on average to be a doctor, 110 to be a college graduate)? Do any of you have any sort of rigorous methodology at all you are adhering to when you give them? Other than your impressionistic assessment of the state of tests that take much-scrutinized companies many millions to develop?

    Perhaps I need to give suitable “credentials” for you. OK: My own personal SAT score was between 2300 and 2400, inclusive. I can’t remember when I haven’t scored at the ninety-ninth percentile on any standardized test. I know at least two others older than me that I looked up to, who also belong to this group (one Haitian-American), who majored in Physics at Ivy League tier universities, whose SATs fell in the old style between 1400 and 1600. One of my best friends, who works in elite consulting now, fell just shy of 1500. None of the kids I knew personally, in my small, possibly unrepresentative sphere, had a score below 1300. My sister lives in a different city; she’s dating some Igbo who is well on his way to becoming a surgeon at a moneyed New York hospital. There—you have some data to calibrate you.

    This isn’t vanity or chauvinism—stupid notions; it’s not as if I, or anyone else, is going to lose or gain any genetic potential they might have based on group-wide averages. Like any statistic, the error of even accurate assessment becomes greater as the sample size decreases. It would do well for me, and others, however, to note how the response to Chisala develops—to see if “HBD” is actually about sober self-assessment or mutual masturbation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Deduction
    I agree that a lot of the comments are nonsense. I know plenty of African immigrants through my elite schools and I know that they easily held their own.

    What I also know, however, is how small a percentage of the general African population they represent.

    I am not sure that Chisala should be drawing any lessons from them at all.

    The way in which Chisala does so is by stating that there is no regression to the mean to a low mean therefore the mean of the African population is not low.

    This is not a strong argument. The Africans I know are the products of smart people marrying smart people. The mean of their respective sub-populations tends to be very high. It is also not related to the mean of the general African population.
  38. Deduction says:
    @Anonymous
    Some of you are ridiculous. I don’t exactly trumpet it or anything, because I don’t need that sort of amateur analysis intruding into my private, comfortable, life, but some of this group walk amongst you, subscribed to the same 
“HBD” blogs, reading the same voices. Most of the time, I feel I am more enlightened about the actual state of world and how it might be improved through my reading. On the other hand, very ocassionally, like I feel upon reading these comments, I am conflicted: Is the preening, useless arrogance of the Left worth forsaking for possibly odious and idiotic biases that may motivate the alt-Right?

    You probably wonder whence my annoyance stems. Precisely: Where are you getting these ridiculous estimates of immigrant IQs? What plausible reason is there to give estimates lower by as much 20 points from the cutoffs I’ve seen (120 on average to be a doctor, 110 to be a college graduate)? Do any of you have any sort of rigorous methodology at all you are adhering to when you give them? Other than your impressionistic assessment of the state of tests that take much-scrutinized companies many millions to develop?

    Perhaps I need to give suitable “credentials” for you. OK: My own personal SAT score was between 2300 and 2400, inclusive. I can’t remember when I haven’t scored at the ninety-ninth percentile on any standardized test. I know at least two others older than me that I looked up to, who also belong to this group (one Haitian-American), who majored in Physics at Ivy League tier universities, whose SATs fell in the old style between 1400 and 1600. One of my best friends, who works in elite consulting now, fell just shy of 1500. None of the kids I knew personally, in my small, possibly unrepresentative sphere, had a score below 1300. My sister lives in a different city; she’s dating some Igbo who is well on his way to becoming a surgeon at a moneyed New York hospital. There—you have some data to calibrate you.

    This isn’t vanity or chauvinism—stupid notions; it’s not as if I, or anyone else, is going to lose or gain any genetic potential they might have based on group-wide averages. Like any statistic, the error of even accurate assessment becomes greater as the sample size decreases. It would do well for me, and others, however, to note how the response to Chisala develops—to see if “HBD” is actually about sober self-assessment or mutual masturbation.

    I agree that a lot of the comments are nonsense. I know plenty of African immigrants through my elite schools and I know that they easily held their own.

    What I also know, however, is how small a percentage of the general African population they represent.

    I am not sure that Chisala should be drawing any lessons from them at all.

    The way in which Chisala does so is by stating that there is no regression to the mean to a low mean therefore the mean of the African population is not low.

    This is not a strong argument. The Africans I know are the products of smart people marrying smart people. The mean of their respective sub-populations tends to be very high. It is also not related to the mean of the general African population.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous

    The way in which Chisala does so is by stating that there is no regression to the mean to a low mean therefore the mean of the African population is not low.

    This is not a strong argument. The Africans I know are the products of smart people marrying smart people. The mean of their respective sub-populations tends to be very high. It is also not related to the mean of the general African population.
     
    It is a very strong argument. Hereditarians (HBDers) say that IQ is largely determined by one's genes. Smart Africans and dumb Africans have similar genes (unless you can show that the smart people whom Chisala surveys have been practising endogamy/apartheid for hundreds or thousands of years), therefore the "regression toward the mean" (i.e., pull of the genes) argument ought to apply even if a self-selected smart fraction immigrated and were then tested for their cognitive abilities. Otherwise, you seem to be saying that short term eugenics can "evolve' a new (smarter) population; if that is so, then groups and races really have no meaning, since any bunch of people can create their own new "race" within a generation, thereby rendering the HBDers concerns moot.
  39. Sund says:

    It’s article chains like this that are the reason I love this website. Excellent job!

    Read More
  40. Numinous says:
    @Deduction
    I agree that a lot of the comments are nonsense. I know plenty of African immigrants through my elite schools and I know that they easily held their own.

    What I also know, however, is how small a percentage of the general African population they represent.

    I am not sure that Chisala should be drawing any lessons from them at all.

    The way in which Chisala does so is by stating that there is no regression to the mean to a low mean therefore the mean of the African population is not low.

    This is not a strong argument. The Africans I know are the products of smart people marrying smart people. The mean of their respective sub-populations tends to be very high. It is also not related to the mean of the general African population.

    The way in which Chisala does so is by stating that there is no regression to the mean to a low mean therefore the mean of the African population is not low.

    This is not a strong argument. The Africans I know are the products of smart people marrying smart people. The mean of their respective sub-populations tends to be very high. It is also not related to the mean of the general African population.

    It is a very strong argument. Hereditarians (HBDers) say that IQ is largely determined by one’s genes. Smart Africans and dumb Africans have similar genes (unless you can show that the smart people whom Chisala surveys have been practising endogamy/apartheid for hundreds or thousands of years), therefore the “regression toward the mean” (i.e., pull of the genes) argument ought to apply even if a self-selected smart fraction immigrated and were then tested for their cognitive abilities. Otherwise, you seem to be saying that short term eugenics can “evolve’ a new (smarter) population; if that is so, then groups and races really have no meaning, since any bunch of people can create their own new “race” within a generation, thereby rendering the HBDers concerns moot.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Deduction

    Otherwise, you seem to be saying that short term eugenics can “evolve’ a new (smarter) population
     
    If you took a population, IQ tested them and killed off all but the top one percent then you would have as you put it a 'new smarter population.' Not sure about whether you have evolved it, but the only genes an individual has are the genes an individual has.

    If a second Biafran war broke out and all of the Igbo in Nigeria were rounded up and killed. That would leave the remaining Igbo doctors and HBD grads often residing in New York as the only Igbo. The Igbo would then be a phenomenally smart population. Yes there is a small element of luck as opposed to genetics which determines very high intelligence and yes that luck could not hold to a second generation and yes that means that there would some sort of regression to the mean effect but the mean would be really high and the effect would be really small.

    if that is so, then groups and races really have no meaning, since any bunch of people can create their own new “race” within a generation, thereby rendering the HBDers concerns moot.
     
    This is a huge jump in logic! Races and groups have many meanings. They are certainly not falsified to whether they are subject to change or not.

    What it does mean is that HBD has no relevance when looking at individuals, but it still serves as a good explanation of the current behaviour of current groups and races when taken as averages. Which is the whole point!

    For example, men are clearly biologically much more prone to committing violent crime. I am a man, yet I do not find this offensive. This is because I know I have never committed a violent crime. It is however important for public policy that men's disproportianate disposition towards committing violent crime is accepted.

    Just as if I were black I do not believe that an acceptance of lower average black IQ would offend me, because I am smart and my intelligence would be independent of that average. Just as my peaceful behaviour is a fact independent of male rapists and murderes behaviour. Also, again there are plenty of public policy follow-through.

    If you want to improve the lives of a billion Black Africans through public policy, you must start with the facts. Just as James Watson suggested.
    , @swank
    Heredetarians will be the first to argue that black Africans represent a super-elite sub-population with a higher mean. Fine, then that must mean black Americans (and really all descendants of slave populations that were forced to the Americas) must be a super-depressed sub-population. So then those populations shouldn't be taken as representative, either. Selective migration works both ways.

    Remember also that black Africans who emigrate to the United States are more selected and do not fare as well as the UK immigrants.

    I've said it elsewhere regarding strong heredetarianism, but...

    1. “Races” as socially defined are not monophyletic, ruining any attempt at cladistics (but heredetarians love passing around nonsensical cladograms for human races). The allele frequencies captured by the definitions exist but at the same time are arbitrary. And there’s nothing indicating the different frequencies captured aren’t alleles linked to simple, superficial traits. For example, sickle-cell anemia is a large-effect mutation of a single allele, which is exactly the type of mutation that could easily increase in frequency within a population and produce large differences in frequency between populations over a relatively short evolutionary time period. Complex traits with pleiotropic and polygenic inheritence are much different.

    The favored comparison is always “dog breeds.” Dog breeds are severely inbred; human “races” are not. Dog breeds have been produced through artificial selection, whereas human races were produced by either (weak) natural selection or simple geographic isolation. Most importantly, the degree of genetic similarity between dog breeds is far higher than it is within human races. “However, the variation between dog breeds is much greater than the variation between human populations (27.5% versus 5.4%). Conversely, the degree of genetic homogeneity is much greater within individual dog breeds than within distinct human populations (94.6% versus 72.5%).” http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1706.full.

    Recently, people took Rachel Dolezal seriously as a black woman. And the only reason people stopped believing she was black is that Dolezal’s parents informed everyone otherwise. So, IRL the “real salient” facts about race are historical and cultural: no one cares about what a 23andme document says or doesn’t say. That’s why “race,” for all intents and purposes and what people actually mean when they discuss black, white, and Asian populations, is a social construct. This latest PC attempt to redefine “race” to match geographical clinial variation is just squid ink.

    2. Adoption studies are removing environmental variation. The adoptive homes could have uniformly added 10 points to each adoptive sibling’s IQ and the correlation between them would still be low and the variation between them better explained by variation in biological parent IQ. High SES home and compulsory education = removing environmental variation, even if they uniformly add or increase IQ or do so within a fairly narrow band. Which means that the “narrow band” could both account for a small percentage of IQ variance and explain group mean differences.

    The transracial adoption studies were even worse; they removed environmental variation after adoption but a lot of environmental variation remained regarding age of adoption and placement between white and black adoptees. One group, once again, suffers uniformly worse environmental quality during a critical period of mental development.

    The twins reared apart study is garbage; they weren’t reared far “apart” at all. And all twin studies rest on EEA, which is a tenuous assumption. There are plenty of adoption studies heredetarians neglect to mention; what about (Duyme et al. 1999) that showed a link between SES of adoptive home and eventual (age 16) IQ of the children, with an average difference of 1 SD and a range of about 20 points? Usually nowhere to be found.

    3. Misunderstanding of “shared environment.” First, shared environment is estimated using the EEA and assuming nonsense like ‘parents treat their children equally,’ sure. Shared environment is a fiction. No one shares their environment with anyone else. It’s likely that much of the “non-shared environment” boils down to differential treatment by friends, parents, family, and peers, meaning that those variables do contribute a lot to variation in IQ.

    But…systematic differences between parents would be uncovered if a study were done with representative variation of intracountry or intercountry parenting environments. It hasn’t been done. That said…

    Haworth et al. (2010) found, in a study with 11,000 twins from four different countries that shared environmental effects accounted for 16% of IQ variance. McGue et al. (1993) reviewed several twin studies and found that shared environment accounted for 30% of variation in IQ up until age 20, after which it dropped off to 0. But the studies he analyzed with twins over 20 years old had a weighted average shared environmental effect of negative 6% (that’s a model problem).

    4. The evolutionary explanations are often contradictory. For example, if IQ is an adaptation…generally that would remove variation from the selected population. So the heritability of a population selected for a certain trait should be close to zero. High heritability is prima facie evidence against an adaptation narrative. Now, several mechanisms may preserve variation, but if those mechanisms have been operating, then it makes it less likely the populations have any real genetic difference between them.
  41. Truth says:

    if that is so, then groups and races really have no meaning, since any bunch of people can create their own new “race” within a generation, thereby rendering the HBDers concerns moot.

    Bro, for Christ, fefin’ sakes, we don’t use logic to debate around here, we use anecdotes about our grandmother’s neighbors, and call each other “stupidheads.”

    Please delete your post and try again.

    Read More
  42. dearieme says:
    @Simon in London
    I don't think that is generally what is happening. It's more that GCSEs are not heavily G-loaded and industriousness beats high IQ (they were designed to be girl-friendly). So a moderately high IQ population with high industriousness will beat a higher IQ less industrious population. Black African immigrants combine moderately high IQ with high industriousness, while white working class boys have fairly high IQ but low industriousness (being demoralised by single motherhood & other trends).

    GCSE: well, somebody has to be industrious, but not necessarily the examination candidate.

    Read More
  43. Deduction says:
    @Numinous

    The way in which Chisala does so is by stating that there is no regression to the mean to a low mean therefore the mean of the African population is not low.

    This is not a strong argument. The Africans I know are the products of smart people marrying smart people. The mean of their respective sub-populations tends to be very high. It is also not related to the mean of the general African population.
     
    It is a very strong argument. Hereditarians (HBDers) say that IQ is largely determined by one's genes. Smart Africans and dumb Africans have similar genes (unless you can show that the smart people whom Chisala surveys have been practising endogamy/apartheid for hundreds or thousands of years), therefore the "regression toward the mean" (i.e., pull of the genes) argument ought to apply even if a self-selected smart fraction immigrated and were then tested for their cognitive abilities. Otherwise, you seem to be saying that short term eugenics can "evolve' a new (smarter) population; if that is so, then groups and races really have no meaning, since any bunch of people can create their own new "race" within a generation, thereby rendering the HBDers concerns moot.

    Otherwise, you seem to be saying that short term eugenics can “evolve’ a new (smarter) population

    If you took a population, IQ tested them and killed off all but the top one percent then you would have as you put it a ‘new smarter population.’ Not sure about whether you have evolved it, but the only genes an individual has are the genes an individual has.

    If a second Biafran war broke out and all of the Igbo in Nigeria were rounded up and killed. That would leave the remaining Igbo doctors and HBD grads often residing in New York as the only Igbo. The Igbo would then be a phenomenally smart population. Yes there is a small element of luck as opposed to genetics which determines very high intelligence and yes that luck could not hold to a second generation and yes that means that there would some sort of regression to the mean effect but the mean would be really high and the effect would be really small.

    if that is so, then groups and races really have no meaning, since any bunch of people can create their own new “race” within a generation, thereby rendering the HBDers concerns moot.

    This is a huge jump in logic! Races and groups have many meanings. They are certainly not falsified to whether they are subject to change or not.

    What it does mean is that HBD has no relevance when looking at individuals, but it still serves as a good explanation of the current behaviour of current groups and races when taken as averages. Which is the whole point!

    For example, men are clearly biologically much more prone to committing violent crime. I am a man, yet I do not find this offensive. This is because I know I have never committed a violent crime. It is however important for public policy that men’s disproportianate disposition towards committing violent crime is accepted.

    Just as if I were black I do not believe that an acceptance of lower average black IQ would offend me, because I am smart and my intelligence would be independent of that average. Just as my peaceful behaviour is a fact independent of male rapists and murderes behaviour. Also, again there are plenty of public policy follow-through.

    If you want to improve the lives of a billion Black Africans through public policy, you must start with the facts. Just as James Watson suggested.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    "What it does mean is that HBD has no relevance when looking at individuals, but it still serves as a good explanation of the current behaviour of current groups and races when taken as averages. Which is the whole point!"

    Wrong.

    If all one has to go by is an individual's race, then one should take race into account when assessing the said individual.

    Here is Dr Neven Sesardic on the matter, from Making Sense of Heritability:


    "Next, the statement that people should be treated as individuals is certainly a useful reminder that in many contexts direct knowledge about a particular person eclipses the informativeness of any additional statistical data, and often makes the collection of this kind of data pointless. The
    statement is fine as far as it goes, but it should not be pushed too far. If it is understood as saying that it is a fallacy to use the information about an individual’s group membership to infer something about that individual, the statement is simply wrong. Exactly the opposite is true: it is a fallacy not to take this information into account."
     
  44. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Deduction

    Otherwise, you seem to be saying that short term eugenics can “evolve’ a new (smarter) population
     
    If you took a population, IQ tested them and killed off all but the top one percent then you would have as you put it a 'new smarter population.' Not sure about whether you have evolved it, but the only genes an individual has are the genes an individual has.

    If a second Biafran war broke out and all of the Igbo in Nigeria were rounded up and killed. That would leave the remaining Igbo doctors and HBD grads often residing in New York as the only Igbo. The Igbo would then be a phenomenally smart population. Yes there is a small element of luck as opposed to genetics which determines very high intelligence and yes that luck could not hold to a second generation and yes that means that there would some sort of regression to the mean effect but the mean would be really high and the effect would be really small.

    if that is so, then groups and races really have no meaning, since any bunch of people can create their own new “race” within a generation, thereby rendering the HBDers concerns moot.
     
    This is a huge jump in logic! Races and groups have many meanings. They are certainly not falsified to whether they are subject to change or not.

    What it does mean is that HBD has no relevance when looking at individuals, but it still serves as a good explanation of the current behaviour of current groups and races when taken as averages. Which is the whole point!

    For example, men are clearly biologically much more prone to committing violent crime. I am a man, yet I do not find this offensive. This is because I know I have never committed a violent crime. It is however important for public policy that men's disproportianate disposition towards committing violent crime is accepted.

    Just as if I were black I do not believe that an acceptance of lower average black IQ would offend me, because I am smart and my intelligence would be independent of that average. Just as my peaceful behaviour is a fact independent of male rapists and murderes behaviour. Also, again there are plenty of public policy follow-through.

    If you want to improve the lives of a billion Black Africans through public policy, you must start with the facts. Just as James Watson suggested.

    “What it does mean is that HBD has no relevance when looking at individuals, but it still serves as a good explanation of the current behaviour of current groups and races when taken as averages. Which is the whole point!”

    Wrong.

    If all one has to go by is an individual’s race, then one should take race into account when assessing the said individual.

    Here is Dr Neven Sesardic on the matter, from Making Sense of Heritability:

    “Next, the statement that people should be treated as individuals is certainly a useful reminder that in many contexts direct knowledge about a particular person eclipses the informativeness of any additional statistical data, and often makes the collection of this kind of data pointless. The
    statement is fine as far as it goes, but it should not be pushed too far. If it is understood as saying that it is a fallacy to use the information about an individual’s group membership to infer something about that individual, the statement is simply wrong. Exactly the opposite is true: it is a fallacy not to take this information into account.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Deduction

    If all one has to go by is an individual’s race, then one should take race into account when assessing the said individual.
     
    Beep beep bop! Your logic is correct! Well done!

    Now try applying this to a real life situation...

    Sometimes people on the net just don't get reality. In reality, you always know more than individual's race.

    A five minute conversation is a better indication of someone's intelligence than their race...

  45. Deduction says:
    @anon
    "What it does mean is that HBD has no relevance when looking at individuals, but it still serves as a good explanation of the current behaviour of current groups and races when taken as averages. Which is the whole point!"

    Wrong.

    If all one has to go by is an individual's race, then one should take race into account when assessing the said individual.

    Here is Dr Neven Sesardic on the matter, from Making Sense of Heritability:


    "Next, the statement that people should be treated as individuals is certainly a useful reminder that in many contexts direct knowledge about a particular person eclipses the informativeness of any additional statistical data, and often makes the collection of this kind of data pointless. The
    statement is fine as far as it goes, but it should not be pushed too far. If it is understood as saying that it is a fallacy to use the information about an individual’s group membership to infer something about that individual, the statement is simply wrong. Exactly the opposite is true: it is a fallacy not to take this information into account."
     

    If all one has to go by is an individual’s race, then one should take race into account when assessing the said individual.

    Beep beep bop! Your logic is correct! Well done!

    Now try applying this to a real life situation…

    Sometimes people on the net just don’t get reality. In reality, you always know more than individual’s race.

    A five minute conversation is a better indication of someone’s intelligence than their race…

    Read More
    • Replies: @JH73
    Only someone that doesn't understand Bayes Theorem would say that. Race is still informative unless of course your 5min conversation ability has perfect sensitivity and selectivity. If you do congratulations, I know some 3 letter agencies that are looking to hire.
  46. rec1man says:
    @Numinous
    Thank you. I'll read it at leisure, though I did glance through part of the chapter that describes the measurement methodology. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems the estimates of national IQs are based purely on the results of tests taken by students (at various levels). Now, my observation is that the typical educational facilities and the quality of teachers in government schools (which make up a large majority of the schools in India) are beyond abysmal. Only a small percentage of private schools, to which only the middle class or higher can afford to send their kids, really have decent teachers and facilities. Indian graduates who go abroad to highly ranked undergraduate or grad schools tend to emerge disproportionately from these well-endowed schools.

    Is it possible that the test scores are simply a reflection of the poor quality of teachers? And, by implication, that estimated Indian IQ is simply an indication of Indian society's skewed priorities rather than of its peoples' innate abilities?

    The PISA scores, which are a function of schooling, show an Indian IQ = 75

    http://www.docstoc.com/docs/172418022/2015-National-Merit-Semifinalists-in-California

    this has California National Merit

    and many Indians can decode from Name to Caste

    The results are very lopsided, most Indian castes, 60%, never make it to the list
    certain castes are over-represented

    Read More
  47. Greeneyes says:

    I still am confused as to why slow regression to the main population mean is an obstacle to hereditarianism per se. Something I learned from Gregory Clark’s book “the son also rises”, is that amongst surnames, regression to the mean is incredibly slow, and a surname or family is, at base , conceptually just a sub population.

    There is nothing surprising about a cognitively elite group outperforming the average of British whites. Then having kids who are on average, also doing better. Regression to the mean is a slow not a fast process sometimes. Especially when the group in question has high assortative mating.

    To compare apples to apples, one should compare The British whites who are at the same demographic percentile of performance relative to the main population as any particular African sub population is relative to its own main population.

    What I am curious about, and don’t have good information on is what are the elite African sub populations. Not just in terms of filters that apply to immigrants, such as selecting for education . But sub populations within Africa itself.
    As I understand it Brahmins in India systematically are more elite than the general population there, and they don’t regress to the mean of there population very fast because of endogamous social mating. If there are groups like this in Africa, its not surprising that they might have sub populations that do as well or better than Whites on average.

    But of course, if one where to start comparing them to elite white sub populations, the gap might reappear , even if not pronounced.
    One thing is clear, the hereditarian position is more nuanced and involved than mere racial differences. While one can make broad predictive claims about groups at the race level, these predictions will be vastly inferior to having more sub group knowledge and how they will perform. And in fact these predictions may be systematically erroneous for sub populations that deviate significantly (below or above) the race average.

    Btw- Why don’t we ever hear about white subpopulations. I find it weird in the HBD sphere, from what I have seen. White is treated more collectively than any other race, with exceptions for major national differences, like Greeks vs Swedes. But not subpopulations within Greece or Sweden. Yet we talk about subpopulations within African countries, and India regularly. Is it because western society has broken down the obvious cultural boundaries between there own groups? Like Class structure in Britain. I am willing to bet the old upper class still does better systematically than white Brits in general.

    Read More
  48. JH73 says:
    @Deduction

    If all one has to go by is an individual’s race, then one should take race into account when assessing the said individual.
     
    Beep beep bop! Your logic is correct! Well done!

    Now try applying this to a real life situation...

    Sometimes people on the net just don't get reality. In reality, you always know more than individual's race.

    A five minute conversation is a better indication of someone's intelligence than their race...

    Only someone that doesn’t understand Bayes Theorem would say that. Race is still informative unless of course your 5min conversation ability has perfect sensitivity and selectivity. If you do congratulations, I know some 3 letter agencies that are looking to hire.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Deduction
    It is insignificantly informative. You really do need to get out more.
  49. Big Bill says:

    Immigration to the US is great for Ibos. They move to a country with dumb blacks, get on the blacks versus whites bandwagon, and then, when white folks feel guilty, get selected for all the top college spots and best jobs under affirmative action. Back home in Nigeria, the dumb blacks (ie non-Ibo) would see though the scam in a split – second. They would see this “black meritocracy” as a way to keep non-Ibos down.

    But in America, we don’t subdivide blacks (and they don’t subdivide themselves) into historically oppressed ex-slave domestic blacks and the rich imported black elite. There are just “blacks” and “black solidarity” in America. So homegrown, historical black Americans never see that they are not getting better off and that the jobs/education that should have gone to them is now going to foreign, imported, elite blacks.

    The same phenomenon occurs with “hispanic” affirmative action: the pure-blooded rich, intelligent, white “hispanics” from Mexico, Cuba etc. get affirmative action benefits, and the poor dumb mestizos get squat.

    Read More
    • Replies: @whahae
    Getting screwed even more: Low-IQ Asian groups (e.g. Hmongs, Kazakhs, etc.)
  50. whahae says:
    @Big Bill
    Immigration to the US is great for Ibos. They move to a country with dumb blacks, get on the blacks versus whites bandwagon, and then, when white folks feel guilty, get selected for all the top college spots and best jobs under affirmative action. Back home in Nigeria, the dumb blacks (ie non-Ibo) would see though the scam in a split - second. They would see this "black meritocracy" as a way to keep non-Ibos down.

    But in America, we don't subdivide blacks (and they don't subdivide themselves) into historically oppressed ex-slave domestic blacks and the rich imported black elite. There are just "blacks" and "black solidarity" in America. So homegrown, historical black Americans never see that they are not getting better off and that the jobs/education that should have gone to them is now going to foreign, imported, elite blacks.

    The same phenomenon occurs with "hispanic" affirmative action: the pure-blooded rich, intelligent, white "hispanics" from Mexico, Cuba etc. get affirmative action benefits, and the poor dumb mestizos get squat.

    Getting screwed even more: Low-IQ Asian groups (e.g. Hmongs, Kazakhs, etc.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Deduction
    Getting screwed even even more are low IQ white and asian individuals...
  51. peterike says:

    I don’t care if every black African coming to America had an IQ of 150. I don’t want these people in my country, period. Nothing good will come of it.

    Read More
  52. AshTon says:

    There’s a long article here – http://www.nairaland.com/370941/osu-caste-system-igboland-discrimination – about the Osu (untouchable) caste system in Igbo Nigeria. The author hints that slaves may have been Osu. He also make explicit the link between stereotypes about African-Ameeicans and Osu (lazy, boisterous etc).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ed
    I've heard Ghanaians say the same thing, that the slaves that were sold were criminals or some other type of outcasts. Seems there had to be some method in determining who got sold and who didn't.
  53. bruce says:

    There’s anecdotes above so I guess I can give mine.
    There was one Nigerian grad student in the physics department. He wasn’t the best grad student.
    I work for a large DoD contractor. The company tries very hard to recruit and reward black engineers and pridefully advertises itself as one of the very best companies for blacks to work for.
    There are a small number of black engineers and they’re never the best engineers. I’ve known some that get promoted to management, it seems to me because they can’t do the technical work very well. Then their white colleagues tell me their career has been hampered because management has been forced on them (they seem to be competent in the management positions- they know enough to organize and talk about other engineers work/results). The top engineers are mostly white with a few Hindus, east Asians and (white) Hispanics.
    There are Fellows in each of many technical disciplines. There’s only one black Fellow in he got it for something non-technical (planning or quality, I can’t remember which). Same thing for our “women of color” winners. The technical types (electrical engineering) are Asian. The blacks get an award for some sort of non-technical discipline like planning.

    Read More
  54. IA says:

    3rd world corruption increases as colonial, imperialistic, really bad, white racist influence recedes. Therefore, the rest of the world must migrate in order to live again under the white man’s thumb. The wheels of freedom grind slowly but exceedingly fine.

    Read More
  55. @Chuck
    "the evidence for high IQ amongst certain African ethnic groups such as the Igbo – are quite compelling"

    Did you bother to read the source papers e.g., "Raising the Achievement of Black African Pupils: Good Practice in Schools"?

    “Six secondary schools with a high number of Black African students that serve disadvantaged communities were selected for case studies. The case study schools’ GCSE results were exceptionally good.. Key criteria for the selection of schools were as follow:
    –an above‐average proportion of students who are eligible for free school meals
    –‘outstanding’ or ‘good with outstanding features’ grades overall in the most recent Ofsted inspection
    –exceptionally good results, high standards
    –sustained GCSE improvement over the last 10 years”

    Or to take a look at the sample sizes:

    “Of the 411 Black African students who took GCSE, 21% spoke English at home, 22% Yoruba, 13% Somali, 9% Twi‐Fante, 5% French, 4% Igbo, 4% Krio…”

    Compelling? Really?

    Since the letter that was put in exhibit (hearing for Heber’s early release from parole–granted) in his fed case at the end of September 1985–a letter under the IDRERI and University of Gothenburg (Sweden) letterhead and over the signature of semi-retired Swedish prominent political figure Gunnar Hedlund–since this letter (a) had no reservations re Heber or even
    allusions to his prison time; (b) was filled with praise of Heber; (c) offered ex-con Heber the position of Research Director of IDRERI; (d) noted that it could be half time (which allowed it to accommodate to Heber’s interesting involvements with Thomas Allen Askelson of Askelson Associates (himself killed along with Heber in the Dec. 1987 plane wreck ) (e) noted the IDRERI role would involve an appreciable amount of travel into and from sub Sahara Afica/ (f)_ noted the VOLVO CORPORATION as an example of the private donors that supported IDRERI…..One would hope that a major international Swedish firm like Volvo could smoke out at long last why no assurances one way or the other have surfaced regarding what research went on in the 26 months from release from parole and Heber’s death and what linkages it had, if any, to TTU Assoc. Prof. Mary Alice Slater, also killed in the plane wreck. VOLVO does itself no favors by being linked to any sort of “lock the doors and turn out the lights” policy re research involving humans–the more so in Africa by those investigating nature/nurture.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bob Woodwort
    This comment about Heber, et. al, was aimed, I suspect, at the comment
    of Drew Prentice (above) and got misplaced?
  56. If the Russian government has intelligence about what Heber (and Thomas A. Askelson and
    Mary Alice Slater) were doing re international research about low IQ / mental retardation/
    linked in any way to IDRERI/ University of Gothenburg/ it might be of keen interest in the
    United Nations to see to clarify whether enough information was given out anywhere to safeguard as to whether research upon humans was conducted;if so, whether informed consent of any extent was given by the human subjects; whether government tax money, directly or
    indirectly, got mixed into the efforts of IDRERI/ University of Gothenburg/ re such international research; what corporations other than VOLVO contributed to IDRERI; whether
    such corporations were informed of Heber’s prison record; his characterization in sentencing
    comments in October 1981 and in (re Howard Garber’s prosecution) in December 1982, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    Hello, Ms. Carlson.
    How did you managed to put all 137 words, expressing you ideas, into one sentence?
  57. @Chuck
    "the evidence for high IQ amongst certain African ethnic groups such as the Igbo – are quite compelling"

    Did you bother to read the source papers e.g., "Raising the Achievement of Black African Pupils: Good Practice in Schools"?

    “Six secondary schools with a high number of Black African students that serve disadvantaged communities were selected for case studies. The case study schools’ GCSE results were exceptionally good.. Key criteria for the selection of schools were as follow:
    –an above‐average proportion of students who are eligible for free school meals
    –‘outstanding’ or ‘good with outstanding features’ grades overall in the most recent Ofsted inspection
    –exceptionally good results, high standards
    –sustained GCSE improvement over the last 10 years”

    Or to take a look at the sample sizes:

    “Of the 411 Black African students who took GCSE, 21% spoke English at home, 22% Yoruba, 13% Somali, 9% Twi‐Fante, 5% French, 4% Igbo, 4% Krio…”

    Compelling? Really?

    The observed day to day “assessments” of groups–in trades, semi-skilled labor, unskilled work,social interactions–over time give rise to folklore characterizations that are arrived at with about the same honesty and effort that folklore weather “forecasting” is arrived at over
    generations. The social-judgments about the capacity of Africa evolved groupings like the Bushmen and especially the Batwa pygmies are not challenged by modern test data, overall. The market value of the very expensive American slaves was not enhanced by social judgments that overall (with noteworthy exceptions) they were markedly less “smart” that Euro-Americans. It was just a honest observation that helped conserve the well being of the slavesat work and the safety of equipment, etc. Test measurement is as much an extension of noteworthy social assessment as weather meteorology is of folklore efforts at weather prediction. It is quite possible to structure work situations and social situations to attain very accurate assessments of relevant general mental ability. If mental testing in America had been less dominantly shaped by extremely profitable test publishing companies–academic use of mental ability testing would much more emerge from intelligent assessment than it ever does in reality. There is some hint that a face off about this matter may have taken place during the World War I Army/Beta program–this between Bingham and Yerkes—Bingham being rather more devoted to seeing testing emerge from, and integrated with, intelligently conducted assessment. Micro-
    miniaturization of audo-video technology certainly calls for a better
    academic integration of structured assessment and standardized testing.,

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chuck
    "If mental testing in America had been less dominantly shaped by extremely profitable test publishing companies–academic use of mental ability testing would much more emerge from intelligent assessment than it ever does in reality. "

    What's your point?
  58. @Bob Woodwort
    Since the letter that was put in exhibit (hearing for Heber's early release from parole--granted) in his fed case at the end of September 1985--a letter under the IDRERI and University of Gothenburg (Sweden) letterhead and over the signature of semi-retired Swedish prominent political figure Gunnar Hedlund--since this letter (a) had no reservations re Heber or even
    allusions to his prison time; (b) was filled with praise of Heber; (c) offered ex-con Heber the position of Research Director of IDRERI; (d) noted that it could be half time (which allowed it to accommodate to Heber's interesting involvements with Thomas Allen Askelson of Askelson Associates (himself killed along with Heber in the Dec. 1987 plane wreck ) (e) noted the IDRERI role would involve an appreciable amount of travel into and from sub Sahara Afica/ (f)_ noted the VOLVO CORPORATION as an example of the private donors that supported IDRERI.....One would hope that a major international Swedish firm like Volvo could smoke out at long last why no assurances one way or the other have surfaced regarding what research went on in the 26 months from release from parole and Heber's death and what linkages it had, if any, to TTU Assoc. Prof. Mary Alice Slater, also killed in the plane wreck. VOLVO does itself no favors by being linked to any sort of "lock the doors and turn out the lights" policy re research involving humans--the more so in Africa by those investigating nature/nurture.

    This comment about Heber, et. al, was aimed, I suspect, at the comment
    of Drew Prentice (above) and got misplaced?

    Read More
  59. @Bob Woodwort
    The late Rick (Franz) Heber, Director of the Milwaukee Project, spent the last 26 months of
    his life in "mystery land" is now seems. He got early release from parole (convicted on getting funny with money--verdict on July 30, 1981 at federal court in Madison, WI ) in October 1985 to go to University of Gothenburg (Sweden), where he had been on very frequent travels and for a time on at least one of his sabbaticals. He was installed as Research Director for a privately funded (e.g., one donor was the Volvo Corporation according to a letter sent Heber on
    March 01, 1985, and put in evidence at the hearing in his case on September 30, 1985) entity
    to do international research on mental retardation--read: research on the sorts of mental retardation within severely environmentally deprived settings from which early on in childhood
    some intercessions could free up IQ development to gain up to 10 IQ points beyond what "benign neglect" would cause to happen. OK, his very close personal and professional
    underlying at Madison, Mary Alice Slater (PhD 1980), visited Heber early on after Heber started serving time (in Texas, mostly). She was accompanied by an official of the Swedish Education Ministry in three September 1982 visits. In 1984, she left Madison and became a
    researcher at the Texas Tech. U. Health Science Center in Amarillo. She seems to have been
    research linked to Heber all along...but no one knows what that linkage produced.

    In October 1985, Heber was released early from parole to be Research Director of the international research entity IDRERI of the University of Gothenburg in Sweden for
    research into the environmental aspects of mental retardation internationally in Europe and
    Central Africa. We now know he had never envisioned leaving academe or research in mental retardation at any time before his trial verdict or after. As noted, on August 18, 1981, under
    the letter head of IDRERI and the University, a glowing letter of praise of Heber was written
    to a federal parole official in Madison, Wisconsin, in the hope Heber’s sentence would not impose actual prison time. It did. And it did because the trial judge had perceived all sorts of
    lack of genuine remorse on Heber’s part; exploitation of others attendant to his misdeeds; etc.
    In both this letter and the letter written under the same letter head on March 01, 1985–there is just no evidence concern at all about Heber’s offenses, his trial, etc. One wonders if the Volvo
    Corporation, as a major donor to IDRERI, was ever informed of Heber’s past? Heber’s odd
    evasions, manipulations, misinformation strategies can be viewed in several ways and all should be given regard. But one haunting possibility suggested by someone doing a retrospective on him is whether he was taken on board by the CIA in the 1957-59 period of his
    career. It probably will never warrant discussion..for want of evidence one way or the other.

    One of the 1987 plane crash victims (in which both Heber and Slater were killed along with
    several persons linked to research at Texas Tech University ) was Thomas Allen Askelson of
    Syracuse, Ill. His company on the surface appeared to be in routine home décor sales and installation. In fact, it was devoted to inlaid carpeting designed to be cognitive stimulating to
    young children and to be educationally interesting to them. Thus, it was directly and intimately linked to Heber’s expertise (and that of Slater,as well). Askelson went to the Waisman Center in Madison (UW Madison) in 1982 and almost certainly was linked to Slater there–this in forming his product. The Company Askelson Associates, appears to have been
    formed in late 1982 or 1983. Heber entered prison in February 1982, after an ostensible appeal effort (likely withdrawn by him but maybe acted upon and affirmed ?) . Askelson apparently when Heber went to Europe and into African travels–more or less followed along.
    Heber was half time with Askelson and half time with IDRERI of U. of Gothenburg. He and Heber could justify their presence anywhere at any time , one way or the other. It may not
    be linked to Langley….but it would be “further” from Langley if more illumination existed on
    whether or not actual research on humans was carried out or linked to this ex-con Rick Heber and his passionate devotee, Mary Alice Slater of TTU HSC. Not a good way to provide society with needed safeguards re research on humans to have no illumination at all. Langley?? Hope not.

    The most likely area of Africa for research relevant to Heber’s brilliance and Slater’s abilities, as well–and to their focus and interests and backgrounds in research–would have been either the African Bushmen or the Batwa pygmy tribe. Just a few hours before the mysterious fatal plane crash, the so-called “photo safari” (there actually was one, but research, unacknowledged overtly, was turning the crankshaft, so to say ) location they were departing form was Diane Fossey territory–inhabited conjointly by mountain gorillas and the Batwa. That the CIA (?)
    and the Volvo Corporation (named in the March 01, 1985, letter under the IDRERI University of Gothenburg letter head as a major donor to IDRERI ) would be linked to race, IQ, nature/nurture research covertly in Central Africa sounds like scary sci fi…but if there ever was a person in terms of personal brilliance and love of excitement jags and risk taking who would fit the role of Director it was Rick Franz Heber (a/k/a Richard Frank Heber / R. F. Heber/
    Franz Richard Heber/ etc. etc. Could we get out of TTU or U. of Gothenburg or some attorneys acting for Volvo—a little bit of even candle light level illumination of what did or didn’t happen?? After 27 years of “don’t ask; don’t tell” ???

    In the summer of 1967 Heber and some associates at a conference in Eugene Oregon, delivered a paper regarding nature/nurture. This paper, along with Heber’s 1957 dissertation, removes any notion he was a “Blank Slate” devotee. Rather , as an entrepreneurial academic in the
    consultation biz bit time (and brilliantly effective ), he was focused on what might be done and not what couldn’t be done. A bank balance framework. He had prepublication to a relevant paper of Jensen’s, betokening that they communicated very well and likely had gone on well if/as I’ve been told/ they met in Milwaukee about late 1966 or early 1967?? At any rate, the
    whole Eugene program was Heber orientated. He was the big power man in the field at that time. This reveals that Heber quietly had long been interested in international studies of mental retardation—an anthropological illuminations of variations, etc. His close associates knew that for years he had made frequent trips into and out of Central Africa..going back into
    the mid 60′s or so. One visited with Heber only about one’s own work relevant to his role. He compartmentalized all information and did not look with the least bit of favor on people who
    “nosed” around outside of their focus within his domain. The late 1970′s IQ studies of the
    Batwa by Witkin et al. had a definite anti-nature bent. It turned out to be much ado about very little useful findings. Heber would have had a clear landscape to get real there? Did he?

    The estimated average IQ of the Batwa of Central Africa (54, cf. Lynn et al. ) helps convey
    that “racism” is not an invention of Whites. The surrounding indigenous peoples had long
    deplored any social contact with the Batwa, considering them “primate” and “sub human”.
    By the time Heber might have been doing covfert work (was he? ) in the mid / late / 80′s,
    the removal of the Batwa from their natural habitat was an impending necessity. If their
    situation could be studied thoroughly, the discrimination against them when they were removed form the forest into small villages etc. in Rwanda , say, could have been much
    mitigated by the findings and intercessions formulated by Heber and Slater (and associates).
    This falls short of indicating what happened. It does capture motive and means and opportunity.

    The measurement and assessment of the average general mental ability of varied evolved African population groupings, is perhaps well informed by part of Prof. Howard Garber’s Report (1988) on Heber’s Milwaukee Project (Wikipedia has terse information on the Project) . It was a Project not so much to boost low IQ among children born to mentally retarded
    mothers in the Black inner city of Milwaukee–as to liberate the inborn potential of any of the 20 treatment subjects from erosion and destruction by severe environmental limitation. (By the mid 70′s Arthur Jensen had conduct research on this “cumulative deficit” topic sufficient for him to revise his earlier view and conclude that significant (but no dramatic)
    IQ gains could come from children so situated if severely deprived environments were supplanted by normal levels of stimulations and of yoked child-mother interactions Garber makes the excellent point that undue/ premature/ concerns about overall group IQ comparisons, can deflect from the details of research that in carried forth with scientific
    objectivity and lack of political intrusion can likely define “IQ gain potential” in terms of specific population features–e.g., would introverted male children tend to have liberated IQ gains significantly greater than extraverted ones? Are children born to socially-emotionally responsive, if mentally retarded, mothers going to fare better than those born to MR mothers who are less socially and emotionally responsive. The broad brush can obscure more than it reveals.

    An off shoot question is why no academic studies were ever directed at the odd delays, delays, delays, in issuing the final Milwaukee Project Report. Garber–in as close contact as anyone associated with a Director (Heber) who was present about 5% of the time, and now and then, not routinely by any schedule–presented the final Report to Heber in about May 1980, as Heber was beginning to sense that he, Heber, might be under investigation (He was ). Heber brushed it aside on the pretext that a few additional comments were needed. By December 05, 1980, Heber had been banned from campus at US Mad(ison). In 1982–according to a local
    item in the Madison Capitol Journal, it had been submitted for publication. On Dec. 26, 1983, Milwaukee reporter Susan Trebacn, reported it had been submitted and accepted and would be published in the Spring ( 1984–indeed). Didn’t happen. Her information was direct and impeccable. No explanation is known. By 1986, Prof. Ellis Page had published in a larger work ( Spitz) a lengthy culmination of his monitoring and research of the Milwaukee Project, giving it forth, not unjustly at the time, as an example of fraud. It is puzzling why the UW Mad(ison_) would appear “hands off” to such repeated delays, giving rise in 1986 to a then credible commentary suggesting fraud ( dissipated by Garber’s 1988 detailed report ).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bob Woodwort
    The cluster of question marks about all this "international research" re low IQ / mental retardation from early release from parole on October 01, 1985 until 14 plane wreck deaths on Dec. 03, 1987, in Rwanda---these are questions that if the CIA did not know about at the time--or soon thereafter--would betoken a very very strange "gap" in CIA vigilance and awareness. The CIA was thoroughly into Rwanda and Zaire by early 1987 but was unable to stop what later resulted in genocide. Yet, somehow, the CIA just "went Ostrich" about experts in Black IQ / nature , nurture (see Wikipedia re "Milwaukee Project" ) going rather covertly into and out of Central Africa??? Doesn't pass the credibility sense. Heber's own very clever "disinformation" tricks would be the envy of most CIA field agents. (He had about seven or eight variations of his name; gave his date of birth in varied ways to suggest at times he was born Jan. 12, 1932 (he was) and at times on Dec. 01,1932 (he wasn't); at times, he confessed to
    treatment of mental disorder in the spring and early summer of 1981; at times, he denied ever having mental treatment. He refused for 21 years to record with the University of Wisconsin at Madison his reportedly very large private and brilliantly carried out consultation and program
    design in mental retardation. (His design of the program for the nation of Egypt circa 1971 was engendered huge gratitude (in addition, no doubt, to huge consultation fees). If Heber had not been anchored to the CIA since , say, 1957 or so---the CIA sure as hell should have monitored him for years to be secure that he was not in the service of rival agencies of other governments. The CIA would have been hugely derelict in not having enough information to be assured that whatever was or was not going on circa October 1985--Dec. 1987--did not violate basic ethics
    about research upon humans, about informed consent of humans so studies, about any involvement--directly or indirectly--of US tax dollars. CIA Director John Brennan should get on top of this. True "affirmative action" was called for...yet is...to gain assurance that whatever happened did not violate basic research and human ethics.
  60. Immigrant from former USSR [AKA "Florida Resident"] says:
    @Bob Woodwort
    If the Russian government has intelligence about what Heber (and Thomas A. Askelson and
    Mary Alice Slater) were doing re international research about low IQ / mental retardation/
    linked in any way to IDRERI/ University of Gothenburg/ it might be of keen interest in the
    United Nations to see to clarify whether enough information was given out anywhere to safeguard as to whether research upon humans was conducted;if so, whether informed consent of any extent was given by the human subjects; whether government tax money, directly or
    indirectly, got mixed into the efforts of IDRERI/ University of Gothenburg/ re such international research; what corporations other than VOLVO contributed to IDRERI; whether
    such corporations were informed of Heber's prison record; his characterization in sentencing
    comments in October 1981 and in (re Howard Garber's prosecution) in December 1982, etc.

    Hello, Ms. Carlson.
    How did you managed to put all 137 words, expressing you ideas, into one sentence?

    Read More
  61. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    It’s going to happen either way, so hope for the best case. For all the talk about Latino and Asian immigration, it’s African immigration that is most certain to rise. It’s political and career suicide to be against black immigration. Hispanic immigration was a net negative the past year and as China becomes a viable place to live so there should be less motivation to leave. Africa is hardly connected to the world, so there will be alot of Africans looking to the US over the next generation.

    http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/african-immigrants-united-states-0/

    The number of African immigrants in the United States grew 40-fold between 1960 and 2007, from 35,355 to 1.4 million. Most of this growth has taken place since 1990.

    http://immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/african-immigrants-america-demographic-overview

    Read More
  62. So African immigrants benefit from affirmative action in the United States. It was designed to benefit the descendants of slaves, and sacrifices made by the descendants of slavers and slave owners.

    Most whites in America are descended from people who had nothing to do with slavery, and many of the West African immigrants are the descendants of slavers. So it seems the shoe is on the wrong foot here.

    No affirmative action slots for the descendants of slavers!

    Read More
  63. iSteveFan says:

    Taking the best and brightest away from Africa harms Africa. It would be one thing to allow bright Africans to be educated at our universities, but they should be educated so that they can return home to build up their homelands.

    The same goes for India. They produce a large number of physicians. Yet India only has around 0.7 physicians per 1000 people while the USA and other advanced nations have 2.5 and higher. This is patently unfair to the vast majority of people who will forever have to remain in India, as well as those poor souls in Africa and other areas where the West extracts human resources.

    Add to it that the bright Africans, Indians, etc., are only being brought here to take care of aging whites, and it really is hard to understand why the so-called progressive whites have not yet objected. Leaving hundreds of millions, without their top talent, is on par with the worst aspects of colonialism.

    Read More
  64. Deduction says:
    @JH73
    Only someone that doesn't understand Bayes Theorem would say that. Race is still informative unless of course your 5min conversation ability has perfect sensitivity and selectivity. If you do congratulations, I know some 3 letter agencies that are looking to hire.

    It is insignificantly informative. You really do need to get out more.

    Read More
  65. Deduction says:
    @whahae
    Getting screwed even more: Low-IQ Asian groups (e.g. Hmongs, Kazakhs, etc.)

    Getting screwed even even more are low IQ white and asian individuals…

    Read More
  66. Greeneyes says:

    Another question I have is how many of these Igbo , and other elite African groups get PHD’s in Physics, or Mathamathics, where its extremely hard to argue that the figure is a token or simple receiver of affirmative action.

    Read More
  67. Ed says:

    Sigh I’m Ghanaian American some of us are smart, some of us are dumb just like any other group. The Ashanti had some experience organizing an empire that was significant enough to cause problems for the Brits. So maybe that’s responsible for some lingering IQ advantage? Whatever the advantage maybe if it even exists, the Ashanti don’t even run Ghana.

    Folks are putting too much stock into these matters.

    Read More
  68. Ed says:
    @AshTon
    There's a long article here - http://www.nairaland.com/370941/osu-caste-system-igboland-discrimination - about the Osu (untouchable) caste system in Igbo Nigeria. The author hints that slaves may have been Osu. He also make explicit the link between stereotypes about African-Ameeicans and Osu (lazy, boisterous etc).

    I’ve heard Ghanaians say the same thing, that the slaves that were sold were criminals or some other type of outcasts. Seems there had to be some method in determining who got sold and who didn’t.

    Read More
  69. Chuck says: • Website
    @Bob Woodwort
    The observed day to day "assessments" of groups--in trades, semi-skilled labor, unskilled work,social interactions--over time give rise to folklore characterizations that are arrived at with about the same honesty and effort that folklore weather "forecasting" is arrived at over
    generations. The social-judgments about the capacity of Africa evolved groupings like the Bushmen and especially the Batwa pygmies are not challenged by modern test data, overall. The market value of the very expensive American slaves was not enhanced by social judgments that overall (with noteworthy exceptions) they were markedly less "smart" that Euro-Americans. It was just a honest observation that helped conserve the well being of the slavesat work and the safety of equipment, etc. Test measurement is as much an extension of noteworthy social assessment as weather meteorology is of folklore efforts at weather prediction. It is quite possible to structure work situations and social situations to attain very accurate assessments of relevant general mental ability. If mental testing in America had been less dominantly shaped by extremely profitable test publishing companies--academic use of mental ability testing would much more emerge from intelligent assessment than it ever does in reality. There is some hint that a face off about this matter may have taken place during the World War I Army/Beta program--this between Bingham and Yerkes---Bingham being rather more devoted to seeing testing emerge from, and integrated with, intelligently conducted assessment. Micro-
    miniaturization of audo-video technology certainly calls for a better
    academic integration of structured assessment and standardized testing.,

    “If mental testing in America had been less dominantly shaped by extremely profitable test publishing companies–academic use of mental ability testing would much more emerge from intelligent assessment than it ever does in reality. ”

    What’s your point?

    Read More
  70. @Bob Woodwort
    The late Rick (Franz) Heber, Director of the Milwaukee Project, spent the last 26 months of
    his life in "mystery land" is now seems. He got early release from parole (convicted on getting funny with money--verdict on July 30, 1981 at federal court in Madison, WI ) in October 1985 to go to University of Gothenburg (Sweden), where he had been on very frequent travels and for a time on at least one of his sabbaticals. He was installed as Research Director for a privately funded (e.g., one donor was the Volvo Corporation according to a letter sent Heber on
    March 01, 1985, and put in evidence at the hearing in his case on September 30, 1985) entity
    to do international research on mental retardation--read: research on the sorts of mental retardation within severely environmentally deprived settings from which early on in childhood
    some intercessions could free up IQ development to gain up to 10 IQ points beyond what "benign neglect" would cause to happen. OK, his very close personal and professional
    underlying at Madison, Mary Alice Slater (PhD 1980), visited Heber early on after Heber started serving time (in Texas, mostly). She was accompanied by an official of the Swedish Education Ministry in three September 1982 visits. In 1984, she left Madison and became a
    researcher at the Texas Tech. U. Health Science Center in Amarillo. She seems to have been
    research linked to Heber all along...but no one knows what that linkage produced.

    In October 1985, Heber was released early from parole to be Research Director of the international research entity IDRERI of the University of Gothenburg in Sweden for
    research into the environmental aspects of mental retardation internationally in Europe and
    Central Africa. We now know he had never envisioned leaving academe or research in mental retardation at any time before his trial verdict or after. As noted, on August 18, 1981, under
    the letter head of IDRERI and the University, a glowing letter of praise of Heber was written
    to a federal parole official in Madison, Wisconsin, in the hope Heber’s sentence would not impose actual prison time. It did. And it did because the trial judge had perceived all sorts of
    lack of genuine remorse on Heber’s part; exploitation of others attendant to his misdeeds; etc.
    In both this letter and the letter written under the same letter head on March 01, 1985–there is just no evidence concern at all about Heber’s offenses, his trial, etc. One wonders if the Volvo
    Corporation, as a major donor to IDRERI, was ever informed of Heber’s past? Heber’s odd
    evasions, manipulations, misinformation strategies can be viewed in several ways and all should be given regard. But one haunting possibility suggested by someone doing a retrospective on him is whether he was taken on board by the CIA in the 1957-59 period of his
    career. It probably will never warrant discussion..for want of evidence one way or the other.

    One of the 1987 plane crash victims (in which both Heber and Slater were killed along with
    several persons linked to research at Texas Tech University ) was Thomas Allen Askelson of
    Syracuse, Ill. His company on the surface appeared to be in routine home décor sales and installation. In fact, it was devoted to inlaid carpeting designed to be cognitive stimulating to
    young children and to be educationally interesting to them. Thus, it was directly and intimately linked to Heber’s expertise (and that of Slater,as well). Askelson went to the Waisman Center in Madison (UW Madison) in 1982 and almost certainly was linked to Slater there–this in forming his product. The Company Askelson Associates, appears to have been
    formed in late 1982 or 1983. Heber entered prison in February 1982, after an ostensible appeal effort (likely withdrawn by him but maybe acted upon and affirmed ?) . Askelson apparently when Heber went to Europe and into African travels–more or less followed along.
    Heber was half time with Askelson and half time with IDRERI of U. of Gothenburg. He and Heber could justify their presence anywhere at any time , one way or the other. It may not
    be linked to Langley….but it would be “further” from Langley if more illumination existed on
    whether or not actual research on humans was carried out or linked to this ex-con Rick Heber and his passionate devotee, Mary Alice Slater of TTU HSC. Not a good way to provide society with needed safeguards re research on humans to have no illumination at all. Langley?? Hope not.

    The most likely area of Africa for research relevant to Heber’s brilliance and Slater’s abilities, as well–and to their focus and interests and backgrounds in research–would have been either the African Bushmen or the Batwa pygmy tribe. Just a few hours before the mysterious fatal plane crash, the so-called “photo safari” (there actually was one, but research, unacknowledged overtly, was turning the crankshaft, so to say ) location they were departing form was Diane Fossey territory–inhabited conjointly by mountain gorillas and the Batwa. That the CIA (?)
    and the Volvo Corporation (named in the March 01, 1985, letter under the IDRERI University of Gothenburg letter head as a major donor to IDRERI ) would be linked to race, IQ, nature/nurture research covertly in Central Africa sounds like scary sci fi…but if there ever was a person in terms of personal brilliance and love of excitement jags and risk taking who would fit the role of Director it was Rick Franz Heber (a/k/a Richard Frank Heber / R. F. Heber/
    Franz Richard Heber/ etc. etc. Could we get out of TTU or U. of Gothenburg or some attorneys acting for Volvo—a little bit of even candle light level illumination of what did or didn’t happen?? After 27 years of “don’t ask; don’t tell” ???

    In the summer of 1967 Heber and some associates at a conference in Eugene Oregon, delivered a paper regarding nature/nurture. This paper, along with Heber’s 1957 dissertation, removes any notion he was a “Blank Slate” devotee. Rather , as an entrepreneurial academic in the
    consultation biz bit time (and brilliantly effective ), he was focused on what might be done and not what couldn’t be done. A bank balance framework. He had prepublication to a relevant paper of Jensen’s, betokening that they communicated very well and likely had gone on well if/as I’ve been told/ they met in Milwaukee about late 1966 or early 1967?? At any rate, the
    whole Eugene program was Heber orientated. He was the big power man in the field at that time. This reveals that Heber quietly had long been interested in international studies of mental retardation—an anthropological illuminations of variations, etc. His close associates knew that for years he had made frequent trips into and out of Central Africa..going back into
    the mid 60′s or so. One visited with Heber only about one’s own work relevant to his role. He compartmentalized all information and did not look with the least bit of favor on people who
    “nosed” around outside of their focus within his domain. The late 1970′s IQ studies of the
    Batwa by Witkin et al. had a definite anti-nature bent. It turned out to be much ado about very little useful findings. Heber would have had a clear landscape to get real there? Did he?

    The estimated average IQ of the Batwa of Central Africa (54, cf. Lynn et al. ) helps convey
    that “racism” is not an invention of Whites. The surrounding indigenous peoples had long
    deplored any social contact with the Batwa, considering them “primate” and “sub human”.
    By the time Heber might have been doing covfert work (was he? ) in the mid / late / 80′s,
    the removal of the Batwa from their natural habitat was an impending necessity. If their
    situation could be studied thoroughly, the discrimination against them when they were removed form the forest into small villages etc. in Rwanda , say, could have been much
    mitigated by the findings and intercessions formulated by Heber and Slater (and associates).
    This falls short of indicating what happened. It does capture motive and means and opportunity.

    “Heber would have had a clear landscape to get real (in Central Africa re research of low IQ).”The Canadian J.W. Berry et al. did work, including some focus upon the very low IQ Batwa pygmies (est.average IQ of 54 ! ), in the 1976-79 time frame. The results were not much in evidence until about 1983 or so. It was an approach implicitly elevating “nurture” to
    central significance and “nature” to sidebar distraction. The work of Hans Eysenck and Arthur Jensen–and others, such as Travis Osborne–by 1983 had ushered these assumptions toward the dustbin. Heber’s own letter in oblique response to the offer from IDRERI/ University of Gothenburg was dated (infelicitously?) on April 01, 1985, and referred to the position of
    Research Director as “a research project”. IF by 1983, a complement to the Milwaukee Project had been in focus, research giving due regard to “nature” with respect to low IQ in Central Africa would very much incline to lots of cloud cover, lots of façade, and lots of decoy. If
    so, it is all the more reason 30 years later to get a clear restrospective and contemplate just how much longer must illumination be evaded. Mary Alice Slater’s family knew in detail what she had been doing re research. Her obit and an accompanying eulogy (both inserted into the Congressional Record–Senate , Dec. 11, 1987–at about page 35284 or so ) clearly reveal that research was the salient issue in what overtly was termed “photo safari”. For something like this to be surrounded by a cluster of dark question marks for 30 years is certainly ill becoming to the two universities linked to it all and to the major Swedish corporation that was openly identified in the March 01, 1985, as a donor to IDRERI/ University of Gothenburg. For the American academic community to have been so tunnel vision into “publish or perish” as not to contemplate the larger issues is indeed a monument to “knowing more and more about less and less” It is also, BTW, an indication to how on Campus America “prudence is the better part of valor”

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Is this series of comments coded messages of some kind?
  71. … genuine African American culture

    Please describe “genuine African American culture.”

    Read More
  72. 5371 says:
    @Bob Woodwort
    "Heber would have had a clear landscape to get real (in Central Africa re research of low IQ)."The Canadian J.W. Berry et al. did work, including some focus upon the very low IQ Batwa pygmies (est.average IQ of 54 ! ), in the 1976-79 time frame. The results were not much in evidence until about 1983 or so. It was an approach implicitly elevating "nurture" to
    central significance and "nature" to sidebar distraction. The work of Hans Eysenck and Arthur Jensen--and others, such as Travis Osborne--by 1983 had ushered these assumptions toward the dustbin. Heber's own letter in oblique response to the offer from IDRERI/ University of Gothenburg was dated (infelicitously?) on April 01, 1985, and referred to the position of
    Research Director as "a research project". IF by 1983, a complement to the Milwaukee Project had been in focus, research giving due regard to "nature" with respect to low IQ in Central Africa would very much incline to lots of cloud cover, lots of façade, and lots of decoy. If
    so, it is all the more reason 30 years later to get a clear restrospective and contemplate just how much longer must illumination be evaded. Mary Alice Slater's family knew in detail what she had been doing re research. Her obit and an accompanying eulogy (both inserted into the Congressional Record--Senate , Dec. 11, 1987--at about page 35284 or so ) clearly reveal that research was the salient issue in what overtly was termed "photo safari". For something like this to be surrounded by a cluster of dark question marks for 30 years is certainly ill becoming to the two universities linked to it all and to the major Swedish corporation that was openly identified in the March 01, 1985, as a donor to IDRERI/ University of Gothenburg. For the American academic community to have been so tunnel vision into "publish or perish" as not to contemplate the larger issues is indeed a monument to "knowing more and more about less and less" It is also, BTW, an indication to how on Campus America "prudence is the better part of valor"

    Is this series of comments coded messages of some kind?

    Read More
  73. Dain says: • Website
    @whahae
    Thankfully I'm a supporter of the global plutocratic elite so I can continue to support immigration of high-IQ people.

    Also if you look at how cognitive elites have done in lower IQ countries (Idi Amin's expulsions of the Indians, mass killings of Igbos in Nigeria, anti-Chinese riots in Indonesia & affirmative action for Malays in Malaysia) they would be crazy to care about cognitive losses in their countries instead of trying to get out.

    This. It’s lefty to even care how the hell the plutocratic elite – and there will ALWAYS be one – benefit from individuals just pursuing the good life.

    And brain drain is good because it means more money for the old country in the form of remittances generated by good first world jobs. Keeping smart people stuck in hellholes doesn’t do anyone any good.

    Read More
    • Replies: @marcus
    Really? I suspect there are people involved in ISIS who have high IQs. Maybe we could enjoy the wonderful benefits of diversity they would provide by having them join us here in the West?
  74. swank says:

    This is a good argument, but actual height data indicates that in the Third World entire populations are shifted down – both commoner and elites – relative to their counterparts in the First World.

    As (afaik) an originator of that counter-argument, the response to this is simple: height is not IQ. According to Flynn, gains in height and IQ were related trends, but nutrition cannot explain the latter gains.

    Read More
  75. swank says:
    @Numinous

    The way in which Chisala does so is by stating that there is no regression to the mean to a low mean therefore the mean of the African population is not low.

    This is not a strong argument. The Africans I know are the products of smart people marrying smart people. The mean of their respective sub-populations tends to be very high. It is also not related to the mean of the general African population.
     
    It is a very strong argument. Hereditarians (HBDers) say that IQ is largely determined by one's genes. Smart Africans and dumb Africans have similar genes (unless you can show that the smart people whom Chisala surveys have been practising endogamy/apartheid for hundreds or thousands of years), therefore the "regression toward the mean" (i.e., pull of the genes) argument ought to apply even if a self-selected smart fraction immigrated and were then tested for their cognitive abilities. Otherwise, you seem to be saying that short term eugenics can "evolve' a new (smarter) population; if that is so, then groups and races really have no meaning, since any bunch of people can create their own new "race" within a generation, thereby rendering the HBDers concerns moot.

    Heredetarians will be the first to argue that black Africans represent a super-elite sub-population with a higher mean. Fine, then that must mean black Americans (and really all descendants of slave populations that were forced to the Americas) must be a super-depressed sub-population. So then those populations shouldn’t be taken as representative, either. Selective migration works both ways.

    Remember also that black Africans who emigrate to the United States are more selected and do not fare as well as the UK immigrants.

    I’ve said it elsewhere regarding strong heredetarianism, but…

    1. “Races” as socially defined are not monophyletic, ruining any attempt at cladistics (but heredetarians love passing around nonsensical cladograms for human races). The allele frequencies captured by the definitions exist but at the same time are arbitrary. And there’s nothing indicating the different frequencies captured aren’t alleles linked to simple, superficial traits. For example, sickle-cell anemia is a large-effect mutation of a single allele, which is exactly the type of mutation that could easily increase in frequency within a population and produce large differences in frequency between populations over a relatively short evolutionary time period. Complex traits with pleiotropic and polygenic inheritence are much different.

    The favored comparison is always “dog breeds.” Dog breeds are severely inbred; human “races” are not. Dog breeds have been produced through artificial selection, whereas human races were produced by either (weak) natural selection or simple geographic isolation. Most importantly, the degree of genetic similarity between dog breeds is far higher than it is within human races. “However, the variation between dog breeds is much greater than the variation between human populations (27.5% versus 5.4%). Conversely, the degree of genetic homogeneity is much greater within individual dog breeds than within distinct human populations (94.6% versus 72.5%).” http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1706.full.

    Recently, people took Rachel Dolezal seriously as a black woman. And the only reason people stopped believing she was black is that Dolezal’s parents informed everyone otherwise. So, IRL the “real salient” facts about race are historical and cultural: no one cares about what a 23andme document says or doesn’t say. That’s why “race,” for all intents and purposes and what people actually mean when they discuss black, white, and Asian populations, is a social construct. This latest PC attempt to redefine “race” to match geographical clinial variation is just squid ink.

    2. Adoption studies are removing environmental variation. The adoptive homes could have uniformly added 10 points to each adoptive sibling’s IQ and the correlation between them would still be low and the variation between them better explained by variation in biological parent IQ. High SES home and compulsory education = removing environmental variation, even if they uniformly add or increase IQ or do so within a fairly narrow band. Which means that the “narrow band” could both account for a small percentage of IQ variance and explain group mean differences.

    The transracial adoption studies were even worse; they removed environmental variation after adoption but a lot of environmental variation remained regarding age of adoption and placement between white and black adoptees. One group, once again, suffers uniformly worse environmental quality during a critical period of mental development.

    The twins reared apart study is garbage; they weren’t reared far “apart” at all. And all twin studies rest on EEA, which is a tenuous assumption. There are plenty of adoption studies heredetarians neglect to mention; what about (Duyme et al. 1999) that showed a link between SES of adoptive home and eventual (age 16) IQ of the children, with an average difference of 1 SD and a range of about 20 points? Usually nowhere to be found.

    3. Misunderstanding of “shared environment.” First, shared environment is estimated using the EEA and assuming nonsense like ‘parents treat their children equally,’ sure. Shared environment is a fiction. No one shares their environment with anyone else. It’s likely that much of the “non-shared environment” boils down to differential treatment by friends, parents, family, and peers, meaning that those variables do contribute a lot to variation in IQ.

    But…systematic differences between parents would be uncovered if a study were done with representative variation of intracountry or intercountry parenting environments. It hasn’t been done. That said…

    Haworth et al. (2010) found, in a study with 11,000 twins from four different countries that shared environmental effects accounted for 16% of IQ variance. McGue et al. (1993) reviewed several twin studies and found that shared environment accounted for 30% of variation in IQ up until age 20, after which it dropped off to 0. But the studies he analyzed with twins over 20 years old had a weighted average shared environmental effect of negative 6% (that’s a model problem).

    4. The evolutionary explanations are often contradictory. For example, if IQ is an adaptation…generally that would remove variation from the selected population. So the heritability of a population selected for a certain trait should be close to zero. High heritability is prima facie evidence against an adaptation narrative. Now, several mechanisms may preserve variation, but if those mechanisms have been operating, then it makes it less likely the populations have any real genetic difference between them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chuck
    you got to be kidding me

    4) Crow (2008) eloquently discussed this issue:

    "Although molecular methods, such as QTL mapping, have revealed a number of loci with large effects, it is still likely that the bulk of quantitative variability is due to multiple factors, each with small effect. Typically, these have a large additive component. Conventional wisdom argues that selection, natural or artificial, uses up additive variance and thus depletes its supply. Over time, the variance should be reduced, and at equilibrium be near zero. This is especially expected for fitness and traits highly correlated with it. Yet, populations typically have a great deal of additive variance, and do not seem to run out of genetic variability even after many generations of directional selection. Long-term selection experiments show that populations continue to retain seemingly undiminished additive variance despite large changes in the mean value."

    Artificial selection has increased oil output of corn by 32 standard deviations without exhausting genetic variance! Regarding human races and e.g., IQ or height, we are discussing maybe 1.

    1) 95% irrelevant when not nonsense
    , @5371
    [people took Rachel Dolezal seriously as a black woman]

    Like the idea that artificial intelligence is near because some people get fooled by bots, this argument has an obvious flaw.
  76. Here’s something else to think about.

    There are plenty of smart multi-generational Asians in the US who speak good English. But still, China’s cognitive elites fight tooth and nail to come to American universities, and China has a billion people. As a result, a white American engineering student will often find he can’t understand a damn word his classmates say.

    Now, there are 42 million blacks in the US. But Nigeria alone has 184 million people. And the opportunity cost of a Nigerian cognitive elite staying in Nigeria for a Nigerian education is much higher than that of a Chinese cognitive elite staying in China for a Chinese education.

    So even putting aside arguments about dysgenics and whatnot, it’s not all that surprising that a lot of affirmative action spots for blacks in the West aren’t going to the descendants of cotton pickers.

    Read More
  77. Sean says:

    It is adaptive to adopt the language of the Left on this issue. Enabling educated African immigration at a large scale is Western cognitive colonialism against the African continent, and is nothing more than a subtler version of the resource rapine that it subjected Africa to back in the days when imperialism was overt and didn’t bother concealing its iron fist beneath a velvet glove. Colonialism is bad and morally unjustifiable, and all foes of the global plutocratic elites must unite against it

    The elites loath and despise their own lower orders. The nationalist perspective for people to look at what is good for their own particular countries is a laughing stock among the entire western elite. Regional thinking, ie what is good for Africa, is to the elite like what is good for Europe , neither here nor there. For the individuals who immigrate it is a massive gift. For the world it is a gain. No one will be left in Africa , so what? African immigrants are a gain (they become 10X more productive just by coming to the West ). You have to look at it in global utility terms to understand how the elite think.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chuck
    "For the individuals who immigrate it is a massive gift. For the world it is a gain. No one will be left in Africa , so what?"

    As if no one is left in Puerto Rico. Just, somehow the population has managed to 2x since the post-WII influx began. The point is that the industrious will leave, leaving behind the less so -- who also happen to be more fecund. This has an impact since it's the cognitive elite that drives an economy. Also, those that leave selectively remit, thus increasing inequality in the nation of origin. It would be more egalitarian to export high IQ progressives and open border fanatics to "guide" low IQ nations -- we surely have an excess of them -- than to import the cog elite from those nations. But who/whom.

  78. Sean says:

    My last comment didn’t take. I was saying global utility, not the wellbeing of particular nations or the regions of Africa or Europe is the criterion being used for deciding if immigration in good.

    A technical point. you need to take into account whether most of the mothers are white when predicting the average IQ of mixed unions. There are several extra IQ points for interracial children of white mothers.

    It’s quite likely Britain will have a have a half African prime minister within a generation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth

    A technical point. you need to take into account whether most of the mothers are white when predicting the average IQ of mixed unions. There are several extra IQ points for interracial children of white mothers.
     
    I've never heard this one before.
    , @Numinous

    I was saying global utility, not the wellbeing of particular nations or the regions of Africa or Europe is the criterion being used for deciding if immigration in good.
     
    What's wrong with using global utility as the primary criterion? Within a nation, "national wellbeing" results in some regions benefiting and others losing out. Within a region, "regional wellbeing" results in certain districts and towns benefiting, and others losing out. You catch my drift? "Global utility" is simply this calculus applied on a global scale. On the other hand, your lament, taken to its logical extreme, must necessarily result in an infinitely fragmented world, with no one willing to cooperate with people they do not encounter face-to-face on a given day.
  79. marcus says:
    @Dain
    This. It's lefty to even care how the hell the plutocratic elite - and there will ALWAYS be one - benefit from individuals just pursuing the good life.

    And brain drain is good because it means more money for the old country in the form of remittances generated by good first world jobs. Keeping smart people stuck in hellholes doesn't do anyone any good.

    Really? I suspect there are people involved in ISIS who have high IQs. Maybe we could enjoy the wonderful benefits of diversity they would provide by having them join us here in the West?

    Read More
  80. Sean says:

    Even the those (like Britain’s David Goodhart) who argue along the same lines as this post about African countries being diminished by a ever accelerating exodus of their best people , look forward to a African prime minister of the UK.

    A point that should be made is that the power and prestige of the state which the establishment does worry about is not the same thing as nationalism . The national component of the modern western state is not considered essential by elites. They exult over predictions that the UK will overtake Germany as the most populous state in Europe in a couple of generations. That kind of soft bullfrog mentality is very strong. Add the ‘global utility’ criterion of economists and you have a unbeatable coalition.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    But war is the purpose of the state. How would Africanized countries with consequently eroded economic and military-industrial bases be able to maintain their states against small adversaries such as militias and bands, let alone larger ones such as states with large and powerful military-industrial complexes?
  81. Sean says:

    Chuka Umunna. That is another aspect of what is going on, sexual colonisation by Africans. How can you object to what facilitates that, in this world we live in?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The Milibands represent the same thing. They're the prelude to the colonization from further south that's now taking place.
  82. Chuck says: • Website
    @swank
    Heredetarians will be the first to argue that black Africans represent a super-elite sub-population with a higher mean. Fine, then that must mean black Americans (and really all descendants of slave populations that were forced to the Americas) must be a super-depressed sub-population. So then those populations shouldn't be taken as representative, either. Selective migration works both ways.

    Remember also that black Africans who emigrate to the United States are more selected and do not fare as well as the UK immigrants.

    I've said it elsewhere regarding strong heredetarianism, but...

    1. “Races” as socially defined are not monophyletic, ruining any attempt at cladistics (but heredetarians love passing around nonsensical cladograms for human races). The allele frequencies captured by the definitions exist but at the same time are arbitrary. And there’s nothing indicating the different frequencies captured aren’t alleles linked to simple, superficial traits. For example, sickle-cell anemia is a large-effect mutation of a single allele, which is exactly the type of mutation that could easily increase in frequency within a population and produce large differences in frequency between populations over a relatively short evolutionary time period. Complex traits with pleiotropic and polygenic inheritence are much different.

    The favored comparison is always “dog breeds.” Dog breeds are severely inbred; human “races” are not. Dog breeds have been produced through artificial selection, whereas human races were produced by either (weak) natural selection or simple geographic isolation. Most importantly, the degree of genetic similarity between dog breeds is far higher than it is within human races. “However, the variation between dog breeds is much greater than the variation between human populations (27.5% versus 5.4%). Conversely, the degree of genetic homogeneity is much greater within individual dog breeds than within distinct human populations (94.6% versus 72.5%).” http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1706.full.

    Recently, people took Rachel Dolezal seriously as a black woman. And the only reason people stopped believing she was black is that Dolezal’s parents informed everyone otherwise. So, IRL the “real salient” facts about race are historical and cultural: no one cares about what a 23andme document says or doesn’t say. That’s why “race,” for all intents and purposes and what people actually mean when they discuss black, white, and Asian populations, is a social construct. This latest PC attempt to redefine “race” to match geographical clinial variation is just squid ink.

    2. Adoption studies are removing environmental variation. The adoptive homes could have uniformly added 10 points to each adoptive sibling’s IQ and the correlation between them would still be low and the variation between them better explained by variation in biological parent IQ. High SES home and compulsory education = removing environmental variation, even if they uniformly add or increase IQ or do so within a fairly narrow band. Which means that the “narrow band” could both account for a small percentage of IQ variance and explain group mean differences.

    The transracial adoption studies were even worse; they removed environmental variation after adoption but a lot of environmental variation remained regarding age of adoption and placement between white and black adoptees. One group, once again, suffers uniformly worse environmental quality during a critical period of mental development.

    The twins reared apart study is garbage; they weren’t reared far “apart” at all. And all twin studies rest on EEA, which is a tenuous assumption. There are plenty of adoption studies heredetarians neglect to mention; what about (Duyme et al. 1999) that showed a link between SES of adoptive home and eventual (age 16) IQ of the children, with an average difference of 1 SD and a range of about 20 points? Usually nowhere to be found.

    3. Misunderstanding of “shared environment.” First, shared environment is estimated using the EEA and assuming nonsense like ‘parents treat their children equally,’ sure. Shared environment is a fiction. No one shares their environment with anyone else. It’s likely that much of the “non-shared environment” boils down to differential treatment by friends, parents, family, and peers, meaning that those variables do contribute a lot to variation in IQ.

    But…systematic differences between parents would be uncovered if a study were done with representative variation of intracountry or intercountry parenting environments. It hasn’t been done. That said…

    Haworth et al. (2010) found, in a study with 11,000 twins from four different countries that shared environmental effects accounted for 16% of IQ variance. McGue et al. (1993) reviewed several twin studies and found that shared environment accounted for 30% of variation in IQ up until age 20, after which it dropped off to 0. But the studies he analyzed with twins over 20 years old had a weighted average shared environmental effect of negative 6% (that’s a model problem).

    4. The evolutionary explanations are often contradictory. For example, if IQ is an adaptation…generally that would remove variation from the selected population. So the heritability of a population selected for a certain trait should be close to zero. High heritability is prima facie evidence against an adaptation narrative. Now, several mechanisms may preserve variation, but if those mechanisms have been operating, then it makes it less likely the populations have any real genetic difference between them.

    you got to be kidding me

    4) Crow (2008) eloquently discussed this issue:

    “Although molecular methods, such as QTL mapping, have revealed a number of loci with large effects, it is still likely that the bulk of quantitative variability is due to multiple factors, each with small effect. Typically, these have a large additive component. Conventional wisdom argues that selection, natural or artificial, uses up additive variance and thus depletes its supply. Over time, the variance should be reduced, and at equilibrium be near zero. This is especially expected for fitness and traits highly correlated with it. Yet, populations typically have a great deal of additive variance, and do not seem to run out of genetic variability even after many generations of directional selection. Long-term selection experiments show that populations continue to retain seemingly undiminished additive variance despite large changes in the mean value.”

    Artificial selection has increased oil output of corn by 32 standard deviations without exhausting genetic variance! Regarding human races and e.g., IQ or height, we are discussing maybe 1.

    1) 95% irrelevant when not nonsense

    Read More
    • Replies: @swank
    Response to comment on 4) You cite a study admitting my understanding is the correct and conventional one and is consistent with what I said in 4): Now, several mechanisms may preserve variation.

    You then cite artificial selection in corn. First, [t]o evaluate the impact of selection across an agronomically important pathway, we surveyed nucleotide diversity at six major genes involved in starch metabolism and found unusually low genetic diversity and strong evidence of selection. Low diversity in these critical genes suggests that a paradigm shift may be required for
    future maize breeding.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/99/20/12959.full.pdf. Second, for my argument to "work" current variance doesn't need to be "at zero," so asserting that genetic variance in corn hasn't been "exhausted" is beside the point. Third, the conditions under which artificial selection in corn take place and human populations change are manifestly different.

    Your response to 1) is not even a response. I'm not surprised you disagree, though.
  83. Chuck says:
    @Sean

    It is adaptive to adopt the language of the Left on this issue. Enabling educated African immigration at a large scale is Western cognitive colonialism against the African continent, and is nothing more than a subtler version of the resource rapine that it subjected Africa to back in the days when imperialism was overt and didn’t bother concealing its iron fist beneath a velvet glove. Colonialism is bad and morally unjustifiable, and all foes of the global plutocratic elites must unite against it
     
    The elites loath and despise their own lower orders. The nationalist perspective for people to look at what is good for their own particular countries is a laughing stock among the entire western elite. Regional thinking, ie what is good for Africa, is to the elite like what is good for Europe , neither here nor there. For the individuals who immigrate it is a massive gift. For the world it is a gain. No one will be left in Africa , so what? African immigrants are a gain (they become 10X more productive just by coming to the West ). You have to look at it in global utility terms to understand how the elite think.

    “For the individuals who immigrate it is a massive gift. For the world it is a gain. No one will be left in Africa , so what?”

    As if no one is left in Puerto Rico. Just, somehow the population has managed to 2x since the post-WII influx began. The point is that the industrious will leave, leaving behind the less so — who also happen to be more fecund. This has an impact since it’s the cognitive elite that drives an economy. Also, those that leave selectively remit, thus increasing inequality in the nation of origin. It would be more egalitarian to export high IQ progressives and open border fanatics to “guide” low IQ nations — we surely have an excess of them — than to import the cog elite from those nations. But who/whom.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Puerto Ricans on the island are the opposite of fecund nowadays. It was ground zero for large-scale male sterilisation, by the way, starting in the immediate postwar period.
  84. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Sean
    Even the those (like Britain's David Goodhart) who argue along the same lines as this post about African countries being diminished by a ever accelerating exodus of their best people , look forward to a African prime minister of the UK.

    A point that should be made is that the power and prestige of the state which the establishment does worry about is not the same thing as nationalism . The national component of the modern western state is not considered essential by elites. They exult over predictions that the UK will overtake Germany as the most populous state in Europe in a couple of generations. That kind of soft bullfrog mentality is very strong. Add the 'global utility' criterion of economists and you have a unbeatable coalition.

    But war is the purpose of the state. How would Africanized countries with consequently eroded economic and military-industrial bases be able to maintain their states against small adversaries such as militias and bands, let alone larger ones such as states with large and powerful military-industrial complexes?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Probably the elite have calculated that the indigenous population are now superfluous, even as cannon fodder, because problems of war have been solved . You know like these geniuses were proclaiming unending growth, right up until the global crash. Recieved wisdom about the state among the elite is a Report from Iron Mountain in reverse.
  85. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Sean
    Chuka Umunna. That is another aspect of what is going on, sexual colonisation by Africans. How can you object to what facilitates that, in this world we live in?

    The Milibands represent the same thing. They’re the prelude to the colonization from further south that’s now taking place.

    Read More
  86. 5371 says:
    @Chuck
    "For the individuals who immigrate it is a massive gift. For the world it is a gain. No one will be left in Africa , so what?"

    As if no one is left in Puerto Rico. Just, somehow the population has managed to 2x since the post-WII influx began. The point is that the industrious will leave, leaving behind the less so -- who also happen to be more fecund. This has an impact since it's the cognitive elite that drives an economy. Also, those that leave selectively remit, thus increasing inequality in the nation of origin. It would be more egalitarian to export high IQ progressives and open border fanatics to "guide" low IQ nations -- we surely have an excess of them -- than to import the cog elite from those nations. But who/whom.

    Puerto Ricans on the island are the opposite of fecund nowadays. It was ground zero for large-scale male sterilisation, by the way, starting in the immediate postwar period.

    Read More
  87. 5371 says:
    @swank
    Heredetarians will be the first to argue that black Africans represent a super-elite sub-population with a higher mean. Fine, then that must mean black Americans (and really all descendants of slave populations that were forced to the Americas) must be a super-depressed sub-population. So then those populations shouldn't be taken as representative, either. Selective migration works both ways.

    Remember also that black Africans who emigrate to the United States are more selected and do not fare as well as the UK immigrants.

    I've said it elsewhere regarding strong heredetarianism, but...

    1. “Races” as socially defined are not monophyletic, ruining any attempt at cladistics (but heredetarians love passing around nonsensical cladograms for human races). The allele frequencies captured by the definitions exist but at the same time are arbitrary. And there’s nothing indicating the different frequencies captured aren’t alleles linked to simple, superficial traits. For example, sickle-cell anemia is a large-effect mutation of a single allele, which is exactly the type of mutation that could easily increase in frequency within a population and produce large differences in frequency between populations over a relatively short evolutionary time period. Complex traits with pleiotropic and polygenic inheritence are much different.

    The favored comparison is always “dog breeds.” Dog breeds are severely inbred; human “races” are not. Dog breeds have been produced through artificial selection, whereas human races were produced by either (weak) natural selection or simple geographic isolation. Most importantly, the degree of genetic similarity between dog breeds is far higher than it is within human races. “However, the variation between dog breeds is much greater than the variation between human populations (27.5% versus 5.4%). Conversely, the degree of genetic homogeneity is much greater within individual dog breeds than within distinct human populations (94.6% versus 72.5%).” http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1706.full.

    Recently, people took Rachel Dolezal seriously as a black woman. And the only reason people stopped believing she was black is that Dolezal’s parents informed everyone otherwise. So, IRL the “real salient” facts about race are historical and cultural: no one cares about what a 23andme document says or doesn’t say. That’s why “race,” for all intents and purposes and what people actually mean when they discuss black, white, and Asian populations, is a social construct. This latest PC attempt to redefine “race” to match geographical clinial variation is just squid ink.

    2. Adoption studies are removing environmental variation. The adoptive homes could have uniformly added 10 points to each adoptive sibling’s IQ and the correlation between them would still be low and the variation between them better explained by variation in biological parent IQ. High SES home and compulsory education = removing environmental variation, even if they uniformly add or increase IQ or do so within a fairly narrow band. Which means that the “narrow band” could both account for a small percentage of IQ variance and explain group mean differences.

    The transracial adoption studies were even worse; they removed environmental variation after adoption but a lot of environmental variation remained regarding age of adoption and placement between white and black adoptees. One group, once again, suffers uniformly worse environmental quality during a critical period of mental development.

    The twins reared apart study is garbage; they weren’t reared far “apart” at all. And all twin studies rest on EEA, which is a tenuous assumption. There are plenty of adoption studies heredetarians neglect to mention; what about (Duyme et al. 1999) that showed a link between SES of adoptive home and eventual (age 16) IQ of the children, with an average difference of 1 SD and a range of about 20 points? Usually nowhere to be found.

    3. Misunderstanding of “shared environment.” First, shared environment is estimated using the EEA and assuming nonsense like ‘parents treat their children equally,’ sure. Shared environment is a fiction. No one shares their environment with anyone else. It’s likely that much of the “non-shared environment” boils down to differential treatment by friends, parents, family, and peers, meaning that those variables do contribute a lot to variation in IQ.

    But…systematic differences between parents would be uncovered if a study were done with representative variation of intracountry or intercountry parenting environments. It hasn’t been done. That said…

    Haworth et al. (2010) found, in a study with 11,000 twins from four different countries that shared environmental effects accounted for 16% of IQ variance. McGue et al. (1993) reviewed several twin studies and found that shared environment accounted for 30% of variation in IQ up until age 20, after which it dropped off to 0. But the studies he analyzed with twins over 20 years old had a weighted average shared environmental effect of negative 6% (that’s a model problem).

    4. The evolutionary explanations are often contradictory. For example, if IQ is an adaptation…generally that would remove variation from the selected population. So the heritability of a population selected for a certain trait should be close to zero. High heritability is prima facie evidence against an adaptation narrative. Now, several mechanisms may preserve variation, but if those mechanisms have been operating, then it makes it less likely the populations have any real genetic difference between them.

    [people took Rachel Dolezal seriously as a black woman]

    Like the idea that artificial intelligence is near because some people get fooled by bots, this argument has an obvious flaw.

    Read More
    • Replies: @swank
    Like the idea that artificial intelligence is near because some people get fooled by bots, this argument has an obvious flaw.

    If the point was that "IRL, judgment of AI depends mostly on the personal judgment of the bot's conversation partner," then no it doesn't.
  88. Truth says:
    @Sean
    My last comment didn't take. I was saying global utility, not the wellbeing of particular nations or the regions of Africa or Europe is the criterion being used for deciding if immigration in good.

    A technical point. you need to take into account whether most of the mothers are white when predicting the average IQ of mixed unions. There are several extra IQ points for interracial children of white mothers.

    It's quite likely Britain will have a have a half African prime minister within a generation.

    A technical point. you need to take into account whether most of the mothers are white when predicting the average IQ of mixed unions. There are several extra IQ points for interracial children of white mothers.

    I’ve never heard this one before.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous
    A committed HBDer's brain must be perpetually on fire; whenever they encounter someone, especially those of a different race, their brains probably go into overdrive trying to calculate whether that person is intellectually above or beneath them.

    As Bill Maher would say, I kid the HBDers :)
    , @Sean
    It's got to do with different expression of genes like IGF2 depending on whether they are from the mother or father, and X chromosomes.

    Identical But Genetically Different (and why you can thank your mother for your IQ)

  89. swank says:
    @Chuck
    you got to be kidding me

    4) Crow (2008) eloquently discussed this issue:

    "Although molecular methods, such as QTL mapping, have revealed a number of loci with large effects, it is still likely that the bulk of quantitative variability is due to multiple factors, each with small effect. Typically, these have a large additive component. Conventional wisdom argues that selection, natural or artificial, uses up additive variance and thus depletes its supply. Over time, the variance should be reduced, and at equilibrium be near zero. This is especially expected for fitness and traits highly correlated with it. Yet, populations typically have a great deal of additive variance, and do not seem to run out of genetic variability even after many generations of directional selection. Long-term selection experiments show that populations continue to retain seemingly undiminished additive variance despite large changes in the mean value."

    Artificial selection has increased oil output of corn by 32 standard deviations without exhausting genetic variance! Regarding human races and e.g., IQ or height, we are discussing maybe 1.

    1) 95% irrelevant when not nonsense

    Response to comment on 4) You cite a study admitting my understanding is the correct and conventional one and is consistent with what I said in 4): Now, several mechanisms may preserve variation.

    You then cite artificial selection in corn. First, [t]o evaluate the impact of selection across an agronomically important pathway, we surveyed nucleotide diversity at six major genes involved in starch metabolism and found unusually low genetic diversity and strong evidence of selection. Low diversity in these critical genes suggests that a paradigm shift may be required for
    future maize breeding.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/99/20/12959.full.pdf. Second, for my argument to “work” current variance doesn’t need to be “at zero,” so asserting that genetic variance in corn hasn’t been “exhausted” is beside the point. Third, the conditions under which artificial selection in corn take place and human populations change are manifestly different.

    Your response to 1) is not even a response. I’m not surprised you disagree, though.

    Read More
    • Replies: @swank
    As an addendum to 4), though, So the heritability of a population strongly selected for a certain trait should be close to zero. High heritability is prima facie evidence against an adaptation narrative. A lower heritability, .2-.4, which is well within the realm of likely additive variance, because twin studies only assess H^2, would be more consistent with the adaptation narrative.
    , @Chuck
    "First, [t]o evaluate the impact of selection across an agronomically important pathway, we surveyed nucleotide diversity at six major genes involved"

    In the case of humans, traits under selection with high heritabilities readily come to mind e.g., height, skin color, and soft tissue craniofacial ones. As for the predicted effect of selection on h2 (assuming that environmental variance is constant), you can just look up the appropriate equations and input the numbers e.g., Bulmer's (1971) classic "The effect of selection on genetic variability". Here's a typical discussion:

    "This change in genetic variance resulting from selection, which is due to gametic disequilibrium, was explained by Bulmer and is commonly known as the Bulmer effect. However, if selection stops then the genetic and phenotypic variances and heritability return to their pre-selection values after a few generations, but the change in the mean is permanent. The results from this limiting model of an infinite number of loci imply that permanent changes to the genetic variance and heritability as a result of selection are likely to be small when the number of loci contributing to the genetic variance is finite but large. Individual loci of large effect can, however, be fixed by selection with a consequent reduction in variance" (Heritability in the genomics era—concepts and misconceptions.)

    Generally, your argument in this regard is either (clever) silly or quantitatively uninformed. I will assume the former.

    "Your response to 1) is not even a response. I’m not surprised you disagree, though."

    It's difficult to know where to start. You say, for example, "“Races” as socially defined are not monophyletic". Yet many argue that the concept of monophyly doesn't apply on the infraspecific level (e.g., Hennig -- Hennig species concept, Mayr -- biological species concept, Nixon & Wheeler -- diagnosable phylogenetic species concept, etc.) -- so it's not clear what you are saying.

    The issue is irrelevant, though, as obviously there is global quantitative genetic variance regardless of how one wishes to conceptualize divisions.

    I don't largely disagree with points 2/3 though. The effect of shared environmental variance is surely under-appreciated in HBD circles.

  90. swank says:
    @5371
    [people took Rachel Dolezal seriously as a black woman]

    Like the idea that artificial intelligence is near because some people get fooled by bots, this argument has an obvious flaw.

    Like the idea that artificial intelligence is near because some people get fooled by bots, this argument has an obvious flaw.

    If the point was that “IRL, judgment of AI depends mostly on the personal judgment of the bot’s conversation partner,” then no it doesn’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Do explain, Einstein, and go easy on the acronyms.
  91. swank says:
    @swank
    Response to comment on 4) You cite a study admitting my understanding is the correct and conventional one and is consistent with what I said in 4): Now, several mechanisms may preserve variation.

    You then cite artificial selection in corn. First, [t]o evaluate the impact of selection across an agronomically important pathway, we surveyed nucleotide diversity at six major genes involved in starch metabolism and found unusually low genetic diversity and strong evidence of selection. Low diversity in these critical genes suggests that a paradigm shift may be required for
    future maize breeding.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/99/20/12959.full.pdf. Second, for my argument to "work" current variance doesn't need to be "at zero," so asserting that genetic variance in corn hasn't been "exhausted" is beside the point. Third, the conditions under which artificial selection in corn take place and human populations change are manifestly different.

    Your response to 1) is not even a response. I'm not surprised you disagree, though.

    As an addendum to 4), though, So the heritability of a population strongly selected for a certain trait should be close to zero. High heritability is prima facie evidence against an adaptation narrative. A lower heritability, .2-.4, which is well within the realm of likely additive variance, because twin studies only assess H^2, would be more consistent with the adaptation narrative.

    Read More
  92. Numinous says:
    @Sean
    My last comment didn't take. I was saying global utility, not the wellbeing of particular nations or the regions of Africa or Europe is the criterion being used for deciding if immigration in good.

    A technical point. you need to take into account whether most of the mothers are white when predicting the average IQ of mixed unions. There are several extra IQ points for interracial children of white mothers.

    It's quite likely Britain will have a have a half African prime minister within a generation.

    I was saying global utility, not the wellbeing of particular nations or the regions of Africa or Europe is the criterion being used for deciding if immigration in good.

    What’s wrong with using global utility as the primary criterion? Within a nation, “national wellbeing” results in some regions benefiting and others losing out. Within a region, “regional wellbeing” results in certain districts and towns benefiting, and others losing out. You catch my drift? “Global utility” is simply this calculus applied on a global scale. On the other hand, your lament, taken to its logical extreme, must necessarily result in an infinitely fragmented world, with no one willing to cooperate with people they do not encounter face-to-face on a given day.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Any level of cooperation can be a front for sinister realities. I'm a believer in cooperation at the middle ground, the nation state. There are not many influential people espousing nationalism. Elites always claim to be concerned with global utility. You wanna let billionaires run the world?
  93. Numinous says:
    @Truth

    A technical point. you need to take into account whether most of the mothers are white when predicting the average IQ of mixed unions. There are several extra IQ points for interracial children of white mothers.
     
    I've never heard this one before.

    A committed HBDer’s brain must be perpetually on fire; whenever they encounter someone, especially those of a different race, their brains probably go into overdrive trying to calculate whether that person is intellectually above or beneath them.

    As Bill Maher would say, I kid the HBDers :)

    Read More
    • Replies: @swank
    their brains probably go into overdrive trying to calculate whether that person is intellectually above or beneath them.

    The decision has been made before the meeting; most (if not nearly all) HBDers are looking for ways to backwards rationalize the decision. Dick Lynn has been shown to engage in motivated reasoning, Rushton admitted that his initial belief in genetic differences came from his upbringing, Charles Murray burned a cross in young adulthood.
    , @Truth
    Yeah, it's a hell of a way to live.
  94. swank says:
    @Numinous
    A committed HBDer's brain must be perpetually on fire; whenever they encounter someone, especially those of a different race, their brains probably go into overdrive trying to calculate whether that person is intellectually above or beneath them.

    As Bill Maher would say, I kid the HBDers :)

    their brains probably go into overdrive trying to calculate whether that person is intellectually above or beneath them.

    The decision has been made before the meeting; most (if not nearly all) HBDers are looking for ways to backwards rationalize the decision. Dick Lynn has been shown to engage in motivated reasoning, Rushton admitted that his initial belief in genetic differences came from his upbringing, Charles Murray burned a cross in young adulthood.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Deduction
    Well done, you probably feel very clever.

    The problem is that HBD is highly explanatory. Anyone with half a mind can see the same patterns all over the world repeated again, again and again.

    Take the Brazillian coast. It runs black in the north, mestizo in the middle and white in the south. They dance, make music, don't achieve academically and commit a lot of crime in the North and they act like Germans in the south.

    I wonder why?

    The pattern repeats in France, Germany, Scandinavia, South Africa, the Caribbean, Colombia, the US and yes, the UK.

    Indeed it repeats everywhere where the demographics now exist.

    HBD is the best explanation of this. All others are laughably easy to dismiss.

    The legacy of slavery? Then why are concentration camp survivors' children not all acting like that?

    White racism? South Africa is massively majority Black.

    Imperialism? Singapore is a dreamland.

    Lead? Jews are the most urban people in the world.

    Stereotype threat? China managed to flip stereotypes on the head in a couple of decades.

    Culture? The countries are so separate and had so little contact that genes explain culture much better than culture explains average attainment.

    This whole thing kicked off because someone pointed out that the cognitive top 1 percent of West Africa do quite well as do their children. Which to me as someone who sees HBD as obvious was entirely predictable.

    Smart people tend to breed smart children just as dumb people tend to breed dumb children. The problem is that more of some groups are smart.

    The grouping may be artificial but it still means something in the real world. All categories are artificial after all. Yet they still often have predictive power.

    When it comes to formulating public policy predictive power matters. Ignore HBD and condemn Africa to never adopt the appropriate policies for their populations. In other words, ignore HBD and condemn them to starve.
  95. 5371 says:
    @swank
    Like the idea that artificial intelligence is near because some people get fooled by bots, this argument has an obvious flaw.

    If the point was that "IRL, judgment of AI depends mostly on the personal judgment of the bot's conversation partner," then no it doesn't.

    Do explain, Einstein, and go easy on the acronyms.

    Read More
    • Replies: @swank
    HBDers argue that "race" is a biological reality because "race" means something akin to "population." Many HBDers also seem ostensibly fine with the implication that this leads to there being an unknown amount of races; perhaps as low as 5, perhaps as high as 30 or 50, or whatever.

    If that is the case, and that is what HBDers believe "race" means, why do HBDers argue that extremely large groups of sub-populations be judged based on the performance of perhaps one or two subgroups? Indeed, if HBDers mean "population" when they say "race," then they need to throw out U.S. test scores between "blacks" (representative perhaps of several different subgroups within the U.S. of differing population sizes; remarkable because Africa probably has more "races" than any other continent) and "whites" (the same). They don't know which subgroups get which scores but insist on grouping them all together. Why? Because in fact they are still using the social construct of "black" and "white" to guide their conclusions, assessments, and policy recommendations.

    When confronted with the disparate IQ scores of European whites, individuals evaluated the evidence as being strongly against heredetarianism. Why? Because it was assumed that the populations were genetically identical, meaning that the IQ gaps were likely environmental. The only reason for the initial assumption is to use the construct "white" when evaluating the data. If "race" only means "population," then the differing gaps can be explained away as "different subgroups/races with different genetics." This didn't happen and most HBDers didn't take this approach --- because most HBDers use the social constructs of race to guide their analyses.

    Returning to the example of Rachel Dolezal, in the real world consequences of being a certain race have little to do with whatever "actual" genetic ancestry one has and more to do with whatever race one is judged as being. In the US, society has been primed by old cultural norms like "the one drop rule" to treat as black anyone who could possibly be black, based on any superficial similarity. Dolezal only had to make minor adjustments to her appearance to receive this treatment, and many individuals who would be considered "Caucasoid" are treated as though they are black because of this.

    So HBDers base their policy recommendations and analysis on the social construct, and people in real life receive treatment based only on how much more or less they conform to a stereotype that arises from the social construct. The only "race" that seems to matter in the real world, is of the social construct type, not the "population" type. Even within the HBD community.
  96. Truth says:
    @Numinous
    A committed HBDer's brain must be perpetually on fire; whenever they encounter someone, especially those of a different race, their brains probably go into overdrive trying to calculate whether that person is intellectually above or beneath them.

    As Bill Maher would say, I kid the HBDers :)

    Yeah, it’s a hell of a way to live.

    Read More
  97. Chuck says: • Website
    @swank
    Response to comment on 4) You cite a study admitting my understanding is the correct and conventional one and is consistent with what I said in 4): Now, several mechanisms may preserve variation.

    You then cite artificial selection in corn. First, [t]o evaluate the impact of selection across an agronomically important pathway, we surveyed nucleotide diversity at six major genes involved in starch metabolism and found unusually low genetic diversity and strong evidence of selection. Low diversity in these critical genes suggests that a paradigm shift may be required for
    future maize breeding.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/99/20/12959.full.pdf. Second, for my argument to "work" current variance doesn't need to be "at zero," so asserting that genetic variance in corn hasn't been "exhausted" is beside the point. Third, the conditions under which artificial selection in corn take place and human populations change are manifestly different.

    Your response to 1) is not even a response. I'm not surprised you disagree, though.

    “First, [t]o evaluate the impact of selection across an agronomically important pathway, we surveyed nucleotide diversity at six major genes involved”

    In the case of humans, traits under selection with high heritabilities readily come to mind e.g., height, skin color, and soft tissue craniofacial ones. As for the predicted effect of selection on h2 (assuming that environmental variance is constant), you can just look up the appropriate equations and input the numbers e.g., Bulmer’s (1971) classic “The effect of selection on genetic variability”. Here’s a typical discussion:

    “This change in genetic variance resulting from selection, which is due to gametic disequilibrium, was explained by Bulmer and is commonly known as the Bulmer effect. However, if selection stops then the genetic and phenotypic variances and heritability return to their pre-selection values after a few generations, but the change in the mean is permanent. The results from this limiting model of an infinite number of loci imply that permanent changes to the genetic variance and heritability as a result of selection are likely to be small when the number of loci contributing to the genetic variance is finite but large. Individual loci of large effect can, however, be fixed by selection with a consequent reduction in variance” (Heritability in the genomics era—concepts and misconceptions.)

    Generally, your argument in this regard is either (clever) silly or quantitatively uninformed. I will assume the former.

    “Your response to 1) is not even a response. I’m not surprised you disagree, though.”

    It’s difficult to know where to start. You say, for example, ““Races” as socially defined are not monophyletic”. Yet many argue that the concept of monophyly doesn’t apply on the infraspecific level (e.g., Hennig — Hennig species concept, Mayr — biological species concept, Nixon & Wheeler — diagnosable phylogenetic species concept, etc.) — so it’s not clear what you are saying.

    The issue is irrelevant, though, as obviously there is global quantitative genetic variance regardless of how one wishes to conceptualize divisions.

    I don’t largely disagree with points 2/3 though. The effect of shared environmental variance is surely under-appreciated in HBD circles.

    Read More
    • Replies: @swank
    You continue citing to discussions that are consistent with 4). The discussion you cite agrees that while selection is underway, genetic variance decreases. It only states that once selection stops, genetic variance returns to the pre-selection value quickly in the case of a polygenic trait where many alleles with small effect are involved --- which makes complete sense. Afaik HBDers do not say that selection for IQ has stopped.

    (Of course, it's possible to say that it has stopped in the modern age because the smart breed less than the stupid, but the reverse was (allegedly) true 500 years ago. There's no data on differences in group means from that time period, though; and if FE is any indication, the average white commoner from 500 years ago had a very low IQ)

    "Generally, your argument in this regard is either (clever) silly or quantitatively uninformed. I will assume the former."

    I am citing to a rule --- one acknowledged in both papers you cite --- and you are arguing for an exception to that rule. I have no doubt that you believe my argument has either of those qualities, but you have not demonstrated it.

    "Yet many argue that the concept of monophyly doesn’t apply on the infraspecific level ."

    The second part of the first sentence states, "ruining any attempt at cladistics." By definition a clade is monophyletic.

    "obviously there is global quantitative genetic variance regardless of how one wishes to conceptualize divisions."

    My point wasn't to argue otherwise. I even state that the constructs capture populations with differing allele frequencies. But one could pick almost any suite of traits and come out with several sub-populations with differing allele frequencies, i.e. there's nothing special about the traits chosen to demarcate the races.
  98. Deduction says:
    @swank
    their brains probably go into overdrive trying to calculate whether that person is intellectually above or beneath them.

    The decision has been made before the meeting; most (if not nearly all) HBDers are looking for ways to backwards rationalize the decision. Dick Lynn has been shown to engage in motivated reasoning, Rushton admitted that his initial belief in genetic differences came from his upbringing, Charles Murray burned a cross in young adulthood.

    Well done, you probably feel very clever.

    The problem is that HBD is highly explanatory. Anyone with half a mind can see the same patterns all over the world repeated again, again and again.

    Take the Brazillian coast. It runs black in the north, mestizo in the middle and white in the south. They dance, make music, don’t achieve academically and commit a lot of crime in the North and they act like Germans in the south.

    I wonder why?

    The pattern repeats in France, Germany, Scandinavia, South Africa, the Caribbean, Colombia, the US and yes, the UK.

    Indeed it repeats everywhere where the demographics now exist.

    HBD is the best explanation of this. All others are laughably easy to dismiss.

    The legacy of slavery? Then why are concentration camp survivors’ children not all acting like that?

    White racism? South Africa is massively majority Black.

    Imperialism? Singapore is a dreamland.

    Lead? Jews are the most urban people in the world.

    Stereotype threat? China managed to flip stereotypes on the head in a couple of decades.

    Culture? The countries are so separate and had so little contact that genes explain culture much better than culture explains average attainment.

    This whole thing kicked off because someone pointed out that the cognitive top 1 percent of West Africa do quite well as do their children. Which to me as someone who sees HBD as obvious was entirely predictable.

    Smart people tend to breed smart children just as dumb people tend to breed dumb children. The problem is that more of some groups are smart.

    The grouping may be artificial but it still means something in the real world. All categories are artificial after all. Yet they still often have predictive power.

    When it comes to formulating public policy predictive power matters. Ignore HBD and condemn Africa to never adopt the appropriate policies for their populations. In other words, ignore HBD and condemn them to starve.

    Read More
    • Replies: @swank
    "The problem is that HBD is highly explanatory. Anyone with half a mind can see the same patterns all over the world repeated again, again and again."

    Environmental disparity and difference is also "highly explanatory." And those differences also track the "patterns all over the world repeated again, again, and again." Only by ignoring history, culture, and environmental differences generally, are those explanations "laughably easy to dismiss."

    HBDers treat mongoloids as one race that has been selected for increased intelligence (higher than whites, even). And while HBDers point to China/Singapore as an example of how imperialism/culture hasn't slowed them down (largely by treating the last 50 years as if it were all of history...50 years ago it was easy to say they were all irredeemably dumb, look at how poor they were/are), but HBDers then ignore Native Americans, who are also mongoloid with the crucial difference of having experienced a different environmental/cultural history than the mongoloids across the pacific. And entirely different outcomes are observed. Native Americans and American blacks are comparable in the United States re: crime, IQ. Fancy that: both groups have experienced somewhat similar environmental and cultural deprivations.

    "Smart people tend to breed smart children just as dumb people tend to breed dumb children. The problem is that more of some groups are smart."

    Smart people also tend to have been raised in a better environment than dumb people and are more likely to be able to provide a better environment for their children than dumb people. In fact, this becomes more likely the higher observed phenotypic IQ is.

    'The grouping may be artificial but it still means something in the real world'

    Without question; the dispute is over what these stats mean.

    'Yet they still often have predictive power.'

    Belt size can probably predict waist size; it doesn't mean that belt size explains waist size or what causes different waist sizes.

    "Ignore HBD and condemn Africa to never adopt the appropriate policies for their populations."

    The only real policy recommendation HBDers tend to have is "it's not worth it, you can't improve things for them, so stop trying."
  99. swank says:
    @Chuck
    "First, [t]o evaluate the impact of selection across an agronomically important pathway, we surveyed nucleotide diversity at six major genes involved"

    In the case of humans, traits under selection with high heritabilities readily come to mind e.g., height, skin color, and soft tissue craniofacial ones. As for the predicted effect of selection on h2 (assuming that environmental variance is constant), you can just look up the appropriate equations and input the numbers e.g., Bulmer's (1971) classic "The effect of selection on genetic variability". Here's a typical discussion:

    "This change in genetic variance resulting from selection, which is due to gametic disequilibrium, was explained by Bulmer and is commonly known as the Bulmer effect. However, if selection stops then the genetic and phenotypic variances and heritability return to their pre-selection values after a few generations, but the change in the mean is permanent. The results from this limiting model of an infinite number of loci imply that permanent changes to the genetic variance and heritability as a result of selection are likely to be small when the number of loci contributing to the genetic variance is finite but large. Individual loci of large effect can, however, be fixed by selection with a consequent reduction in variance" (Heritability in the genomics era—concepts and misconceptions.)

    Generally, your argument in this regard is either (clever) silly or quantitatively uninformed. I will assume the former.

    "Your response to 1) is not even a response. I’m not surprised you disagree, though."

    It's difficult to know where to start. You say, for example, "“Races” as socially defined are not monophyletic". Yet many argue that the concept of monophyly doesn't apply on the infraspecific level (e.g., Hennig -- Hennig species concept, Mayr -- biological species concept, Nixon & Wheeler -- diagnosable phylogenetic species concept, etc.) -- so it's not clear what you are saying.

    The issue is irrelevant, though, as obviously there is global quantitative genetic variance regardless of how one wishes to conceptualize divisions.

    I don't largely disagree with points 2/3 though. The effect of shared environmental variance is surely under-appreciated in HBD circles.

    You continue citing to discussions that are consistent with 4). The discussion you cite agrees that while selection is underway, genetic variance decreases. It only states that once selection stops, genetic variance returns to the pre-selection value quickly in the case of a polygenic trait where many alleles with small effect are involved — which makes complete sense. Afaik HBDers do not say that selection for IQ has stopped.

    (Of course, it’s possible to say that it has stopped in the modern age because the smart breed less than the stupid, but the reverse was (allegedly) true 500 years ago. There’s no data on differences in group means from that time period, though; and if FE is any indication, the average white commoner from 500 years ago had a very low IQ)

    “Generally, your argument in this regard is either (clever) silly or quantitatively uninformed. I will assume the former.”

    I am citing to a rule — one acknowledged in both papers you cite — and you are arguing for an exception to that rule. I have no doubt that you believe my argument has either of those qualities, but you have not demonstrated it.

    “Yet many argue that the concept of monophyly doesn’t apply on the infraspecific level .”

    The second part of the first sentence states, “ruining any attempt at cladistics.” By definition a clade is monophyletic.

    “obviously there is global quantitative genetic variance regardless of how one wishes to conceptualize divisions.”

    My point wasn’t to argue otherwise. I even state that the constructs capture populations with differing allele frequencies. But one could pick almost any suite of traits and come out with several sub-populations with differing allele frequencies, i.e. there’s nothing special about the traits chosen to demarcate the races.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chuck
    Regarding 1), you originally said:

    (a) "So the heritability of a population selected for a certain trait should be close to zero."
    (b) "High heritability is prima facie evidence against an adaptation narrative."
    (c) "Now, several mechanisms may preserve variation, but if those mechanisms have been operating, then it makes it less likely the populations have any real genetic difference between them."

    The first point is either false or misleading depending on how it is read. For one, the reduction in heritability (holding environmental variance constant) is dependent on the amount of selection. Constant selection for e.g., 1 SD across 40 generations would not reduce heritability "close to zero". For another, after selection stops the genetic variance will increase, though mean differences will persist. So, you would have to rephrase the statement as e.g., "the heritability in a population in which traits are under constant selection of x magnitude will reduce by x magnitude." The second point is either false or misleading on account of the problems with the first. High contemporaneous heritability, by itself, can't provide evidence against selection in absence of knowledge concerning change in environmental variance, the original heritability, the units selected, the duration of selection, and the number of loci under selection. Knowing these, you could make a quantitative prediction which would constitute evidence, but not proof because there are countervailing mechanisms. I suppose that you could set a very weak threshold for "prima facie evidence" -- that there is some piece of data not inconsistent with the position. In this case, we could just as well take the existence of between group phenotypic differences as "prima facie" evidence of genetic differences. (Since, you don't even have delata h2, I'm not sure that you could construe what you have as evidence of any sort; that would be akin to taking test scores from just one population -- as opposed to score differences -- as evidence of genetic differences.) Anyways, in this case the argument would be misleading. (Note, the existence of between group differences in highly heritable traits, actually can constitute prima facie evidence, given some ancillary data, since by just knowing group differences, within group heritabilities, and some other stuff, one can make a probabilistic claim concerning genetic group difference.) The last point follows the second and is problematic for the same reasons.

    So, no what I cited didn't accord with your argument -- which was different from the theory upon which you (loosely) based it.

    Regarding 4), again, by many species concepts infraspecific variation isn't understood to be monophyletic -- or cladistic in the same sense. For example, in context to the popular biological species concept, Mayr noted: "Taxa that are still crossable, like subspecies, may produce hybrids, which by definition would not be monophyletic". Hennig, founder of cladistics, likewise noted that monophyly doesn't apply to infraspecific variation, which he described as tokogenetic, for the same reason. Some people -- Robin Andreasen comes to mind -- have put forth race concepts in which races need to be monophyletic -- but what she calls races others call species. Thus Andreasen's race concept is seemingly identical to Ridley's Cladistic Species Concept. Anyways, replying would require a great deal of terminological and conceptual clarification on my part, which I don't think is worth the time, since this issue is tangential.

    But you say: "[T]here’s nothing special about the traits chosen to demarcate the races."

    It would depend on the race concept. I would like to think that most people follow Darwin and some earlier thinkers and treat races as divisions where individual are arranged by propinquity of descent. If so, there would be something special; the traits would be chosen insofar as they index genealogical affinity. Right? This is why taxonomists discuss character weighting. And why they are selective about the characters they choose -- they want ones that best index evolutionary relationship. No?
  100. swank says:
    @5371
    Do explain, Einstein, and go easy on the acronyms.

    HBDers argue that “race” is a biological reality because “race” means something akin to “population.” Many HBDers also seem ostensibly fine with the implication that this leads to there being an unknown amount of races; perhaps as low as 5, perhaps as high as 30 or 50, or whatever.

    If that is the case, and that is what HBDers believe “race” means, why do HBDers argue that extremely large groups of sub-populations be judged based on the performance of perhaps one or two subgroups? Indeed, if HBDers mean “population” when they say “race,” then they need to throw out U.S. test scores between “blacks” (representative perhaps of several different subgroups within the U.S. of differing population sizes; remarkable because Africa probably has more “races” than any other continent) and “whites” (the same). They don’t know which subgroups get which scores but insist on grouping them all together. Why? Because in fact they are still using the social construct of “black” and “white” to guide their conclusions, assessments, and policy recommendations.

    When confronted with the disparate IQ scores of European whites, individuals evaluated the evidence as being strongly against heredetarianism. Why? Because it was assumed that the populations were genetically identical, meaning that the IQ gaps were likely environmental. The only reason for the initial assumption is to use the construct “white” when evaluating the data. If “race” only means “population,” then the differing gaps can be explained away as “different subgroups/races with different genetics.” This didn’t happen and most HBDers didn’t take this approach — because most HBDers use the social constructs of race to guide their analyses.

    Returning to the example of Rachel Dolezal, in the real world consequences of being a certain race have little to do with whatever “actual” genetic ancestry one has and more to do with whatever race one is judged as being. In the US, society has been primed by old cultural norms like “the one drop rule” to treat as black anyone who could possibly be black, based on any superficial similarity. Dolezal only had to make minor adjustments to her appearance to receive this treatment, and many individuals who would be considered “Caucasoid” are treated as though they are black because of this.

    So HBDers base their policy recommendations and analysis on the social construct, and people in real life receive treatment based only on how much more or less they conform to a stereotype that arises from the social construct. The only “race” that seems to matter in the real world, is of the social construct type, not the “population” type. Even within the HBD community.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    You seem to be addressing yourself to someone other than me ( I disbelieve many claims that most self-identified "HBDers" believe). Which is strange, because you apparently understood the point of my first comment (that a substantial number of people bought this female's claim to be black tells us nothing - a substantial number of people will buy damn near anything).
  101. 5371 says:
    @swank
    HBDers argue that "race" is a biological reality because "race" means something akin to "population." Many HBDers also seem ostensibly fine with the implication that this leads to there being an unknown amount of races; perhaps as low as 5, perhaps as high as 30 or 50, or whatever.

    If that is the case, and that is what HBDers believe "race" means, why do HBDers argue that extremely large groups of sub-populations be judged based on the performance of perhaps one or two subgroups? Indeed, if HBDers mean "population" when they say "race," then they need to throw out U.S. test scores between "blacks" (representative perhaps of several different subgroups within the U.S. of differing population sizes; remarkable because Africa probably has more "races" than any other continent) and "whites" (the same). They don't know which subgroups get which scores but insist on grouping them all together. Why? Because in fact they are still using the social construct of "black" and "white" to guide their conclusions, assessments, and policy recommendations.

    When confronted with the disparate IQ scores of European whites, individuals evaluated the evidence as being strongly against heredetarianism. Why? Because it was assumed that the populations were genetically identical, meaning that the IQ gaps were likely environmental. The only reason for the initial assumption is to use the construct "white" when evaluating the data. If "race" only means "population," then the differing gaps can be explained away as "different subgroups/races with different genetics." This didn't happen and most HBDers didn't take this approach --- because most HBDers use the social constructs of race to guide their analyses.

    Returning to the example of Rachel Dolezal, in the real world consequences of being a certain race have little to do with whatever "actual" genetic ancestry one has and more to do with whatever race one is judged as being. In the US, society has been primed by old cultural norms like "the one drop rule" to treat as black anyone who could possibly be black, based on any superficial similarity. Dolezal only had to make minor adjustments to her appearance to receive this treatment, and many individuals who would be considered "Caucasoid" are treated as though they are black because of this.

    So HBDers base their policy recommendations and analysis on the social construct, and people in real life receive treatment based only on how much more or less they conform to a stereotype that arises from the social construct. The only "race" that seems to matter in the real world, is of the social construct type, not the "population" type. Even within the HBD community.

    You seem to be addressing yourself to someone other than me ( I disbelieve many claims that most self-identified “HBDers” believe). Which is strange, because you apparently understood the point of my first comment (that a substantial number of people bought this female’s claim to be black tells us nothing – a substantial number of people will buy damn near anything).

    Read More
    • Replies: @swank
    My original point was that in real life, the "personal judgment of race" is the only salient factor. To that end I pointed to how HBDers argue for their policy recommendations (using the social construct, not the population definition), and I pointed to how personal judgment in how well an individual conforms to a stereotype determines racial treatment in the US.

    "that a substantial number of people bought this female’s claim to be black tells us nothing"
    "a substantial number of people will buy damn near anything"

    I disagree that it "tells us nothing." That "substantial number of people" represent the norm. So in society, these are the people one is more likely to encounter and more likely to deal out differential treatment.
  102. swank says:
    @5371
    You seem to be addressing yourself to someone other than me ( I disbelieve many claims that most self-identified "HBDers" believe). Which is strange, because you apparently understood the point of my first comment (that a substantial number of people bought this female's claim to be black tells us nothing - a substantial number of people will buy damn near anything).

    My original point was that in real life, the “personal judgment of race” is the only salient factor. To that end I pointed to how HBDers argue for their policy recommendations (using the social construct, not the population definition), and I pointed to how personal judgment in how well an individual conforms to a stereotype determines racial treatment in the US.

    “that a substantial number of people bought this female’s claim to be black tells us nothing”
    “a substantial number of people will buy damn near anything”

    I disagree that it “tells us nothing.” That “substantial number of people” represent the norm. So in society, these are the people one is more likely to encounter and more likely to deal out differential treatment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    You haven't shown that most people took her at her own valuation, though it seems you were trying to show something different and unexceptionable originally.
  103. 5371 says:
    @swank
    My original point was that in real life, the "personal judgment of race" is the only salient factor. To that end I pointed to how HBDers argue for their policy recommendations (using the social construct, not the population definition), and I pointed to how personal judgment in how well an individual conforms to a stereotype determines racial treatment in the US.

    "that a substantial number of people bought this female’s claim to be black tells us nothing"
    "a substantial number of people will buy damn near anything"

    I disagree that it "tells us nothing." That "substantial number of people" represent the norm. So in society, these are the people one is more likely to encounter and more likely to deal out differential treatment.

    You haven’t shown that most people took her at her own valuation, though it seems you were trying to show something different and unexceptionable originally.

    Read More
    • Replies: @swank
    "You haven’t shown that most people took her at her own valuation,"

    It certainly appears that way, judging by the positions she was able to occupy and the reaction to the discovery that she wasn't really black. Maybe it's open to a fair amount of debate, because historically, NAACP presidents certainly don't tend to "look black."

    But the particular instance of Dolezal really isn't that important for my overall point, to which you don't seem to have any objection.
  104. swank says:
    @5371
    You haven't shown that most people took her at her own valuation, though it seems you were trying to show something different and unexceptionable originally.

    “You haven’t shown that most people took her at her own valuation,”

    It certainly appears that way, judging by the positions she was able to occupy and the reaction to the discovery that she wasn’t really black. Maybe it’s open to a fair amount of debate, because historically, NAACP presidents certainly don’t tend to “look black.”

    But the particular instance of Dolezal really isn’t that important for my overall point, to which you don’t seem to have any objection.

    Read More
  105. swank says:
    @Deduction
    Well done, you probably feel very clever.

    The problem is that HBD is highly explanatory. Anyone with half a mind can see the same patterns all over the world repeated again, again and again.

    Take the Brazillian coast. It runs black in the north, mestizo in the middle and white in the south. They dance, make music, don't achieve academically and commit a lot of crime in the North and they act like Germans in the south.

    I wonder why?

    The pattern repeats in France, Germany, Scandinavia, South Africa, the Caribbean, Colombia, the US and yes, the UK.

    Indeed it repeats everywhere where the demographics now exist.

    HBD is the best explanation of this. All others are laughably easy to dismiss.

    The legacy of slavery? Then why are concentration camp survivors' children not all acting like that?

    White racism? South Africa is massively majority Black.

    Imperialism? Singapore is a dreamland.

    Lead? Jews are the most urban people in the world.

    Stereotype threat? China managed to flip stereotypes on the head in a couple of decades.

    Culture? The countries are so separate and had so little contact that genes explain culture much better than culture explains average attainment.

    This whole thing kicked off because someone pointed out that the cognitive top 1 percent of West Africa do quite well as do their children. Which to me as someone who sees HBD as obvious was entirely predictable.

    Smart people tend to breed smart children just as dumb people tend to breed dumb children. The problem is that more of some groups are smart.

    The grouping may be artificial but it still means something in the real world. All categories are artificial after all. Yet they still often have predictive power.

    When it comes to formulating public policy predictive power matters. Ignore HBD and condemn Africa to never adopt the appropriate policies for their populations. In other words, ignore HBD and condemn them to starve.

    “The problem is that HBD is highly explanatory. Anyone with half a mind can see the same patterns all over the world repeated again, again and again.”

    Environmental disparity and difference is also “highly explanatory.” And those differences also track the “patterns all over the world repeated again, again, and again.” Only by ignoring history, culture, and environmental differences generally, are those explanations “laughably easy to dismiss.”

    HBDers treat mongoloids as one race that has been selected for increased intelligence (higher than whites, even). And while HBDers point to China/Singapore as an example of how imperialism/culture hasn’t slowed them down (largely by treating the last 50 years as if it were all of history…50 years ago it was easy to say they were all irredeemably dumb, look at how poor they were/are), but HBDers then ignore Native Americans, who are also mongoloid with the crucial difference of having experienced a different environmental/cultural history than the mongoloids across the pacific. And entirely different outcomes are observed. Native Americans and American blacks are comparable in the United States re: crime, IQ. Fancy that: both groups have experienced somewhat similar environmental and cultural deprivations.

    “Smart people tend to breed smart children just as dumb people tend to breed dumb children. The problem is that more of some groups are smart.”

    Smart people also tend to have been raised in a better environment than dumb people and are more likely to be able to provide a better environment for their children than dumb people. In fact, this becomes more likely the higher observed phenotypic IQ is.

    ‘The grouping may be artificial but it still means something in the real world’

    Without question; the dispute is over what these stats mean.

    ‘Yet they still often have predictive power.’

    Belt size can probably predict waist size; it doesn’t mean that belt size explains waist size or what causes different waist sizes.

    “Ignore HBD and condemn Africa to never adopt the appropriate policies for their populations.”

    The only real policy recommendation HBDers tend to have is “it’s not worth it, you can’t improve things for them, so stop trying.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Deduction

    HBDers treat mongoloids as one race
     
    If by this you mean that there are no sub-divisions within it then yoy have just created a strawman. How can you have such a poor understanding of what people who believe in HBD think?

    Are you really suggesting that people here think Han Chinese and Mayans are essentially the same? Come on!

    Environmental disparity and difference is also “highly explanatory.”
     
    It does not explain how similar ethnic patterns hold in very disparate environments...have you read anything here at all!

    Smart people also tend to have been raised in a better environment than dumb people and are more likely to be able to provide a better environment for their children than dumb people. In fact, this becomes more likely the higher observed phenotypic IQ is.

     

    This is why adoption studies are useful. Also, are you now saying that all individuals are born with the same genetic intelligence? In other words, are you saying that there are no genes which influence intelligence? In which case why are humans more intelligent than animals - because pigs don't hear enough words in the womb????

    Of course intelligent people tend to produce a better environment for their children and of course this means that there is a strong correlation between a good environment and future intelligence. After all intelligent species tend to produce a better environment for their children.

    50 years ago it was easy to say they were all irredeemably dumb,
     
    No group is irredeemably dumb. Nonetheless you are making an interesting point. The Chinese have flipped their own stereotypes in a very short period of time. Still, I hope you're not going to try and find some sort of parity between the historic social and cultural achievements of China with Sub-Saharan Africa? That would be dumb.

    I love Africa and I like Black African people and cultures but come on...

    The only real policy recommendation HBDers tend to have is “it’s not worth it, you can’t improve things for them, so stop trying.”
     
    You are somewhat right here. It is a shame that people often seem both incapable of holding the simple facts of HBD in their heads while also having genuine compassion.

    I have a lot of projects in my personal life starting right now - i am young, a bit avaricious and very ambitious, but I would love to at some point to do something both HBD aware and dedicated to improving the lives of people so often failed by those who ignore or misunderstand them.

    Because the very people most interested in helping others are the most ideologically blinded to HBD there is a lot of low hanging fruit in this area!!!
  106. Sean says:
    @Truth

    A technical point. you need to take into account whether most of the mothers are white when predicting the average IQ of mixed unions. There are several extra IQ points for interracial children of white mothers.
     
    I've never heard this one before.

    It’s got to do with different expression of genes like IGF2 depending on whether they are from the mother or father, and X chromosomes.

    Identical But Genetically Different (and why you can thank your mother for your IQ)

    Read More
  107. Sean says:
    @Numinous

    I was saying global utility, not the wellbeing of particular nations or the regions of Africa or Europe is the criterion being used for deciding if immigration in good.
     
    What's wrong with using global utility as the primary criterion? Within a nation, "national wellbeing" results in some regions benefiting and others losing out. Within a region, "regional wellbeing" results in certain districts and towns benefiting, and others losing out. You catch my drift? "Global utility" is simply this calculus applied on a global scale. On the other hand, your lament, taken to its logical extreme, must necessarily result in an infinitely fragmented world, with no one willing to cooperate with people they do not encounter face-to-face on a given day.

    Any level of cooperation can be a front for sinister realities. I’m a believer in cooperation at the middle ground, the nation state. There are not many influential people espousing nationalism. Elites always claim to be concerned with global utility. You wanna let billionaires run the world?

    Read More
  108. Sean says:
    @Anonymous
    But war is the purpose of the state. How would Africanized countries with consequently eroded economic and military-industrial bases be able to maintain their states against small adversaries such as militias and bands, let alone larger ones such as states with large and powerful military-industrial complexes?

    Probably the elite have calculated that the indigenous population are now superfluous, even as cannon fodder, because problems of war have been solved . You know like these geniuses were proclaiming unending growth, right up until the global crash. Recieved wisdom about the state among the elite is a Report from Iron Mountain in reverse.

    Read More
  109. LondonBob says:

    I would be very wary of UK educational data, GCSE results are gamed and there has been a persistent attempt to misrepresent results, notably comparing minorities with the poorest whites or taking results at a specific age to either exaggerate performance or improvement between two ages or as seemingly here sampling badly. That said West African girls do relatively well at young ages.

    I don’t come across many West Africans except in reports about knife crime, sure there are some success stories and a reasonable number of make it to lower middle class compared to Afro Caribbeans but let’s not exaggerate.

    Read More
  110. Chuck says: • Website
    @swank
    You continue citing to discussions that are consistent with 4). The discussion you cite agrees that while selection is underway, genetic variance decreases. It only states that once selection stops, genetic variance returns to the pre-selection value quickly in the case of a polygenic trait where many alleles with small effect are involved --- which makes complete sense. Afaik HBDers do not say that selection for IQ has stopped.

    (Of course, it's possible to say that it has stopped in the modern age because the smart breed less than the stupid, but the reverse was (allegedly) true 500 years ago. There's no data on differences in group means from that time period, though; and if FE is any indication, the average white commoner from 500 years ago had a very low IQ)

    "Generally, your argument in this regard is either (clever) silly or quantitatively uninformed. I will assume the former."

    I am citing to a rule --- one acknowledged in both papers you cite --- and you are arguing for an exception to that rule. I have no doubt that you believe my argument has either of those qualities, but you have not demonstrated it.

    "Yet many argue that the concept of monophyly doesn’t apply on the infraspecific level ."

    The second part of the first sentence states, "ruining any attempt at cladistics." By definition a clade is monophyletic.

    "obviously there is global quantitative genetic variance regardless of how one wishes to conceptualize divisions."

    My point wasn't to argue otherwise. I even state that the constructs capture populations with differing allele frequencies. But one could pick almost any suite of traits and come out with several sub-populations with differing allele frequencies, i.e. there's nothing special about the traits chosen to demarcate the races.

    Regarding 1), you originally said:

    (a) “So the heritability of a population selected for a certain trait should be close to zero.”
    (b) “High heritability is prima facie evidence against an adaptation narrative.”
    (c) “Now, several mechanisms may preserve variation, but if those mechanisms have been operating, then it makes it less likely the populations have any real genetic difference between them.”

    The first point is either false or misleading depending on how it is read. For one, the reduction in heritability (holding environmental variance constant) is dependent on the amount of selection. Constant selection for e.g., 1 SD across 40 generations would not reduce heritability “close to zero”. For another, after selection stops the genetic variance will increase, though mean differences will persist. So, you would have to rephrase the statement as e.g., “the heritability in a population in which traits are under constant selection of x magnitude will reduce by x magnitude.” The second point is either false or misleading on account of the problems with the first. High contemporaneous heritability, by itself, can’t provide evidence against selection in absence of knowledge concerning change in environmental variance, the original heritability, the units selected, the duration of selection, and the number of loci under selection. Knowing these, you could make a quantitative prediction which would constitute evidence, but not proof because there are countervailing mechanisms. I suppose that you could set a very weak threshold for “prima facie evidence” — that there is some piece of data not inconsistent with the position. In this case, we could just as well take the existence of between group phenotypic differences as “prima facie” evidence of genetic differences. (Since, you don’t even have delata h2, I’m not sure that you could construe what you have as evidence of any sort; that would be akin to taking test scores from just one population — as opposed to score differences — as evidence of genetic differences.) Anyways, in this case the argument would be misleading. (Note, the existence of between group differences in highly heritable traits, actually can constitute prima facie evidence, given some ancillary data, since by just knowing group differences, within group heritabilities, and some other stuff, one can make a probabilistic claim concerning genetic group difference.) The last point follows the second and is problematic for the same reasons.

    So, no what I cited didn’t accord with your argument — which was different from the theory upon which you (loosely) based it.

    Regarding 4), again, by many species concepts infraspecific variation isn’t understood to be monophyletic — or cladistic in the same sense. For example, in context to the popular biological species concept, Mayr noted: “Taxa that are still crossable, like subspecies, may produce hybrids, which by definition would not be monophyletic”. Hennig, founder of cladistics, likewise noted that monophyly doesn’t apply to infraspecific variation, which he described as tokogenetic, for the same reason. Some people — Robin Andreasen comes to mind — have put forth race concepts in which races need to be monophyletic — but what she calls races others call species. Thus Andreasen’s race concept is seemingly identical to Ridley’s Cladistic Species Concept. Anyways, replying would require a great deal of terminological and conceptual clarification on my part, which I don’t think is worth the time, since this issue is tangential.

    But you say: “[T]here’s nothing special about the traits chosen to demarcate the races.”

    It would depend on the race concept. I would like to think that most people follow Darwin and some earlier thinkers and treat races as divisions where individual are arranged by propinquity of descent. If so, there would be something special; the traits would be chosen insofar as they index genealogical affinity. Right? This is why taxonomists discuss character weighting. And why they are selective about the characters they choose — they want ones that best index evolutionary relationship. No?

    Read More
    • Replies: @swank
    "Regarding 1), you originally said:"

    You're removing the context of my statements, and to be fair, my original statement was abbreviated. First, I implied that HBDers believe that higher IQ is an adaptation, as in, a trait that was selected for. As more context, HBDers hold that selection for it has been strong and accelerated in recent evolutionary time. Then I stated the general rule: "generally, that would remove variation from the selected population."

    Your only real quibble is with the strength of my language in (a). Me, you, and the authorities you cite all agree that while selection is ongoing, genetic variation and thus heritability will diminish. Knowing this rule and the claims made by HBDers, a high heritability of .7-.9, at first blush is incongruous with the claims. You say that in order for it to constitute evidence, one needs a laundry list of evidence that is never discussed by HBDers making the claims. I disagree. In the absence of that information and with the claims set forth as they are, a high heritability doesn't quite fit the narrative. Especially since HBDers also hold fast to heritability being just as high for blacks as it is for whites, even though white and Asian populations are supposed to have been the ones to have undergone this intense selection. If HBDers argue for an exception to the general rule, HBDers need to produce evidence on "original heritability, environmental variance," and etc.

    It's arguable whether the heritability at this point in evolutionary time must be "close to zero," so the heritability "not being very high" would be a better way to put it.

    "Regarding 4), again, by many species concepts infraspecific variation isn’t understood to be monophyletic — or cladistic in the same sense."

    If it isn't cladistic, then there's really no qualm with my first sentence...namely that the lack of monophyletic races ruins any attempt at cladistics. The authors you cite aren't arguing for a different definition of "clade."

    "propinquity of descent."

    The traits chosen to demarcate black and white were not chosen because of Darwin; they had been chosen before Darwin ever wrote his book and before natural selection was accepted or even heard of. Most people aren't thinking that deeply about the issue. Most people use learned culture and history to categorize the differences they see in populations.
  111. Deduction says:
    @swank
    "The problem is that HBD is highly explanatory. Anyone with half a mind can see the same patterns all over the world repeated again, again and again."

    Environmental disparity and difference is also "highly explanatory." And those differences also track the "patterns all over the world repeated again, again, and again." Only by ignoring history, culture, and environmental differences generally, are those explanations "laughably easy to dismiss."

    HBDers treat mongoloids as one race that has been selected for increased intelligence (higher than whites, even). And while HBDers point to China/Singapore as an example of how imperialism/culture hasn't slowed them down (largely by treating the last 50 years as if it were all of history...50 years ago it was easy to say they were all irredeemably dumb, look at how poor they were/are), but HBDers then ignore Native Americans, who are also mongoloid with the crucial difference of having experienced a different environmental/cultural history than the mongoloids across the pacific. And entirely different outcomes are observed. Native Americans and American blacks are comparable in the United States re: crime, IQ. Fancy that: both groups have experienced somewhat similar environmental and cultural deprivations.

    "Smart people tend to breed smart children just as dumb people tend to breed dumb children. The problem is that more of some groups are smart."

    Smart people also tend to have been raised in a better environment than dumb people and are more likely to be able to provide a better environment for their children than dumb people. In fact, this becomes more likely the higher observed phenotypic IQ is.

    'The grouping may be artificial but it still means something in the real world'

    Without question; the dispute is over what these stats mean.

    'Yet they still often have predictive power.'

    Belt size can probably predict waist size; it doesn't mean that belt size explains waist size or what causes different waist sizes.

    "Ignore HBD and condemn Africa to never adopt the appropriate policies for their populations."

    The only real policy recommendation HBDers tend to have is "it's not worth it, you can't improve things for them, so stop trying."

    HBDers treat mongoloids as one race

    If by this you mean that there are no sub-divisions within it then yoy have just created a strawman. How can you have such a poor understanding of what people who believe in HBD think?

    Are you really suggesting that people here think Han Chinese and Mayans are essentially the same? Come on!

    Environmental disparity and difference is also “highly explanatory.”

    It does not explain how similar ethnic patterns hold in very disparate environments…have you read anything here at all!

    Smart people also tend to have been raised in a better environment than dumb people and are more likely to be able to provide a better environment for their children than dumb people. In fact, this becomes more likely the higher observed phenotypic IQ is.

    This is why adoption studies are useful. Also, are you now saying that all individuals are born with the same genetic intelligence? In other words, are you saying that there are no genes which influence intelligence? In which case why are humans more intelligent than animals – because pigs don’t hear enough words in the womb????

    Of course intelligent people tend to produce a better environment for their children and of course this means that there is a strong correlation between a good environment and future intelligence. After all intelligent species tend to produce a better environment for their children.

    50 years ago it was easy to say they were all irredeemably dumb,

    No group is irredeemably dumb. Nonetheless you are making an interesting point. The Chinese have flipped their own stereotypes in a very short period of time. Still, I hope you’re not going to try and find some sort of parity between the historic social and cultural achievements of China with Sub-Saharan Africa? That would be dumb.

    I love Africa and I like Black African people and cultures but come on…

    The only real policy recommendation HBDers tend to have is “it’s not worth it, you can’t improve things for them, so stop trying.”

    You are somewhat right here. It is a shame that people often seem both incapable of holding the simple facts of HBD in their heads while also having genuine compassion.

    I have a lot of projects in my personal life starting right now – i am young, a bit avaricious and very ambitious, but I would love to at some point to do something both HBD aware and dedicated to improving the lives of people so often failed by those who ignore or misunderstand them.

    Because the very people most interested in helping others are the most ideologically blinded to HBD there is a lot of low hanging fruit in this area!!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @JH73
    You are confusing accepting current policy proscriptions as compassion. Compared with non-HBDer's who are cynical and just as 'racist' and content on exploiting the current consensus for their own personal benefit. The smarter they are the harder it is to get them to admit their biases.

    I also know plenty of HBD people trying to make a difference (they certainly not doing it for the money), but even a whiff of HBD thought would be a death sentence to their career.
    , @swank
    "How can you have such a poor understanding of what people who believe in HBD think?"

    The cold weather conditions that supposedly produced the superior Chinese mongoloids also apply to the Native Americans. You can handwave and say 'well they just must be different groups' without more (and HBDers do a lot of this). I agree. The obvious difference seems to be a different environmental history.

    "It does not explain how similar ethnic patterns hold in very disparate environments…have you read anything here at all!"

    I'm reading your unbacked assertions, yes.

    "Also, are you now saying that all individuals are born with the same genetic intelligence?"

    Did I say that?

    "In other words, are you saying that there are no genes which influence intelligence?"

    FYI, none have been found and replicated despite all the intense effort.

    "In which case why are humans more intelligent than animals – because pigs don’t hear enough words in the womb????"

    Humans evolved human level intelligence over several million years; plenty of time for beneficial mutations to a complex system like cognition to occur. Indeed, it seems like there were two of them because two large brain size increases coincided with a large increase in EQ. Modern humans have been around for maybe...50-200k years, depending on who you ask. So it's an apples and oranges question.

    "Of course intelligent people tend to produce a better environment for their children "

    AND, people who are intelligent were more likely to have had a better environment --- regardless of what we know about their parents.

    "Still, I hope you’re not going to try and find some sort of parity between the historic social and cultural achievements of China with Sub-Saharan Africa? "

    The point is that HBD treats now as if it were eternity. The Anglo sphere was composed of barbarians 1200 years ago. The Romans thought anglos were stupid and unfit for even slavery. The middle east gave rise to civilization; look at it and its IQ now only a few centuries after the Ottoman empire's fall from grace.

    "I love Africa and I like Black African people and cultures but come on…"

    You could have fooled me.

    " It is a shame that people often seem both incapable of holding the simple facts of HBD in their heads while also having genuine compassion."

    Not really. HBD = believing in innate superiority or inferiority based on race which is racism. Compassion and racism don't mix well. Rushton, Murray, all of them at one point or another revealed themselves as motivated reasoners.

    'I would love to at some point to do something both HBD aware and dedicated to improving the lives of people so often failed by those who ignore or misunderstand them.'

    Be aware of it by realizing that most scientists reject it because as applied to racial differences it is wafer-thin and unsupported by evidence. You're not going to "improve the lives of people" by spreading a philosophy that accepts their innate inferiority as a people. Pick one or the other.

  112. JH73 says:
    @Deduction

    HBDers treat mongoloids as one race
     
    If by this you mean that there are no sub-divisions within it then yoy have just created a strawman. How can you have such a poor understanding of what people who believe in HBD think?

    Are you really suggesting that people here think Han Chinese and Mayans are essentially the same? Come on!

    Environmental disparity and difference is also “highly explanatory.”
     
    It does not explain how similar ethnic patterns hold in very disparate environments...have you read anything here at all!

    Smart people also tend to have been raised in a better environment than dumb people and are more likely to be able to provide a better environment for their children than dumb people. In fact, this becomes more likely the higher observed phenotypic IQ is.

     

    This is why adoption studies are useful. Also, are you now saying that all individuals are born with the same genetic intelligence? In other words, are you saying that there are no genes which influence intelligence? In which case why are humans more intelligent than animals - because pigs don't hear enough words in the womb????

    Of course intelligent people tend to produce a better environment for their children and of course this means that there is a strong correlation between a good environment and future intelligence. After all intelligent species tend to produce a better environment for their children.

    50 years ago it was easy to say they were all irredeemably dumb,
     
    No group is irredeemably dumb. Nonetheless you are making an interesting point. The Chinese have flipped their own stereotypes in a very short period of time. Still, I hope you're not going to try and find some sort of parity between the historic social and cultural achievements of China with Sub-Saharan Africa? That would be dumb.

    I love Africa and I like Black African people and cultures but come on...

    The only real policy recommendation HBDers tend to have is “it’s not worth it, you can’t improve things for them, so stop trying.”
     
    You are somewhat right here. It is a shame that people often seem both incapable of holding the simple facts of HBD in their heads while also having genuine compassion.

    I have a lot of projects in my personal life starting right now - i am young, a bit avaricious and very ambitious, but I would love to at some point to do something both HBD aware and dedicated to improving the lives of people so often failed by those who ignore or misunderstand them.

    Because the very people most interested in helping others are the most ideologically blinded to HBD there is a lot of low hanging fruit in this area!!!

    You are confusing accepting current policy proscriptions as compassion. Compared with non-HBDer’s who are cynical and just as ‘racist’ and content on exploiting the current consensus for their own personal benefit. The smarter they are the harder it is to get them to admit their biases.

    I also know plenty of HBD people trying to make a difference (they certainly not doing it for the money), but even a whiff of HBD thought would be a death sentence to their career.

    Read More
  113. swank says:
    @Chuck
    Regarding 1), you originally said:

    (a) "So the heritability of a population selected for a certain trait should be close to zero."
    (b) "High heritability is prima facie evidence against an adaptation narrative."
    (c) "Now, several mechanisms may preserve variation, but if those mechanisms have been operating, then it makes it less likely the populations have any real genetic difference between them."

    The first point is either false or misleading depending on how it is read. For one, the reduction in heritability (holding environmental variance constant) is dependent on the amount of selection. Constant selection for e.g., 1 SD across 40 generations would not reduce heritability "close to zero". For another, after selection stops the genetic variance will increase, though mean differences will persist. So, you would have to rephrase the statement as e.g., "the heritability in a population in which traits are under constant selection of x magnitude will reduce by x magnitude." The second point is either false or misleading on account of the problems with the first. High contemporaneous heritability, by itself, can't provide evidence against selection in absence of knowledge concerning change in environmental variance, the original heritability, the units selected, the duration of selection, and the number of loci under selection. Knowing these, you could make a quantitative prediction which would constitute evidence, but not proof because there are countervailing mechanisms. I suppose that you could set a very weak threshold for "prima facie evidence" -- that there is some piece of data not inconsistent with the position. In this case, we could just as well take the existence of between group phenotypic differences as "prima facie" evidence of genetic differences. (Since, you don't even have delata h2, I'm not sure that you could construe what you have as evidence of any sort; that would be akin to taking test scores from just one population -- as opposed to score differences -- as evidence of genetic differences.) Anyways, in this case the argument would be misleading. (Note, the existence of between group differences in highly heritable traits, actually can constitute prima facie evidence, given some ancillary data, since by just knowing group differences, within group heritabilities, and some other stuff, one can make a probabilistic claim concerning genetic group difference.) The last point follows the second and is problematic for the same reasons.

    So, no what I cited didn't accord with your argument -- which was different from the theory upon which you (loosely) based it.

    Regarding 4), again, by many species concepts infraspecific variation isn't understood to be monophyletic -- or cladistic in the same sense. For example, in context to the popular biological species concept, Mayr noted: "Taxa that are still crossable, like subspecies, may produce hybrids, which by definition would not be monophyletic". Hennig, founder of cladistics, likewise noted that monophyly doesn't apply to infraspecific variation, which he described as tokogenetic, for the same reason. Some people -- Robin Andreasen comes to mind -- have put forth race concepts in which races need to be monophyletic -- but what she calls races others call species. Thus Andreasen's race concept is seemingly identical to Ridley's Cladistic Species Concept. Anyways, replying would require a great deal of terminological and conceptual clarification on my part, which I don't think is worth the time, since this issue is tangential.

    But you say: "[T]here’s nothing special about the traits chosen to demarcate the races."

    It would depend on the race concept. I would like to think that most people follow Darwin and some earlier thinkers and treat races as divisions where individual are arranged by propinquity of descent. If so, there would be something special; the traits would be chosen insofar as they index genealogical affinity. Right? This is why taxonomists discuss character weighting. And why they are selective about the characters they choose -- they want ones that best index evolutionary relationship. No?

    “Regarding 1), you originally said:”

    You’re removing the context of my statements, and to be fair, my original statement was abbreviated. First, I implied that HBDers believe that higher IQ is an adaptation, as in, a trait that was selected for. As more context, HBDers hold that selection for it has been strong and accelerated in recent evolutionary time. Then I stated the general rule: “generally, that would remove variation from the selected population.”

    Your only real quibble is with the strength of my language in (a). Me, you, and the authorities you cite all agree that while selection is ongoing, genetic variation and thus heritability will diminish. Knowing this rule and the claims made by HBDers, a high heritability of .7-.9, at first blush is incongruous with the claims. You say that in order for it to constitute evidence, one needs a laundry list of evidence that is never discussed by HBDers making the claims. I disagree. In the absence of that information and with the claims set forth as they are, a high heritability doesn’t quite fit the narrative. Especially since HBDers also hold fast to heritability being just as high for blacks as it is for whites, even though white and Asian populations are supposed to have been the ones to have undergone this intense selection. If HBDers argue for an exception to the general rule, HBDers need to produce evidence on “original heritability, environmental variance,” and etc.

    It’s arguable whether the heritability at this point in evolutionary time must be “close to zero,” so the heritability “not being very high” would be a better way to put it.

    “Regarding 4), again, by many species concepts infraspecific variation isn’t understood to be monophyletic — or cladistic in the same sense.”

    If it isn’t cladistic, then there’s really no qualm with my first sentence…namely that the lack of monophyletic races ruins any attempt at cladistics. The authors you cite aren’t arguing for a different definition of “clade.”

    “propinquity of descent.”

    The traits chosen to demarcate black and white were not chosen because of Darwin; they had been chosen before Darwin ever wrote his book and before natural selection was accepted or even heard of. Most people aren’t thinking that deeply about the issue. Most people use learned culture and history to categorize the differences they see in populations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chuck
    "Knowing this rule and the claims made by HBDers, a high heritability of .7-.9, at first blush is incongruous with the claims."

    The narrow heritability is typically estimated at around 60%. The other genetic portion is some mix of active COV GE, epistasis, dominance, etc. Selection wouldn't effect variance due to e.g., epistasis. For perspective, look at table 1 in "Prediction of Genetic Variance and Response for Selection on Own phenotype" http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~jvanderw/2014Day1e%20Variance.pdf If you really need me to I will explain it. Hopefully, though, the point will be obvious. Notice the variance, the magnitude of selection, and the effect of pauses.

    “If it isn’t cladistic, then there’s really no qualm with my first sentence…namely that the lack of monophyletic races ruins any attempt at cladistics."

    Again it depends on what you mean. One can depict major human races as clades -- this is often done -- but they would be 'fuzzy clades" in the sense of ones which experienced ongoing admixture. Because of this admixture, the divisions would not be "truly" monophyletic in the sense meant by Mayr, Hennig, etc. And insofar as the latter equated -- and other equate -- clades with monophyletic groups they would not be clades proper but rather genealogical networks which were stylized as these.

    "The traits chosen to demarcate black and white were not chosen because of Darwin"

    In the 1700s, the major human varieties were initially seen as environmental induced deviations from the species type. To explain why these deviations perpetuated their form abroad (e.g., why Europeans in African remained white), the idea of "race" or "lineage/breed" was imported into natural history (by the middle of the 18th century). So "races" qua races were, in fact, originally thought of as lineage-based divisions. But yes, when the groups were thought of as Linnean varieties -- they were not understood genealogically. But recall, you originally said: "[T]here’s nothing special about the traits chosen to demarcate the" RACES. (Yet, the traits were supposed to -- insofar as groups were thought of as races -- cut out genealogical divisions.)

  114. swank says:
    @Deduction

    HBDers treat mongoloids as one race
     
    If by this you mean that there are no sub-divisions within it then yoy have just created a strawman. How can you have such a poor understanding of what people who believe in HBD think?

    Are you really suggesting that people here think Han Chinese and Mayans are essentially the same? Come on!

    Environmental disparity and difference is also “highly explanatory.”
     
    It does not explain how similar ethnic patterns hold in very disparate environments...have you read anything here at all!

    Smart people also tend to have been raised in a better environment than dumb people and are more likely to be able to provide a better environment for their children than dumb people. In fact, this becomes more likely the higher observed phenotypic IQ is.

     

    This is why adoption studies are useful. Also, are you now saying that all individuals are born with the same genetic intelligence? In other words, are you saying that there are no genes which influence intelligence? In which case why are humans more intelligent than animals - because pigs don't hear enough words in the womb????

    Of course intelligent people tend to produce a better environment for their children and of course this means that there is a strong correlation between a good environment and future intelligence. After all intelligent species tend to produce a better environment for their children.

    50 years ago it was easy to say they were all irredeemably dumb,
     
    No group is irredeemably dumb. Nonetheless you are making an interesting point. The Chinese have flipped their own stereotypes in a very short period of time. Still, I hope you're not going to try and find some sort of parity between the historic social and cultural achievements of China with Sub-Saharan Africa? That would be dumb.

    I love Africa and I like Black African people and cultures but come on...

    The only real policy recommendation HBDers tend to have is “it’s not worth it, you can’t improve things for them, so stop trying.”
     
    You are somewhat right here. It is a shame that people often seem both incapable of holding the simple facts of HBD in their heads while also having genuine compassion.

    I have a lot of projects in my personal life starting right now - i am young, a bit avaricious and very ambitious, but I would love to at some point to do something both HBD aware and dedicated to improving the lives of people so often failed by those who ignore or misunderstand them.

    Because the very people most interested in helping others are the most ideologically blinded to HBD there is a lot of low hanging fruit in this area!!!

    “How can you have such a poor understanding of what people who believe in HBD think?”

    The cold weather conditions that supposedly produced the superior Chinese mongoloids also apply to the Native Americans. You can handwave and say ‘well they just must be different groups’ without more (and HBDers do a lot of this). I agree. The obvious difference seems to be a different environmental history.

    “It does not explain how similar ethnic patterns hold in very disparate environments…have you read anything here at all!”

    I’m reading your unbacked assertions, yes.

    “Also, are you now saying that all individuals are born with the same genetic intelligence?”

    Did I say that?

    “In other words, are you saying that there are no genes which influence intelligence?”

    FYI, none have been found and replicated despite all the intense effort.

    “In which case why are humans more intelligent than animals – because pigs don’t hear enough words in the womb????”

    Humans evolved human level intelligence over several million years; plenty of time for beneficial mutations to a complex system like cognition to occur. Indeed, it seems like there were two of them because two large brain size increases coincided with a large increase in EQ. Modern humans have been around for maybe…50-200k years, depending on who you ask. So it’s an apples and oranges question.

    “Of course intelligent people tend to produce a better environment for their children ”

    AND, people who are intelligent were more likely to have had a better environment — regardless of what we know about their parents.

    “Still, I hope you’re not going to try and find some sort of parity between the historic social and cultural achievements of China with Sub-Saharan Africa? ”

    The point is that HBD treats now as if it were eternity. The Anglo sphere was composed of barbarians 1200 years ago. The Romans thought anglos were stupid and unfit for even slavery. The middle east gave rise to civilization; look at it and its IQ now only a few centuries after the Ottoman empire’s fall from grace.

    “I love Africa and I like Black African people and cultures but come on…”

    You could have fooled me.

    ” It is a shame that people often seem both incapable of holding the simple facts of HBD in their heads while also having genuine compassion.”

    Not really. HBD = believing in innate superiority or inferiority based on race which is racism. Compassion and racism don’t mix well. Rushton, Murray, all of them at one point or another revealed themselves as motivated reasoners.

    ‘I would love to at some point to do something both HBD aware and dedicated to improving the lives of people so often failed by those who ignore or misunderstand them.’

    Be aware of it by realizing that most scientists reject it because as applied to racial differences it is wafer-thin and unsupported by evidence. You’re not going to “improve the lives of people” by spreading a philosophy that accepts their innate inferiority as a people. Pick one or the other.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Deduction

    The cold weather conditions that supposedly produced the superior Chinese mongoloids also apply to the Native Americans.
     
    I prefer gene-culture coevolution to ice age theories, but either way both are practically just so stories created to explain the obvious fact that Han Chinese are as a group cognitively more capable than Mayans.

    The point is that HBD treats now as if it were eternity. The Anglo sphere was composed of barbarians 1200 years ago. The Romans thought anglos were stupid and unfit for even slavery. The middle east gave rise to civilization; look at it and its IQ now only a few centuries after the Ottoman empire’s fall from grace.
     
    Ignoring your bizarre lack of historical knowledge. Romans...Anglos - seriously? The simple answer is that gene culture coevolution can have a big effect very quickly. Sterilise the stupid now and the next generation born will have fewer idiots!

    Not really. HBD = believing in innate superiority or inferiority based on race which is racism.
     
    Now I undestand you. You haven't begun to engage with the arguments here.

    I believe that genes matter and that individuals have different genes.

    I believe that we can divide humanity into any different categories and that some of these categories have generally observable differences in their genetic makeups.

    I believe that this means that races can have different mean IQs which I also believe is easy to observe in the real world.

    I do not believe that this is immutable, or that people are defined by the artifical category of race.

    However I do believe that when formulating public policy that this is important because if we ignore this then we are creating positions from even less perfect information than we have with it.

    I am ethnically mixed and have a Black African wife, you cannot scare me with your inane name calling.

    You’re not going to “improve the lives of people” by spreading a philosophy that accepts their innate inferiority as a people. Pick one or the other.
     
    It accepts difference. Pretending that everyone is the same is the reason we lost in Afghanistan. It is the reason why Africa is an aid blackhole. It is the reason why Black Americans spend so much time in jail. It is the reason why so many dumb decisions are made.

    This is because it is pretense. I would not build an aircraft using nice fictions, yet all the older generations have spent the last 20 years building a society based on lies. Well done guys - it is inevitably going to crash to the earth. Thanks...
  115. 5371 says:

    [The Romans thought anglos were stupid and unfit for even slavery.]

    There were no “anglos” in Roman times, and the Romans did not think that of either the Germans or the Celtic Britons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @swank
    Anglo refers to the people of British Isles descent. Caesar, in writing home, said of the Britons, “They are the most ignorant people I have ever conquered. They cannot be taught music.” Cicero, in writing to his friend Atticus, advised him not to buy slaves in England, “because,” said he, “they cannot be taught to read, and are the ugliest and most stupid race I ever saw.”
  116. swank says:
    @5371
    [The Romans thought anglos were stupid and unfit for even slavery.]

    There were no "anglos" in Roman times, and the Romans did not think that of either the Germans or the Celtic Britons.

    Anglo refers to the people of British Isles descent. Caesar, in writing home, said of the Britons, “They are the most ignorant people I have ever conquered. They cannot be taught music.” Cicero, in writing to his friend Atticus, advised him not to buy slaves in England, “because,” said he, “they cannot be taught to read, and are the ugliest and most stupid race I ever saw.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Fake quotes.
    , @PB and J
    There were no Anglos in the British Isles at the time of Julius Caesar's conquests. They only arrived (meaningfully) hundreds of years later.
  117. 5371 says:
    @swank
    Anglo refers to the people of British Isles descent. Caesar, in writing home, said of the Britons, “They are the most ignorant people I have ever conquered. They cannot be taught music.” Cicero, in writing to his friend Atticus, advised him not to buy slaves in England, “because,” said he, “they cannot be taught to read, and are the ugliest and most stupid race I ever saw.”

    Fake quotes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @swank
    No, the quibble is over the translation as far as Cicero's letter goes; some say it more means that they currently have not been taught, others say it more means that they cannot be taught. There does seem to be a question as to how Brown (the original translator or Cicero's quote) got 'ugly and stupid race,' though.

    There's plenty of convergent evidence on the point, though:

    "the home of men who are complete savages and lead a miserable existence because of the cold; and therefore, in my opinion, the northern limit of our inhabited world is to be placed there"

    "They dwell in tents, naked and unshod, possess their women in common, and in common rear all the offspring. "
  118. swank says:
    @5371
    Fake quotes.

    No, the quibble is over the translation as far as Cicero’s letter goes; some say it more means that they currently have not been taught, others say it more means that they cannot be taught. There does seem to be a question as to how Brown (the original translator or Cicero’s quote) got ‘ugly and stupid race,’ though.

    There’s plenty of convergent evidence on the point, though:

    “the home of men who are complete savages and lead a miserable existence because of the cold; and therefore, in my opinion, the northern limit of our inhabited world is to be placed there”

    “They dwell in tents, naked and unshod, possess their women in common, and in common rear all the offspring. “

    Read More
  119. Deduction says:
    @swank
    "How can you have such a poor understanding of what people who believe in HBD think?"

    The cold weather conditions that supposedly produced the superior Chinese mongoloids also apply to the Native Americans. You can handwave and say 'well they just must be different groups' without more (and HBDers do a lot of this). I agree. The obvious difference seems to be a different environmental history.

    "It does not explain how similar ethnic patterns hold in very disparate environments…have you read anything here at all!"

    I'm reading your unbacked assertions, yes.

    "Also, are you now saying that all individuals are born with the same genetic intelligence?"

    Did I say that?

    "In other words, are you saying that there are no genes which influence intelligence?"

    FYI, none have been found and replicated despite all the intense effort.

    "In which case why are humans more intelligent than animals – because pigs don’t hear enough words in the womb????"

    Humans evolved human level intelligence over several million years; plenty of time for beneficial mutations to a complex system like cognition to occur. Indeed, it seems like there were two of them because two large brain size increases coincided with a large increase in EQ. Modern humans have been around for maybe...50-200k years, depending on who you ask. So it's an apples and oranges question.

    "Of course intelligent people tend to produce a better environment for their children "

    AND, people who are intelligent were more likely to have had a better environment --- regardless of what we know about their parents.

    "Still, I hope you’re not going to try and find some sort of parity between the historic social and cultural achievements of China with Sub-Saharan Africa? "

    The point is that HBD treats now as if it were eternity. The Anglo sphere was composed of barbarians 1200 years ago. The Romans thought anglos were stupid and unfit for even slavery. The middle east gave rise to civilization; look at it and its IQ now only a few centuries after the Ottoman empire's fall from grace.

    "I love Africa and I like Black African people and cultures but come on…"

    You could have fooled me.

    " It is a shame that people often seem both incapable of holding the simple facts of HBD in their heads while also having genuine compassion."

    Not really. HBD = believing in innate superiority or inferiority based on race which is racism. Compassion and racism don't mix well. Rushton, Murray, all of them at one point or another revealed themselves as motivated reasoners.

    'I would love to at some point to do something both HBD aware and dedicated to improving the lives of people so often failed by those who ignore or misunderstand them.'

    Be aware of it by realizing that most scientists reject it because as applied to racial differences it is wafer-thin and unsupported by evidence. You're not going to "improve the lives of people" by spreading a philosophy that accepts their innate inferiority as a people. Pick one or the other.

    The cold weather conditions that supposedly produced the superior Chinese mongoloids also apply to the Native Americans.

    I prefer gene-culture coevolution to ice age theories, but either way both are practically just so stories created to explain the obvious fact that Han Chinese are as a group cognitively more capable than Mayans.

    The point is that HBD treats now as if it were eternity. The Anglo sphere was composed of barbarians 1200 years ago. The Romans thought anglos were stupid and unfit for even slavery. The middle east gave rise to civilization; look at it and its IQ now only a few centuries after the Ottoman empire’s fall from grace.

    Ignoring your bizarre lack of historical knowledge. Romans…Anglos – seriously? The simple answer is that gene culture coevolution can have a big effect very quickly. Sterilise the stupid now and the next generation born will have fewer idiots!

    Not really. HBD = believing in innate superiority or inferiority based on race which is racism.

    Now I undestand you. You haven’t begun to engage with the arguments here.

    I believe that genes matter and that individuals have different genes.

    I believe that we can divide humanity into any different categories and that some of these categories have generally observable differences in their genetic makeups.

    I believe that this means that races can have different mean IQs which I also believe is easy to observe in the real world.

    I do not believe that this is immutable, or that people are defined by the artifical category of race.

    However I do believe that when formulating public policy that this is important because if we ignore this then we are creating positions from even less perfect information than we have with it.

    I am ethnically mixed and have a Black African wife, you cannot scare me with your inane name calling.

    You’re not going to “improve the lives of people” by spreading a philosophy that accepts their innate inferiority as a people. Pick one or the other.

    It accepts difference. Pretending that everyone is the same is the reason we lost in Afghanistan. It is the reason why Africa is an aid blackhole. It is the reason why Black Americans spend so much time in jail. It is the reason why so many dumb decisions are made.

    This is because it is pretense. I would not build an aircraft using nice fictions, yet all the older generations have spent the last 20 years building a society based on lies. Well done guys – it is inevitably going to crash to the earth. Thanks…

    Read More
    • Replies: @swank
    "I am ethnically mixed and have a Black African wife, you cannot scare me with your inane name calling."

    Name-calling? I'm not saying "racism" or "racist" in a judgmental way. Most of HBD, especially in combination with the "policy recommendations" I've seen just happens to fall under the recognized definition of "racism." My main point is that compassion and viewpoints like HBD are hard to mix; just look at the community and movement to see what I mean.

    And when I talk about guys like Jensen or Rushton or Lynn, whether they were motivated reasoners or not doesn't matter as much as whether they were right matters. However, it's naive to pretend that they weren't motivated by their personal beliefs.

  120. swank says:

    “I prefer gene-culture coevolution to ice age theories, but either way both are practically just so stories created to explain the obvious fact that Han Chinese are as a group cognitively more capable than Mayans.”

    So they’re the same people until they aren’t and culture isn’t responsible until it is. Clear as mud.

    “Ignoring your bizarre lack of historical knowledge. Romans…Anglos – seriously? The simple answer is that gene culture coevolution can have a big effect very quickly”

    Culture alone can “have a big effect very quickly,” too. The FE is not a genetic change. And “seriously” doesn’t count as a rebuttal.

    “I believe that this means that races can have different mean IQs which I also believe is easy to observe in the real world.”

    So you believe that certain racial groups are innately superior to others (unless you don’t attach any superior inferior quality to IQ). That is racism. It seems like it is you who “hasn’t begun” to think about the implications of these positions.

    “I do not believe that this is immutable, or that people are defined by the artifical category of race.

    However I do believe that when formulating public policy that this is important because if we ignore this then we are creating positions from even less perfect information than we have with it.”

    You don’t believe people are defined by the artificial category of race but you believe that the government should define people in such a way and craft policy in such a way.

    “It accepts difference.”

    Wrong. It states a reason for the differences and that the differences are innate.

    “Pretending that everyone is the same ”

    No one is “pretending that everyone is the same.” But since you are so keen on public policy recommendations, you may want to consider the fact that they are probably disproportionate to the evidence, which at this point, as you admit, is in the realm of just-so stories.

    “would not build an aircraft using nice fictions, yet all the older generations have spent the last 20 years building a society based on lies.”

    It’s been about 50 years since the Civil Rights Act. What policies, specifically, are “based on lies?” There is no current policy based on “everyone is equal.”

    Read More
  121. swank says:
    @Deduction

    The cold weather conditions that supposedly produced the superior Chinese mongoloids also apply to the Native Americans.
     
    I prefer gene-culture coevolution to ice age theories, but either way both are practically just so stories created to explain the obvious fact that Han Chinese are as a group cognitively more capable than Mayans.

    The point is that HBD treats now as if it were eternity. The Anglo sphere was composed of barbarians 1200 years ago. The Romans thought anglos were stupid and unfit for even slavery. The middle east gave rise to civilization; look at it and its IQ now only a few centuries after the Ottoman empire’s fall from grace.
     
    Ignoring your bizarre lack of historical knowledge. Romans...Anglos - seriously? The simple answer is that gene culture coevolution can have a big effect very quickly. Sterilise the stupid now and the next generation born will have fewer idiots!

    Not really. HBD = believing in innate superiority or inferiority based on race which is racism.
     
    Now I undestand you. You haven't begun to engage with the arguments here.

    I believe that genes matter and that individuals have different genes.

    I believe that we can divide humanity into any different categories and that some of these categories have generally observable differences in their genetic makeups.

    I believe that this means that races can have different mean IQs which I also believe is easy to observe in the real world.

    I do not believe that this is immutable, or that people are defined by the artifical category of race.

    However I do believe that when formulating public policy that this is important because if we ignore this then we are creating positions from even less perfect information than we have with it.

    I am ethnically mixed and have a Black African wife, you cannot scare me with your inane name calling.

    You’re not going to “improve the lives of people” by spreading a philosophy that accepts their innate inferiority as a people. Pick one or the other.
     
    It accepts difference. Pretending that everyone is the same is the reason we lost in Afghanistan. It is the reason why Africa is an aid blackhole. It is the reason why Black Americans spend so much time in jail. It is the reason why so many dumb decisions are made.

    This is because it is pretense. I would not build an aircraft using nice fictions, yet all the older generations have spent the last 20 years building a society based on lies. Well done guys - it is inevitably going to crash to the earth. Thanks...

    “I am ethnically mixed and have a Black African wife, you cannot scare me with your inane name calling.”

    Name-calling? I’m not saying “racism” or “racist” in a judgmental way. Most of HBD, especially in combination with the “policy recommendations” I’ve seen just happens to fall under the recognized definition of “racism.” My main point is that compassion and viewpoints like HBD are hard to mix; just look at the community and movement to see what I mean.

    And when I talk about guys like Jensen or Rushton or Lynn, whether they were motivated reasoners or not doesn’t matter as much as whether they were right matters. However, it’s naive to pretend that they weren’t motivated by their personal beliefs.

    Read More
  122. Deduction says:

    I don’t believe that this discussion is going anywhere. I don’t believe that you are trying to engage with my points at all. I believe, instead, that you are merely trying to score points by purposefully misinterpreting and misrepresenting what I am saying.

    That’s a shame.

    After all if we as a society stopped talking about nonsense like the legacy of slavery and all that, we might actually be able to create a society that benefits the cognitively less able. As opposed to consigning them to ghettos and avoiding them, like we do now, while the problems multiply.

    Western societies are coming apart. Civil Rights came in twice as long ago as I was born. So unfortunately I will have to live with the consequences of your delusions. Again, thank you…I really appreciate my social inheritance being thrown away so that those older than me can strike a fine moral posture and live in nice happy fantasies.

    I will make one final point. There is no insult to a black person in stating that black people tend to have a lower intelligence.

    Just as there is no insult to a man in stating that men tend to commit more violent crime.

    A critical mental flaw in contemporary social discourse is that people tend to take generalisations personally, which is the opposite of how they should be taken.

    Read More
    • Replies: @swank
    "I don’t believe that this discussion is going anywhere. I don’t believe that you are trying to engage with my points at all. "

    Which ones?

    "After all if we as a society stopped talking about nonsense like the legacy of slavery "

    Statements like this, characterizing a centuries-long directed effort at brutal oppression and its ideological justifications, the effects of which are still being felt around the world as "nonsense," make it hard for me to believe I've misinterpreted anything you have said.

    "we might actually be able to create a society that benefits the cognitively less able."

    Have we not already?

    "So unfortunately I will have to live with the consequences of your delusions. "

    Name some! Be specific.

    And what delusions? I wasn't around when the Civil Rights Act passed; it sounds like we are in the same age group. I may be younger than you.

    "There is no insult to a black person in stating that black people tend to have a lower intelligence.

    Just as there is no insult to a man in stating that men tend to commit more violent crime."

    Being violent and aggressive is considered part and parcel of "being a man." Being intelligent is considered the mark of humanity, and being innately unintelligent has historically been considered the mark of inhumanity. Apples and oranges. You say I lack knowledge of history, but you are the one who continues to brush it aside as if it is meaningless.

    "A critical mental flaw in contemporary social discourse is that people tend to take generalisations personally, which is the opposite of how they should be taken."

    You just said you wanted the government to make policy, that will apply to INDIVIDUALS, based on these generalizations. So they will be taking those generalizations "personally" regardless. And history has shown that, generally, people love to commit the ecological fallacy; when you combine that cognitive bias with the just world hypothesis, it makes for especially nasty treatment.
  123. swank says:
    @Deduction
    I don't believe that this discussion is going anywhere. I don't believe that you are trying to engage with my points at all. I believe, instead, that you are merely trying to score points by purposefully misinterpreting and misrepresenting what I am saying.

    That's a shame.

    After all if we as a society stopped talking about nonsense like the legacy of slavery and all that, we might actually be able to create a society that benefits the cognitively less able. As opposed to consigning them to ghettos and avoiding them, like we do now, while the problems multiply.

    Western societies are coming apart. Civil Rights came in twice as long ago as I was born. So unfortunately I will have to live with the consequences of your delusions. Again, thank you...I really appreciate my social inheritance being thrown away so that those older than me can strike a fine moral posture and live in nice happy fantasies.

    I will make one final point. There is no insult to a black person in stating that black people tend to have a lower intelligence.

    Just as there is no insult to a man in stating that men tend to commit more violent crime.

    A critical mental flaw in contemporary social discourse is that people tend to take generalisations personally, which is the opposite of how they should be taken.

    “I don’t believe that this discussion is going anywhere. I don’t believe that you are trying to engage with my points at all. ”

    Which ones?

    “After all if we as a society stopped talking about nonsense like the legacy of slavery ”

    Statements like this, characterizing a centuries-long directed effort at brutal oppression and its ideological justifications, the effects of which are still being felt around the world as “nonsense,” make it hard for me to believe I’ve misinterpreted anything you have said.

    “we might actually be able to create a society that benefits the cognitively less able.”

    Have we not already?

    “So unfortunately I will have to live with the consequences of your delusions. ”

    Name some! Be specific.

    And what delusions? I wasn’t around when the Civil Rights Act passed; it sounds like we are in the same age group. I may be younger than you.

    “There is no insult to a black person in stating that black people tend to have a lower intelligence.

    Just as there is no insult to a man in stating that men tend to commit more violent crime.”

    Being violent and aggressive is considered part and parcel of “being a man.” Being intelligent is considered the mark of humanity, and being innately unintelligent has historically been considered the mark of inhumanity. Apples and oranges. You say I lack knowledge of history, but you are the one who continues to brush it aside as if it is meaningless.

    “A critical mental flaw in contemporary social discourse is that people tend to take generalisations personally, which is the opposite of how they should be taken.”

    You just said you wanted the government to make policy, that will apply to INDIVIDUALS, based on these generalizations. So they will be taking those generalizations “personally” regardless. And history has shown that, generally, people love to commit the ecological fallacy; when you combine that cognitive bias with the just world hypothesis, it makes for especially nasty treatment.

    Read More
  124. Chuck says:
    @swank
    "Regarding 1), you originally said:"

    You're removing the context of my statements, and to be fair, my original statement was abbreviated. First, I implied that HBDers believe that higher IQ is an adaptation, as in, a trait that was selected for. As more context, HBDers hold that selection for it has been strong and accelerated in recent evolutionary time. Then I stated the general rule: "generally, that would remove variation from the selected population."

    Your only real quibble is with the strength of my language in (a). Me, you, and the authorities you cite all agree that while selection is ongoing, genetic variation and thus heritability will diminish. Knowing this rule and the claims made by HBDers, a high heritability of .7-.9, at first blush is incongruous with the claims. You say that in order for it to constitute evidence, one needs a laundry list of evidence that is never discussed by HBDers making the claims. I disagree. In the absence of that information and with the claims set forth as they are, a high heritability doesn't quite fit the narrative. Especially since HBDers also hold fast to heritability being just as high for blacks as it is for whites, even though white and Asian populations are supposed to have been the ones to have undergone this intense selection. If HBDers argue for an exception to the general rule, HBDers need to produce evidence on "original heritability, environmental variance," and etc.

    It's arguable whether the heritability at this point in evolutionary time must be "close to zero," so the heritability "not being very high" would be a better way to put it.

    "Regarding 4), again, by many species concepts infraspecific variation isn’t understood to be monophyletic — or cladistic in the same sense."

    If it isn't cladistic, then there's really no qualm with my first sentence...namely that the lack of monophyletic races ruins any attempt at cladistics. The authors you cite aren't arguing for a different definition of "clade."

    "propinquity of descent."

    The traits chosen to demarcate black and white were not chosen because of Darwin; they had been chosen before Darwin ever wrote his book and before natural selection was accepted or even heard of. Most people aren't thinking that deeply about the issue. Most people use learned culture and history to categorize the differences they see in populations.

    “Knowing this rule and the claims made by HBDers, a high heritability of .7-.9, at first blush is incongruous with the claims.”

    The narrow heritability is typically estimated at around 60%. The other genetic portion is some mix of active COV GE, epistasis, dominance, etc. Selection wouldn’t effect variance due to e.g., epistasis. For perspective, look at table 1 in “Prediction of Genetic Variance and Response for Selection on Own phenotype” http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~jvanderw/2014Day1e%20Variance.pdf If you really need me to I will explain it. Hopefully, though, the point will be obvious. Notice the variance, the magnitude of selection, and the effect of pauses.

    “If it isn’t cladistic, then there’s really no qualm with my first sentence…namely that the lack of monophyletic races ruins any attempt at cladistics.”

    Again it depends on what you mean. One can depict major human races as clades — this is often done — but they would be ‘fuzzy clades” in the sense of ones which experienced ongoing admixture. Because of this admixture, the divisions would not be “truly” monophyletic in the sense meant by Mayr, Hennig, etc. And insofar as the latter equated — and other equate — clades with monophyletic groups they would not be clades proper but rather genealogical networks which were stylized as these.

    “The traits chosen to demarcate black and white were not chosen because of Darwin”

    In the 1700s, the major human varieties were initially seen as environmental induced deviations from the species type. To explain why these deviations perpetuated their form abroad (e.g., why Europeans in African remained white), the idea of “race” or “lineage/breed” was imported into natural history (by the middle of the 18th century). So “races” qua races were, in fact, originally thought of as lineage-based divisions. But yes, when the groups were thought of as Linnean varieties — they were not understood genealogically. But recall, you originally said: “[T]here’s nothing special about the traits chosen to demarcate the” RACES. (Yet, the traits were supposed to — insofar as groups were thought of as races — cut out genealogical divisions.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @swank
    "The narrow heritability is typically estimated at around 60%. The other genetic portion"

    Yes, I referred earlier to H^2 v h^2. However, an h^2 of .6 is still incongruous with the "accelerating strong selection" idea. The effect you cite to is limited to modeling short-term selection patterns based on an original unselected population, where the key assumption is that a trait consisting of many alleles of small effect won't change much in frequency over a few generations, i.e. have a negligible impact on genetic variance. Thus, the only significant reduction in genetic variance introduced will come from linkage disequilibrium.

    We aren't talking about that. We are talking about long-term "accelerating" natural selection over at least 2000 generations where those assumptions don't hold.

    "Again it depends on what you mean."

    I mean only what I said. A clade by definition is monophyletic. I don't disagree that someone could call something a clade that is by definition not a clade. And the only reason to put such "genealogical networks" on a cladogram is to present them as something they are not: clades.

    "So “races” qua races were, in fact, originally thought of as lineage-based divisions."

    Race did not become a biological category until long after the 18th century and well in to the 19th. So, there wasn't any "lineage" concern. It was taxonomy by skin color and then other traits, and then later correlated with geography and then later attached to biology.

    "[T]here’s nothing special about the traits chosen to demarcate the” RACES."

    Many other suites of traits would "cut out genealogical divisions," as well.
  125. @Bob Woodwort
    The measurement and assessment of the average general mental ability of varied evolved African population groupings, is perhaps well informed by part of Prof. Howard Garber's Report (1988) on Heber's Milwaukee Project (Wikipedia has terse information on the Project) . It was a Project not so much to boost low IQ among children born to mentally retarded
    mothers in the Black inner city of Milwaukee--as to liberate the inborn potential of any of the 20 treatment subjects from erosion and destruction by severe environmental limitation. (By the mid 70's Arthur Jensen had conduct research on this "cumulative deficit" topic sufficient for him to revise his earlier view and conclude that significant (but no dramatic)
    IQ gains could come from children so situated if severely deprived environments were supplanted by normal levels of stimulations and of yoked child-mother interactions Garber makes the excellent point that undue/ premature/ concerns about overall group IQ comparisons, can deflect from the details of research that in carried forth with scientific
    objectivity and lack of political intrusion can likely define "IQ gain potential" in terms of specific population features--e.g., would introverted male children tend to have liberated IQ gains significantly greater than extraverted ones? Are children born to socially-emotionally responsive, if mentally retarded, mothers going to fare better than those born to MR mothers who are less socially and emotionally responsive. The broad brush can obscure more than it reveals.

    An off shoot question is why no academic studies were ever directed at the odd delays, delays, delays, in issuing the final Milwaukee Project Report. Garber--in as close contact as anyone associated with a Director (Heber) who was present about 5% of the time, and now and then, not routinely by any schedule--presented the final Report to Heber in about May 1980, as Heber was beginning to sense that he, Heber, might be under investigation (He was ). Heber brushed it aside on the pretext that a few additional comments were needed. By December 05, 1980, Heber had been banned from campus at US Mad(ison). In 1982--according to a local
    item in the Madison Capitol Journal, it had been submitted for publication. On Dec. 26, 1983, Milwaukee reporter Susan Trebacn, reported it had been submitted and accepted and would be published in the Spring ( 1984--indeed). Didn't happen. Her information was direct and impeccable. No explanation is known. By 1986, Prof. Ellis Page had published in a larger work ( Spitz) a lengthy culmination of his monitoring and research of the Milwaukee Project, giving it forth, not unjustly at the time, as an example of fraud. It is puzzling why the UW Mad(ison_) would appear "hands off" to such repeated delays, giving rise in 1986 to a then credible commentary suggesting fraud ( dissipated by Garber's 1988 detailed report ).

    The cluster of question marks about all this “international research” re low IQ / mental retardation from early release from parole on October 01, 1985 until 14 plane wreck deaths on Dec. 03, 1987, in Rwanda—these are questions that if the CIA did not know about at the time–or soon thereafter–would betoken a very very strange “gap” in CIA vigilance and awareness. The CIA was thoroughly into Rwanda and Zaire by early 1987 but was unable to stop what later resulted in genocide. Yet, somehow, the CIA just “went Ostrich” about experts in Black IQ / nature , nurture (see Wikipedia re “Milwaukee Project” ) going rather covertly into and out of Central Africa??? Doesn’t pass the credibility sense. Heber’s own very clever “disinformation” tricks would be the envy of most CIA field agents. (He had about seven or eight variations of his name; gave his date of birth in varied ways to suggest at times he was born Jan. 12, 1932 (he was) and at times on Dec. 01,1932 (he wasn’t); at times, he confessed to
    treatment of mental disorder in the spring and early summer of 1981; at times, he denied ever having mental treatment. He refused for 21 years to record with the University of Wisconsin at Madison his reportedly very large private and brilliantly carried out consultation and program
    design in mental retardation. (His design of the program for the nation of Egypt circa 1971 was engendered huge gratitude (in addition, no doubt, to huge consultation fees). If Heber had not been anchored to the CIA since , say, 1957 or so—the CIA sure as hell should have monitored him for years to be secure that he was not in the service of rival agencies of other governments. The CIA would have been hugely derelict in not having enough information to be assured that whatever was or was not going on circa October 1985–Dec. 1987–did not violate basic ethics
    about research upon humans, about informed consent of humans so studies, about any involvement–directly or indirectly–of US tax dollars. CIA Director John Brennan should get on top of this. True “affirmative action” was called for…yet is…to gain assurance that whatever happened did not violate basic research and human ethics.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bob Woodwort
    The prison records of Heber as thus far released, clearly suggest he never had any doubt at all
    as to whether he would remain in academic research (and probably in high paid consultation based upon a mastery of research and a skill in practical applications ). He never seems to have intended to depart from academe. A letter written in his behalf from the University of Gothenburg ( an entity of the University specializing in research in Europe and sub Sahara Africa on mental retardation ) in August 1981, just after he had been convicted on 13 felony counts, is glowing in it praise. It was written in the interest of a lenient sentence. Another letter, under the same letter head, written on March 01, 1985, is equally laudatory and offers him the position of Research Director. Neither letter contains any regard to his trial, conviction, or to academic misgivings about the Milwaukee Project, etc. The 1981 letter reveals Heber had been very active on that campus and his own reply to the March letter reveals he had spent a year on sabbatical at Gothenburg in the mid 60's. It is not clear how it became "common knowledge" in the US that Heber , after his conviction and sentencing, had never returned to academe. But it does betoken the astounding secrecy that he was accorded
    during 21 years at Madison.
  126. PB and J says:
    @swank
    Anglo refers to the people of British Isles descent. Caesar, in writing home, said of the Britons, “They are the most ignorant people I have ever conquered. They cannot be taught music.” Cicero, in writing to his friend Atticus, advised him not to buy slaves in England, “because,” said he, “they cannot be taught to read, and are the ugliest and most stupid race I ever saw.”

    There were no Anglos in the British Isles at the time of Julius Caesar’s conquests. They only arrived (meaningfully) hundreds of years later.

    Read More
  127. swank says:
    @Chuck
    "Knowing this rule and the claims made by HBDers, a high heritability of .7-.9, at first blush is incongruous with the claims."

    The narrow heritability is typically estimated at around 60%. The other genetic portion is some mix of active COV GE, epistasis, dominance, etc. Selection wouldn't effect variance due to e.g., epistasis. For perspective, look at table 1 in "Prediction of Genetic Variance and Response for Selection on Own phenotype" http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~jvanderw/2014Day1e%20Variance.pdf If you really need me to I will explain it. Hopefully, though, the point will be obvious. Notice the variance, the magnitude of selection, and the effect of pauses.

    “If it isn’t cladistic, then there’s really no qualm with my first sentence…namely that the lack of monophyletic races ruins any attempt at cladistics."

    Again it depends on what you mean. One can depict major human races as clades -- this is often done -- but they would be 'fuzzy clades" in the sense of ones which experienced ongoing admixture. Because of this admixture, the divisions would not be "truly" monophyletic in the sense meant by Mayr, Hennig, etc. And insofar as the latter equated -- and other equate -- clades with monophyletic groups they would not be clades proper but rather genealogical networks which were stylized as these.

    "The traits chosen to demarcate black and white were not chosen because of Darwin"

    In the 1700s, the major human varieties were initially seen as environmental induced deviations from the species type. To explain why these deviations perpetuated their form abroad (e.g., why Europeans in African remained white), the idea of "race" or "lineage/breed" was imported into natural history (by the middle of the 18th century). So "races" qua races were, in fact, originally thought of as lineage-based divisions. But yes, when the groups were thought of as Linnean varieties -- they were not understood genealogically. But recall, you originally said: "[T]here’s nothing special about the traits chosen to demarcate the" RACES. (Yet, the traits were supposed to -- insofar as groups were thought of as races -- cut out genealogical divisions.)

    “The narrow heritability is typically estimated at around 60%. The other genetic portion”

    Yes, I referred earlier to H^2 v h^2. However, an h^2 of .6 is still incongruous with the “accelerating strong selection” idea. The effect you cite to is limited to modeling short-term selection patterns based on an original unselected population, where the key assumption is that a trait consisting of many alleles of small effect won’t change much in frequency over a few generations, i.e. have a negligible impact on genetic variance. Thus, the only significant reduction in genetic variance introduced will come from linkage disequilibrium.

    We aren’t talking about that. We are talking about long-term “accelerating” natural selection over at least 2000 generations where those assumptions don’t hold.

    “Again it depends on what you mean.”

    I mean only what I said. A clade by definition is monophyletic. I don’t disagree that someone could call something a clade that is by definition not a clade. And the only reason to put such “genealogical networks” on a cladogram is to present them as something they are not: clades.

    “So “races” qua races were, in fact, originally thought of as lineage-based divisions.”

    Race did not become a biological category until long after the 18th century and well in to the 19th. So, there wasn’t any “lineage” concern. It was taxonomy by skin color and then other traits, and then later correlated with geography and then later attached to biology.

    “[T]here’s nothing special about the traits chosen to demarcate the” RACES.”

    Many other suites of traits would “cut out genealogical divisions,” as well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @swank
    consisting of many alleles of small effect won’t change much in frequency over a few generations

    Should be "selection on a trait"
  128. swank says:
    @swank
    "The narrow heritability is typically estimated at around 60%. The other genetic portion"

    Yes, I referred earlier to H^2 v h^2. However, an h^2 of .6 is still incongruous with the "accelerating strong selection" idea. The effect you cite to is limited to modeling short-term selection patterns based on an original unselected population, where the key assumption is that a trait consisting of many alleles of small effect won't change much in frequency over a few generations, i.e. have a negligible impact on genetic variance. Thus, the only significant reduction in genetic variance introduced will come from linkage disequilibrium.

    We aren't talking about that. We are talking about long-term "accelerating" natural selection over at least 2000 generations where those assumptions don't hold.

    "Again it depends on what you mean."

    I mean only what I said. A clade by definition is monophyletic. I don't disagree that someone could call something a clade that is by definition not a clade. And the only reason to put such "genealogical networks" on a cladogram is to present them as something they are not: clades.

    "So “races” qua races were, in fact, originally thought of as lineage-based divisions."

    Race did not become a biological category until long after the 18th century and well in to the 19th. So, there wasn't any "lineage" concern. It was taxonomy by skin color and then other traits, and then later correlated with geography and then later attached to biology.

    "[T]here’s nothing special about the traits chosen to demarcate the” RACES."

    Many other suites of traits would "cut out genealogical divisions," as well.

    consisting of many alleles of small effect won’t change much in frequency over a few generations

    Should be “selection on a trait”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chuck
    "We aren’t talking about that. We are talking about long-term “accelerating” natural selection over at least 2000 generations where those assumptions don’t hold."

    Get out of here. We are talking about differences in h2 due to differential selection for highly polygenic traits, such as general cognitive ability, differences which are, from an evolutionary perspective, of small magnitudes e.g., 1 SD. My point is simply that any variance change, resulting from differential selection, would be practically undetectable assuming continuous selection and practically non-existent assuming relaxation after selection. As for the number of generations, the relation between selection and h2 is curvilinear; after generation ~ 4, there is ~ no change. Bulmer's equation, for example, gives the following heritabilities per generation, assuming constant selection of 1 SD per generation and an initial h2 of 0.5, etc.: gen 0 = 0.500, gen 1 = 0.446, gen 2 = 0.432, gen 3 = 0.429, gen 4 = 0.428, gen infinity = 0.428. But we are not talking about artificial selection of 1 SD per generation, but rather ~ 1 SD in total and no one has specified that selection is continuous. In fact, HBDers constantly fret about dysgenics and relaxed selection in the West (e.g., Nyborg's "The decay of Western civilization: Double relaxed Darwinian selection"). I have nothing more to say on this topic. If you can't do the math that's your problem.

    "A clade by definition is monophyletic... And the only reason to put such “genealogical networks” on a cladogram is to present them as something they are not: clades."

    Try Velasco's (2012) "The future of systematics: tree thinking without the tree". If phylogenetic trees in general are not understood as idealized models, they are problematic because on all levels genic networks can be found. On the level of race -- and to a lesser extent species -- relations are just much less tree-like. Nonetheless, species and intraspecific lineages can still be represented cladistically. Whatever the case, race -- in the intraspecifc sense -- was never generally understood in a strict monophyletic or branchlike manner -- since racial admixture was always recognized.

    "Race did not become a biological category until long after the 18th century and well in to the 19th. So, there wasn’t any “lineage” concern. It was taxonomy by skin color and then other traits, and then later correlated with geography and then later attached to biology."

    More confusion. The concept of races, as genealogical-based divisions of a species, was imported into natural history in the 1700s. The term "races" was also used, in a more general sense, to describe both species and divisions of a species -- understood in terms of lineage. This is as one would expect since "race" was a French term which referred to both "lineages" and "breeds". In zoology, "race" never came to describe a taxonomic category -- rather "subspecies" did. "Subspecies" originally described the same thing that "races" (in the intraspecific sense) did, but latter the term was used to describe major divisions of a species, that is, major, formally recognized, races. Before race -- the concept and term -- was introduced into natural history, apart from higher order categories, there were just Linnean species and varieties. But, yes, before the human groups described as Linnean geographic varieties were understood as races, they were not understood in terms of lineage. They were understood to be environmentally induced degenerations from the species type which were defined in terms of e.g., skin color differences. When (roughly) these same groups were re-understood to be lineage based divisions, the once defining features were re-understood be to (lineage) indexing ones.

    If we understand these divisions to be ones in which individuals are arrange by propinquity of descent or genes which are identical by descent, we are limited with regards to how we can cut them out. But yes, some sets of traits do a better job at cutting out races than do others. And it is now appreciated that color does a particularly poor job. But please find a "race realist" who delineates races by color and groups, for example, dark colored Polynesians or South Asians with Black Africans on account of resemblance in this character.
  129. Chuck says:
    @swank
    consisting of many alleles of small effect won’t change much in frequency over a few generations

    Should be "selection on a trait"

    “We aren’t talking about that. We are talking about long-term “accelerating” natural selection over at least 2000 generations where those assumptions don’t hold.”

    Get out of here. We are talking about differences in h2 due to differential selection for highly polygenic traits, such as general cognitive ability, differences which are, from an evolutionary perspective, of small magnitudes e.g., 1 SD. My point is simply that any variance change, resulting from differential selection, would be practically undetectable assuming continuous selection and practically non-existent assuming relaxation after selection. As for the number of generations, the relation between selection and h2 is curvilinear; after generation ~ 4, there is ~ no change. Bulmer’s equation, for example, gives the following heritabilities per generation, assuming constant selection of 1 SD per generation and an initial h2 of 0.5, etc.: gen 0 = 0.500, gen 1 = 0.446, gen 2 = 0.432, gen 3 = 0.429, gen 4 = 0.428, gen infinity = 0.428. But we are not talking about artificial selection of 1 SD per generation, but rather ~ 1 SD in total and no one has specified that selection is continuous. In fact, HBDers constantly fret about dysgenics and relaxed selection in the West (e.g., Nyborg’s “The decay of Western civilization: Double relaxed Darwinian selection”). I have nothing more to say on this topic. If you can’t do the math that’s your problem.

    “A clade by definition is monophyletic… And the only reason to put such “genealogical networks” on a cladogram is to present them as something they are not: clades.”

    Try Velasco’s (2012) “The future of systematics: tree thinking without the tree”. If phylogenetic trees in general are not understood as idealized models, they are problematic because on all levels genic networks can be found. On the level of race — and to a lesser extent species — relations are just much less tree-like. Nonetheless, species and intraspecific lineages can still be represented cladistically. Whatever the case, race — in the intraspecifc sense — was never generally understood in a strict monophyletic or branchlike manner — since racial admixture was always recognized.

    “Race did not become a biological category until long after the 18th century and well in to the 19th. So, there wasn’t any “lineage” concern. It was taxonomy by skin color and then other traits, and then later correlated with geography and then later attached to biology.”

    More confusion. The concept of races, as genealogical-based divisions of a species, was imported into natural history in the 1700s. The term “races” was also used, in a more general sense, to describe both species and divisions of a species — understood in terms of lineage. This is as one would expect since “race” was a French term which referred to both “lineages” and “breeds”. In zoology, “race” never came to describe a taxonomic category — rather “subspecies” did. “Subspecies” originally described the same thing that “races” (in the intraspecific sense) did, but latter the term was used to describe major divisions of a species, that is, major, formally recognized, races. Before race — the concept and term — was introduced into natural history, apart from higher order categories, there were just Linnean species and varieties. But, yes, before the human groups described as Linnean geographic varieties were understood as races, they were not understood in terms of lineage. They were understood to be environmentally induced degenerations from the species type which were defined in terms of e.g., skin color differences. When (roughly) these same groups were re-understood to be lineage based divisions, the once defining features were re-understood be to (lineage) indexing ones.

    If we understand these divisions to be ones in which individuals are arrange by propinquity of descent or genes which are identical by descent, we are limited with regards to how we can cut them out. But yes, some sets of traits do a better job at cutting out races than do others. And it is now appreciated that color does a particularly poor job. But please find a “race realist” who delineates races by color and groups, for example, dark colored Polynesians or South Asians with Black Africans on account of resemblance in this character.

    Read More
    • Replies: @swank
    "Get out of here?" The infinitesimal model assumes an infinite population and a trait with infinite loci with infinitesimal effect, which is why the only variance reduction comes from LD, which itself converges relatively quickly. Even under weak selection, the original population's h^2 and characteristics, after a sufficient number of generations, will become useless for future prediction under the infinitesimal model. Hence, the reason that the infinitesimal model works well for modeling short-term selection response. In this situation, none of the assumptions are met --- incidentally, IQ is polygenic not "infinitely polygenic" --- and the sheer length of time, the strength of alleged selection, etc. mean that the variance has likely changed significantly. There's a reason fitness-related traits are associated with low h^2, and it's not because researchers say "ah, well in generation 3, 4, 5, 6...h^2 reduced to equilibrium and stayed there." It's because selection, over time in real populations, continually reduces genetic variance.

    You're using a model for apples on oranges. And yes, I am aware that HBDers say many contradictory things. And yes, no HBDer has "specified" much of anything....and in the absence of such specification, it is reasonable to default to the general rule. I'm actually fine with leaving it here, though; if you can't realize that your model is only as good as its assumptions, that's your problem :)

    "Try..."

    When the definition of clade changes, then races will be able to be represented as clades. You are just arguing for another exception to the general rule. I have never seen a race realist chart that reflects admixture or even attempts to add that convention. Instead, the races are presented as clades proper; why? To pass the races off as clades in the classic sense.

    "More confusion..."

    There is no confusion. You essentially admitted that at outset, the traits chosen to demarcate races had nothing to do with lineage. It only came to be associated with biology, i.e. descent, much later.

    "find a race realist..."

    The average individual in society categorizes mostly based on skin color, followed closely by hair type, especially in the United States.
  130. swank says:
    @Chuck
    "We aren’t talking about that. We are talking about long-term “accelerating” natural selection over at least 2000 generations where those assumptions don’t hold."

    Get out of here. We are talking about differences in h2 due to differential selection for highly polygenic traits, such as general cognitive ability, differences which are, from an evolutionary perspective, of small magnitudes e.g., 1 SD. My point is simply that any variance change, resulting from differential selection, would be practically undetectable assuming continuous selection and practically non-existent assuming relaxation after selection. As for the number of generations, the relation between selection and h2 is curvilinear; after generation ~ 4, there is ~ no change. Bulmer's equation, for example, gives the following heritabilities per generation, assuming constant selection of 1 SD per generation and an initial h2 of 0.5, etc.: gen 0 = 0.500, gen 1 = 0.446, gen 2 = 0.432, gen 3 = 0.429, gen 4 = 0.428, gen infinity = 0.428. But we are not talking about artificial selection of 1 SD per generation, but rather ~ 1 SD in total and no one has specified that selection is continuous. In fact, HBDers constantly fret about dysgenics and relaxed selection in the West (e.g., Nyborg's "The decay of Western civilization: Double relaxed Darwinian selection"). I have nothing more to say on this topic. If you can't do the math that's your problem.

    "A clade by definition is monophyletic... And the only reason to put such “genealogical networks” on a cladogram is to present them as something they are not: clades."

    Try Velasco's (2012) "The future of systematics: tree thinking without the tree". If phylogenetic trees in general are not understood as idealized models, they are problematic because on all levels genic networks can be found. On the level of race -- and to a lesser extent species -- relations are just much less tree-like. Nonetheless, species and intraspecific lineages can still be represented cladistically. Whatever the case, race -- in the intraspecifc sense -- was never generally understood in a strict monophyletic or branchlike manner -- since racial admixture was always recognized.

    "Race did not become a biological category until long after the 18th century and well in to the 19th. So, there wasn’t any “lineage” concern. It was taxonomy by skin color and then other traits, and then later correlated with geography and then later attached to biology."

    More confusion. The concept of races, as genealogical-based divisions of a species, was imported into natural history in the 1700s. The term "races" was also used, in a more general sense, to describe both species and divisions of a species -- understood in terms of lineage. This is as one would expect since "race" was a French term which referred to both "lineages" and "breeds". In zoology, "race" never came to describe a taxonomic category -- rather "subspecies" did. "Subspecies" originally described the same thing that "races" (in the intraspecific sense) did, but latter the term was used to describe major divisions of a species, that is, major, formally recognized, races. Before race -- the concept and term -- was introduced into natural history, apart from higher order categories, there were just Linnean species and varieties. But, yes, before the human groups described as Linnean geographic varieties were understood as races, they were not understood in terms of lineage. They were understood to be environmentally induced degenerations from the species type which were defined in terms of e.g., skin color differences. When (roughly) these same groups were re-understood to be lineage based divisions, the once defining features were re-understood be to (lineage) indexing ones.

    If we understand these divisions to be ones in which individuals are arrange by propinquity of descent or genes which are identical by descent, we are limited with regards to how we can cut them out. But yes, some sets of traits do a better job at cutting out races than do others. And it is now appreciated that color does a particularly poor job. But please find a "race realist" who delineates races by color and groups, for example, dark colored Polynesians or South Asians with Black Africans on account of resemblance in this character.

    “Get out of here?” The infinitesimal model assumes an infinite population and a trait with infinite loci with infinitesimal effect, which is why the only variance reduction comes from LD, which itself converges relatively quickly. Even under weak selection, the original population’s h^2 and characteristics, after a sufficient number of generations, will become useless for future prediction under the infinitesimal model. Hence, the reason that the infinitesimal model works well for modeling short-term selection response. In this situation, none of the assumptions are met — incidentally, IQ is polygenic not “infinitely polygenic” — and the sheer length of time, the strength of alleged selection, etc. mean that the variance has likely changed significantly. There’s a reason fitness-related traits are associated with low h^2, and it’s not because researchers say “ah, well in generation 3, 4, 5, 6…h^2 reduced to equilibrium and stayed there.” It’s because selection, over time in real populations, continually reduces genetic variance.

    You’re using a model for apples on oranges. And yes, I am aware that HBDers say many contradictory things. And yes, no HBDer has “specified” much of anything….and in the absence of such specification, it is reasonable to default to the general rule. I’m actually fine with leaving it here, though; if you can’t realize that your model is only as good as its assumptions, that’s your problem :)

    “Try…”

    When the definition of clade changes, then races will be able to be represented as clades. You are just arguing for another exception to the general rule. I have never seen a race realist chart that reflects admixture or even attempts to add that convention. Instead, the races are presented as clades proper; why? To pass the races off as clades in the classic sense.

    “More confusion…”

    There is no confusion. You essentially admitted that at outset, the traits chosen to demarcate races had nothing to do with lineage. It only came to be associated with biology, i.e. descent, much later.

    “find a race realist…”

    The average individual in society categorizes mostly based on skin color, followed closely by hair type, especially in the United States.

    Read More
  131. Chuck says:

    “The average individual in society categorizes mostly based on skin color…”

    You keep changing the topic. Originally, you discussed the purported views of “strong hereditarians”, now it’s the views of the “average individual in society”. If we are talking about the latter, how does what you say represent a critique of the former?

    “I have never seen a race realist chart that reflects admixture or even attempts to add that convention…”

    In Evo Bio, there is considerable disagreement on this issue (of how strictly to conceptualize clades). Thus, for example, Mishler and Brandon (2000) note “Hennig and later Nixon and Wheeler were correct in focusing on reticulation and the problem is caused for cladistics. Our opinion of the significance of this problem for the species question differs to some extent from theirs, however for the following reasons: (1) just as barriers to reticulation are often not complete, reticulation is not a complete barrier to cladistic analysis…”

    I don’t know what you mean by “a race realist chart”. I have a figure in a paper called “The Nature of Race” (over at open behavioral genetics), that “shows a more recent model of population flows, one that can be contrasted with the simplified cladogram presented in Figure 4.3″. This stuff about clades and networks in relation to race was discussed. The paper was peer reviewed by a couple of well published “strong hereditarians” (Peter Frost and Kevin MacDonald) and I sent it out to quite a few others for comments and no one objected on this point, so I can only imagine that they agreed on the matter. Maybe you are thinking of a different group then I am, though.

    Read More
    • Replies: @swank
    "You keep changing the topic."

    No, I'm not. The average strong hereditarian is not much different than the average individual. And HBDers generally give lip service to races-as-populations before meticulously analyzing data on "blacks" and "whites," and generally confining their analyses to those groups.

    "In Evo Bio, there is considerable disagreement on this issue"

    No, there isn't.

    "A clade is by definition monophyletic, meaning it contains one ancestor (which can be an organism, a population, or a species) and all its descendants."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clade

    "A clade is a grouping that includes a common ancestor and all the descendants (living and extinct) of that ancestor."
    http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/imagedetail.php?id=260&topic_id=&keywords=

    "a group of biological taxa (as species) that includes all descendants of one common ancestor"
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clade

    You're citing to a debate over cladistics in the context of "some degree of" reticulation; the human race has such a high degree of reticulation that there's no evidence of any incipient speciation --- i.e. cladistic branching. This gets back to the "tree-as-a-model," and model assumptions (unsurprisingly, again). With a small amount of reticulation, the model will be accurate. With a larger amount, it will be useless.

    If you represent human races on a cladogram while taking out the main useful feature of a cladogram --- monphyletic branching --- then you are not adding any informative content. In some situations, the reticulation may be slight enough for cladistic representation, but not when reticulate evolution seems to be extremely high within a group.

    In every case in which treeness has been tested for human populations, it has been rejected. In contrast, the evolutionary trees found throughout the human genetic literature, such as that portrayed in Figure 4, are simply invoked. There is no hypothesis testing, even though treeness or multiple lineages are testable hypotheses. Simply invoking conclusions without testing them is scientifically indefensible; yet, that is the norm for population trees in much of the human evolution literature.

    Many of the papers that portray human population trees caution in the text that the populations are not truly genetically isolated, but this makes the tree portrayal even less defensible as the authors are knowingly portraying human evolution in a false fashion. Moreover, it is socially irresponsible.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737365/

    And that is why race realists make their "charts" (they call them cladograms, but given the clear and unrefuted definition of a clade, they are not cladograms); they want to lend their divisions more scientific credibility than is warranted. Just like invoking a reticulation discussion that by its own terms probably doesn't apply to human races. Just like invoking a pop. gen model for short-term selection to supposedly long-term selection.
  132. swank says:
    @Chuck
    "The average individual in society categorizes mostly based on skin color..."

    You keep changing the topic. Originally, you discussed the purported views of "strong hereditarians", now it's the views of the "average individual in society". If we are talking about the latter, how does what you say represent a critique of the former?

    “I have never seen a race realist chart that reflects admixture or even attempts to add that convention..."

    In Evo Bio, there is considerable disagreement on this issue (of how strictly to conceptualize clades). Thus, for example, Mishler and Brandon (2000) note "Hennig and later Nixon and Wheeler were correct in focusing on reticulation and the problem is caused for cladistics. Our opinion of the significance of this problem for the species question differs to some extent from theirs, however for the following reasons: (1) just as barriers to reticulation are often not complete, reticulation is not a complete barrier to cladistic analysis..."

    I don't know what you mean by "a race realist chart". I have a figure in a paper called "The Nature of Race" (over at open behavioral genetics), that "shows a more recent model of population flows, one that can be contrasted with the simplified cladogram presented in Figure 4.3". This stuff about clades and networks in relation to race was discussed. The paper was peer reviewed by a couple of well published "strong hereditarians" (Peter Frost and Kevin MacDonald) and I sent it out to quite a few others for comments and no one objected on this point, so I can only imagine that they agreed on the matter. Maybe you are thinking of a different group then I am, though.

    “You keep changing the topic.”

    No, I’m not. The average strong hereditarian is not much different than the average individual. And HBDers generally give lip service to races-as-populations before meticulously analyzing data on “blacks” and “whites,” and generally confining their analyses to those groups.

    “In Evo Bio, there is considerable disagreement on this issue”

    No, there isn’t.

    “A clade is by definition monophyletic, meaning it contains one ancestor (which can be an organism, a population, or a species) and all its descendants.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clade

    “A clade is a grouping that includes a common ancestor and all the descendants (living and extinct) of that ancestor.”

    http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/imagedetail.php?id=260&topic_id=&keywords=

    “a group of biological taxa (as species) that includes all descendants of one common ancestor”

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clade

    You’re citing to a debate over cladistics in the context of “some degree of” reticulation; the human race has such a high degree of reticulation that there’s no evidence of any incipient speciation — i.e. cladistic branching. This gets back to the “tree-as-a-model,” and model assumptions (unsurprisingly, again). With a small amount of reticulation, the model will be accurate. With a larger amount, it will be useless.

    If you represent human races on a cladogram while taking out the main useful feature of a cladogram — monphyletic branching — then you are not adding any informative content. In some situations, the reticulation may be slight enough for cladistic representation, but not when reticulate evolution seems to be extremely high within a group.

    In every case in which treeness has been tested for human populations, it has been rejected. In contrast, the evolutionary trees found throughout the human genetic literature, such as that portrayed in Figure 4, are simply invoked. There is no hypothesis testing, even though treeness or multiple lineages are testable hypotheses. Simply invoking conclusions without testing them is scientifically indefensible; yet, that is the norm for population trees in much of the human evolution literature.

    Many of the papers that portray human population trees caution in the text that the populations are not truly genetically isolated, but this makes the tree portrayal even less defensible as the authors are knowingly portraying human evolution in a false fashion. Moreover, it is socially irresponsible.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737365/

    And that is why race realists make their “charts” (they call them cladograms, but given the clear and unrefuted definition of a clade, they are not cladograms); they want to lend their divisions more scientific credibility than is warranted. Just like invoking a reticulation discussion that by its own terms probably doesn’t apply to human races. Just like invoking a pop. gen model for short-term selection to supposedly long-term selection.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chuck
    "The average strong hereditarian is not much different than the average individual. And HBDers generally give lip service to races-as-populations before meticulously analyzing data on “blacks” and “whites,” and generally confining their analyses to those groups."

    I presume that the average "strong hereditarian" treats “black” and “white” Americans/British as socially defined ethnic groups (called "races") and sees theses groups as overlapping, to some degree, with genomically defined races ("genetic clusters"); these genomically defined races, in turn, are seen as being offshoots of two separate major fuzzy, infra-specific clades (called Negroids and Caucasoids). But, of course, I don't know what YOUR "average strong hereditarian" has in mind. Could you point me to some papers written by one?

    "You’re citing to a debate over cladistics in the context of “some degree of” reticulation; the human race has such a high degree of reticulation that there’s no evidence of any incipient speciation — i.e. cladistic branching... [Cite Templeton]."

    I already pointed you to Velasco (2012) who criticized Templeton on this very point:

    "[I]t has been argued that there has been so much admixture in human history that the concept of race makes no biological sense (Templeton 1998; but see Andreasen 2004). However, trees of human populations are quite useful for understanding major ancestral migratory events (Soares et al. 2009). Obviously there are migrations between human populations. But whether the amount of migration is “sufficient” to be best represented as collapsing the distinction between different lineages depends on what aspects of the lineages we are focusing on. For different inference purposes, different representations of genealogical history focusing on different aspects of that history are appropriate. Looking at trees of populations at the subspecific level, such as those of humans, is common in the growing field of phylogeography (Avise, 2000). This is a clear example of the superiority of the modeling defense of trees since if there were genetic isolation between these lineages they would represent different species. [Italics added.]"

    There are three points here worth reiterating:

    As divisions of a species, races have usually been understood in terms of genealogical networks. This idea goes back to Buffon and Duchesne (mid 1700s).

    Also such, yes, they don't form strict clades or linage branches (in the Hennig or Mayrian sense).

    Yet in biology "clades" are often used to represent major migration patterns, regardless of admixture and population flows. As noted by Velasco (2012), "Looking at trees of populations at the subspecific level, such as those of humans, is common in the growing field of phylogeography (Avise, 2000)." Thus if you google scholar "subspecies + clade" you will get numerous hits.

    But, yes, you can protest the sloppy term use. This, though, is a generic problem.

    "Just like invoking a reticulation discussion that by its own terms probably doesn’t apply to human races."

    What possibly do you mean here?

    "Just like invoking a pop. gen model for short-term selection to supposedly long-term selection."

    You seemed to have missed the point, which was that the difference in genetic variance (and thus heritability assuming constant environmental variance) would be a function of the amount of selection. Since the hypothetical genetic difference under consideration is only around 1 SD the difference in genetic variance must be relatively small; this is true whether the selection is stretched out for 400 generations -- at 0.0025 SD per generation -- or compacted into one.
  133. Word to the moderator: I don’t want to spam or troll, I just want my comment to be answered so I’m searching for the most recent and active post. I recently came across the pseudoscience of race and intelligence and I’m profoundly saddened by all these pseudo-scholars, self proclaimed specialists who don’t know anything about what they take as certainties. Questionning people’s intelligence is questionning their humanity and this is completely degrading and insulting. People should not allow themselves to do that when they don’t know what are the life experiences and realities of others individuals nor do it in genuine research approach. Feel free to edit that part…

    Evolution, heritability: Intelligence vs Height
    +Africa/North Eurasia comparative

    Please pardon my English, I am a French speaker from France and I haven’t wrote such a long piece in English for a while.

    _______________________________________

    As shown from twin studies and empirical observation, height is a highly heritable polygenic trait. We can all see that there are taller families and shorter families, yet when it comes to race, Nigerians have an average height similar to the Chinese, both are shorter than the Korean and the Senegalese who are much shorter than the Dutch but taller than the Portuguese. Not only are height averages overlapping between racial groups but they are also greatly instable over time and subjected to strong environemental influences, mainly nutrition and general health.

    The fact that racial groups may overlap in height or intelligence means that this traits have not been under the same environemental evolutionary pressures as visible racial characteristics. If Europeans had evolved into an intellectualy superior race in adaptation to their environement, then the most intelligent African could not be as intelligent as the less intelligent European, much as the lightest skinned non-albino African is always darker than the darkest skinned European. In addition, all individuals within a race should have very similar intellectual levels and intelligent Africans should be as rare as albinos.

    If the IQ gap does not come from evolution, then its genetic component is very speculative because apart from traits selected under environemental pressure, genetic variation greatly ignores racial categories (blood types are randomly distributed among races for instance) and most of it occures within a group, especially Subsaharan Africans who concentrate the vast majority of human genetic diversity.

    The only alleles suspected to be associated with intelligence that have been identified so far only give minimal advantage to their carriers and were found in quite small percentages of the studied populations. +3 IQ points for 10% of a group is only +0.3% for the whole group and the proportion is too small to argue for an evolutionary selective process.

    The hereditarians say that North Eurasians have developped a superior intelligence in order to survive in a colder and supposedly harsher climate. That only makes sense to them because they experience winter and know it as the tougher season in the latitudes wher they and their readers live. What they seem to ignore is that tropical and equatorial climates are harsh and hostile environements quite far from the postcard image that they have in mind.

    Endemic malaria, extreme heat combined with high humidity, low fertility of soils without chemicals…

    They believe that prehistoric African hunter gatherers lived in a kind of Eden Garden where everything was there for them to pick while actually, in the extreme biodiversity of the rainforest there are as many deadly plants as there are nutritive ones and all have to be found within countless of valueless plants or flora with ambivalent properties that can be beneficial or harmful depending on the quantity or the preparation. Hunting and orientation are also complicated by the low visibility in the dense rainforest, hunters most often chase game that they don’t see and must grab information from secondary sources to track their prey and then be able to find their way back to their camp. As a whole, a rainforest is one of the most complex and hostile environement that exists and that explains why most of the uncontacted tribes currently existing are in Amazonia, Borneo or Papua New Guinea. This is also from this environement that came the last evolution of the hominid family (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) that has remplaced archaic varieties that had been living under cold and temperate climates for millenas before. It is also there that the most intelligent non-human primates live

    In comparaison, Europe, even during ice ages presented less challenges: clear forests or open terrains, low diversity of wild foods, high availability of animals to hunt like mammoth, deers, hog… In the winter, there is still enough fungi, berries or insects to feed and sustain a hunter-gatherer population. During the ice ages when Europeans had to survive in the tundra or the taïga (the environments of the Inuits who are not really noticed for their achievments), Africans were subjected to severe drought that caused the desertification of most of the continent. I do belive that the absence of water is more problematic than low temperatures.

    So during the hunter-gatherer stage of human evolution, I see nothing that could have selected North Eurasians on the basis of intelligence whereas this is when evolution by natural selection had the most time to occure. The reason why intelligence can’t have been a naturally selected trait is that natural selection causes the potentially genetically gifted to die in infancy or shortly after puberty because they are phisically too weak to survive while mere brutes who are just smart enough to take part in hunting and gathering can thrive and reproduce. Remember that in these times, life expectancy was not over 30 years, infant mortality was terrific, the time for knowledge accumulation and transmission was short and individuals had little opportunity to express their individual IQ related skills, individuallity as a whole is actually meaningless in this type of societies.

    During agriculturalist stage, Europe and Noth-East Asia had fertile soils, moderate precipitations and a long growing season (winter is only 3 month) that give serious advantages for agricultural productivity. Moreover, these areas are shaped by narrow valleys and peninsulas that create the ideal conditions for high concentrations of populations that lead to more complex societies, all of this in a largely malaria-free environement. With such conditions for population growth (high availability and concentration of human capital) It is not surprising that Europe and East Asia ended up surpassing the Middle East in terms of civilizational development eventhough East Asia’s developpement appears quite inferior when we take its larger population and the much earlier begining of its civilization into account. In fact the most troubling with East Asia is the extreme staticity of its history.

    At the same time Subsaharan Africa has naturally oxyded low fertility soils, its seasons are extreme with 6 months of heavy rainfall and 6 months of drought when crops can’t grow, the only thing constant is heat, not the heat of a pleasant mediterranean summer but oven-like heat in the order of the fridge-like polar cold. Africa is a huge flat continental mass and that causes human dispersal instead of the concentration needed for social complexification. Have you ever noticed that large flat continental masses like pre-colonial Brazil,USA, Australia, Argentina or Siberia had limited civilizational development while the overcrowded Nile Valley, Honshu Island, Italy or Andine Altiplano had more complex societies ?

    But the worst of all I think is malaria, it even has altered the African genome giving better restistance but not immunity. Malaria is endemic, highly incapacitating and relapsing and Africa was almost under the constant conditions of a pandemic. While human concentration is crucial to civilization, human concentration also increases the incidence of malaria and the same goes for water : water from rivers and the even more dangerous static irrigation water. Europeans knew of Africa long before the Americas and yet could not colonize it, even India fell under their control before Africa and they had to wait until the developpement of anti-malarials to penetrate the interior of the continent. The Arabs have been in regular contact with Subsaharan Africa for centuries but could not establish themselves there either. To a lesser extent, tse-tse flies also impeded Africa’s development by the impossibility of keeping chattel in infested areas. Besides all of this, the slave trade contributed to maintaining very low population densities.

    Inspite of all of this, Africa, especially West Africa has made some appreciable achievements, the arts of the Ashanti, Igbos or Yorubas are quite remarkable, the Sahel had literate societies and exemples of monumental architecture. All those peoples have attained the iron age, manufactured textiles, created calendars, a lot have developped organized states and are absolutely not cavemen as you seem to believe. In contrast, pre-colonial Brazil or North America have remained very backward and took nothing from the Aztecs or the Incas, Neither did Siberian peoples who could have had contacts with China.

    Now Africa has great pains entering in the industrial age and its not suprising when we consider that before colonial rule became truly effective in the early 20th century african peoples only had on average reached the developement of the ancient Celtic peoples. Africa is experiencing the only one real big leap forwards that has ever happened in human history. You must realize that a country like Botswana came from a totally illiterate tribal society to a middle-income economy enjoying standards of living similar to Moldavia or Thaïland, all that in less that 100 years, and this happened in the context of an exceptional demographic boom that economic growth could not follow in many countries of this continent especially when 40-50% of the population is under age 15.

    But a country like Botswana is not just lucky for its diamonds, it is also endowed with a strong ethnic majority – the Setswana people – while most other African nations are mostly fictional, created by foreign powers ignoring ethnicities that are the strongest bases for common identification and stable government. Ethnic politics (tribalism), like racial politics consist in ruling by divide and prevent a development-focused leadership. What you must also aknowledge is that Africans don’t carry their lives like a burden, they know that people in other places have more material wealth but they are relatively contented with what they have and are not dedicating their lives to catching up with the west but failing because of inherent inferiority. They have just their own conceptions of what matters in life and deal resiliently with its hardships. If you only went to any country in Africa or met Africans overseas you would immediatly forget about the pretended mentally-retarded 70 average IQ or you would conclude that IQ has no meaning. Common folks there cope with life ingeniously and with great wisdom and I often wish the west could be a little more African-minded sometimes.

    Now it’s time to say a bit about the numbers, the average national IQs that the Pioneer Fund clique creates by selecting studies that fit their objectives and by producing estimations out of nowhere. First of all, serious researchers generally prefer first-hand data, this is not mandatory but when a real non-ideologic practical goal is pursued, this is better. When using second-hand data, scientists rather use studies from the same years and do not take data from various decades and then apply approximative statistical adjustments. More importantly, data selection must follow systematic methods and no double standard is acceptable, and this is the most criticizable aspect of the Pioneer Fund Clique’s pseudoscientifical efforts to demonstrate the undemonstrable. Examples of unsystematic selection are numerous and always intended to lower African or black Caribbean countries’ averages IQs while China’s well known unrepresentative PISA scores are found unquestionably relevant.

    It also seems like the Rushton, Jensen, Lynn and cie have magical powers since they have been able to find average IQs for impenetrable countries like North Korea or Somalia. Their argument is that IQ scores corelate so much between neighboring countries that it is possible to safely estimate the average IQ of a country by averaging that of its neighbors, but there are apparently exceptions to this rule like Haïti that without any data is given an IQ like it is million miles away from the Dominican Republic. Corelations between neighboring countries are various, GDP per capita, Climate, life expectancy, language family are relatively similar between neighboring countries, but since serious scientists are never trying to demonstrate the GDP of a race, the life expectancy of a race or the birth rate of a race, they do not create data for North Korea by averaging that of China and South Korea, they do not either create Mexican statistics with information from Indios and Metizos supplemented by Argentines to account for the white Mexican population.

    When data does not exist, it just does not exist and countries are put in the « no available data » category. Now I do not pretend that IQs should be equal around the world, it even makes no sense to me that Africans given their general health status and lower acces to education or many other first-world life improvements should magically be able to perform as well on IQ test as well fed Swedes, Chinese only-child cram schoolers or malaria-free Argentines. But I don’t trust Pioneer Fund’s IQ scores, and I do believe that the most intelligent people in the world are those who know that life is more than IQ and that humanity is more than races.

    So in the end, intelligence may be partly heritable, and I think we inherit it from parenting styles and by the adults who shape our future more than from our genes which in any case like for height can account for variability within a group but certainly not for variability between groups that we indentify by their adaptive traits. What the hereditarians really do not understand is that races are not million people large families that descend each one from distinct ancestors whose 160000xgrandchildren have evolved to become subspicies organizing their lives following their specific instincts.

    Read More
  134. Evolution, natural selection and transracial gene flow (+ a few words about Nigeria)

    Many hereditarians seem confused about the idea that races can’t be descended from distinct ancestor and that there is nothing like a black Eve, an Asian Eve and an European Eve. Their common claim is that we have been living separately for so many years that we know form different subspecies with particular and morphological and behavioral traits.

    First of all, as I said in my precedent comment, natural selection happens when an unfit individual is forbidden to reproduce while an advantaged one is given more chances to reproduce. The main factor that plays here is mortality. Mortality was very high in prehistorical times, life expectancy was around 30 and reaching the age of puberty was a privilege. What mattered then was not intelligence but resistance to environemental forces: white children in the tropics would die from sunburn at higher rate and be filtered from selection, black ones would be seriously weakened by D vitamin deficiency and those who developped a mutation for lighter skin would live longer and have at first “mixed race” children whose advantage would after generations of higher mortality of the darkest ones end up to select the whitest ones.

    Now, as you can expect from hunter gatherers, our ancestors where nomads, they they started to wander across Africa some 200 000 years ago and a small tribe of them left the continent to spread across the world replacing archaic men starting from about 60 000 years ago. Some claim that admixture happened but the Africans took over as a whole. Even smaller fractions of the exilees went back to the motherland in different waves that went to spread across Africa blending with the autochtonous as you can see from the haplogroups of the Y chromosome transmitted from father to son (map: ) .

    But these great migrations are only a small fraction of the population movements that have happened on a smaller geographical scale. Hunter gatherers often die at a significant distance from where their grandparents were born and in their wanderings, they encounter other groups. Most often, and that’s human nature, encounter with a foreigner is hostile. Defeated men get killed and their women (if they are found) become like sex-prisoners and gene flow occures between different populations. Every time one such interaction happens there can be intra-racial transmission of genetic markers with no selective value coming a very distant place and originating from an other race, only natural obstacle can limit or stop this flow.

    If by miracle a different race ends up in a significantly environement for which it has adapted (genetically and culturally) the chance that its traits persist are very low because 1) higher mortality will cause natural selection 2) the environment is unknown and one can be tempted by a fruit that is actually poisonous, another can be a little bit too careless or curious when encountering a snake 3) other hunter gatherers who know the terrain have an advantage over the intruders and will kill them or procreate and dilute their traits by admixture and racial uniformity over generations.

    The global distribution of the Y chromosome haplotypes is greatly transracial but correlates significantly with language families and sometimes with genetic disorders caused by other genes but originating from a particular population. For instance, Western European R1b indicates that the Spaniard, the French and people from the British Isles have a strong Iberian-Celtic ancestral base and have been superficially romanized or germanized. But R1b is also prevalent in the Lake Chad region in Africa where it coincides with Chadic speakers (related to Arabic, East African and North African languages) and shows traces of a migration from the middle East via the Nile Valley and people being pushed south by desertification after Sahara’s wet phase was over.

    Y chromosome haplotypes are the most culturally informative genetic markers that exist and they sometimes reach a 100% frequency in a given ethnicity. I can almost say that we speak this genetic mutations every day if we are from a non acculturated group. Unfortunately for the hereditarians, our intelligence is probably not carried by this gene because 1) it is only found in boys whereas girls follow approximately the same IQ patterns according to your data and 2) the Y chromosome is actually the smallest and genetically the poorest of all.

    Now, I really need to debunk your totally nonsense assertions about IQ based social stratification in history.

    After the transition to agriculture, men had more control over their environement and were somewhat less affected by natural selection. They lived longer, had better nutrition and were less susceptible to die from cold or heat because of improvments in their general standards of living. Longer life expectancy means longer time to accumulate knowledge and pass it to generations, and stability, food security led to less survival-focused communities that could put more effort into cultural and technical developpement. Yet, what mattered then was still not a great intelligence but as many offsprings as possible to use as farm hands. Agricultural societies tend to have an obsession for fecundity, fecundity of the soil, fecundity of women and nothing ever prevented rural dummies to reproduce at faster rate than more intellectually trained urbanites. The peasantry never had any need to raise children to become geniuses, especially when those at the top of the social ladder were not the most intelligent but the strongest.

    In the first forms of state organization, the elites emerged from the warrior castes and nobility has almost always been synonymous with the military. The lord offers security to the peasant in exchange for his subordination and a share of his harvest. The only type of government that would approximate your supposed IQcracy was theocracy but it came later and never was long lasting nor independant from the military, it only focused more on psychological control to subordinate the masses.

    In fact, it was not uncommon that unsophisticated barabarians took over brilliant but somewhat decadant civilizations by the simple fact of their destructive force to become the ruling elite. See the Macedonians over the Greeks, the Franks over the Gallo-Romans, the Manchu over the Chinese, the Arabs over the Byzantine, the Funj of Sennar over the Nubians… But these barbarians were often able to recognize the superiority of the conquered and assimilated in their culture except when they came with a prophetic message…

    For the most of pre-industrial era, the socio-evolutive pattern was more “copulate as much as you can and never forget that might makes right”. And now in the developped world, new social pressures have changed our reproductive strategies but who can seriously believe that people fall in love with their partner’s IQ ? Some may fall in love with money or power and they often come to regret their decision. As whole and over their lifetime,k the jock, the thug and the cheerleader get more sex than the geek and the bookworm who rather have to keep their right hand safe. If we follow the rules of natural selection or social biology, we must conclude that the Japanese are in the twilight of their evolutionary destiny. The Chinese are even worse since they follow this path by design with their one-child policy that makes them the first people organizing its self destruction…

    I also noticed your sudden intererst about the Igbo people and I find you extremely creative in making new unfounded theories about a black african average IQ niche.Well, I really think you need some historical insight about Nigeria.

    The reason why the Igbo enjoy a better socio-economic position in Nigeria is because of their historical commercial affinities with the British as their main provider of slaves in the Gulf of Guinea. It explains why so many African Americans have a great degree of Igbo ancestry. Further west, still in Nigeria, the Yorubas were the trading partners of the Portuguese and then the Brazilians. So for the British the Igbos were seen as allies while the Yorubas had dangerous affinities with a foreign colonial power. Further north, the Fulani-Hausa had a well established state: the Sokoto Caliphate. This muslim northerners had understood protectorate as protectorate and not as colony or province so they held on tight to their traditional state and even today, they are much less permeable to western influence. Boko Haram originates from their lands and grossly means “western education is sinfull” in Hausa.

    So the friendly Igbos were given a role of middlemen supplementing the colonial administration in the economic exploitation of Nigeria and clearly enjoyed an Igbo privilege in addition to living in the oil-rich region of Nigeria. And the main reason why Nigeria is such a mess is that it is a patchwork of subnationalities and that every discourse about national fraternity in this country is just completely hypocrite. Nigeria is not a nation and is never going to achieve a leadership comitted to equal economic developement for its people. the only person who had a low IQ was the one that defined Nigeria’s borders and decided to make it a country.

    If we except the very provincially minded Northern Nigerians and other muslims of the Sahel, middle class West Africans have an achievement thurst similar to the Indians and the Chinese. Their lower visibility overseas is due to 1) amalgamation with other blacks 2) absolute numbers: the Chinese and the Indians are more than 1.2 billions each while West Africa has only 0.4 billion inhabitants (40-50% of them under the age of 15) on an area that is roughly equal to the United States. The high achieving West Africans in the west are as representative of their home country population as the Indians. West Africa and India are at very similar levels of economic and social developpement, they just greatly differ in dimension and West Africa mainly consists in Nigeria + 20 neocolonial microstates. And just for your information, the middle class in Africa is not the top 1%, they reprensent a significant minority of the urban population and those who live modestly but decently are the majority. This continent is not a refugee camp.

    Still pardon my french, I promise that I will reboost my English if I become an habitual commenter on this site.

    Last word: you guys are fascinating, are you aware that your theories are religious in principle ?

    You are trying to make sense of things that you don’t even bother understanding correctly and create a whole mythology where genes are your gods, IQ the holly spirit, the Pioneer Fund your Holy Seat, its grantees your prophetes, hereditarian bloggers the exegetist priests, feeble minded recidivist commenters are your parishioners, inherent racial hierarchy is your dogma, the theory of cold climate adaptive intellectual advantage is your version of creation and scientific accuracy is your version of heresy.

    Moderator can edit that last part.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous
    Very well argued comments! Unfortunately, they will fall on deaf ears in these parts, not least because this is a somewhat old blog article and few people might still be reading comments here (yeah, 2 weeks is "old" in Blog World). Perhaps you could re-post (maybe a shorter version) on more current blog articles, preferably Sailer's (who is by far the most popular writer here.)
    , @PandaAtWar
    A well writtened post!

    Panda's suggestion is the same as Numinous - try to post it again in other most recent and hot HBD blog entries. (and wait to see how some more knowledgeable HBDers shred it apart piece by piece LoL )

    Panda doesn't have too much time here hence will only comment briefly on the points you raised regarding the Chinese/China/East Asia:


    1. Your analogy on height and intelligence has this crutial difference IMO: earth gravity seems to be the mother constraint on all heights, whereas it seems there is a lack of such a powerful force on general intelligence.

    2. therefore, your statement:


    The fact that racial groups may overlap in height or intelligence means that this traits have not been under the same environemental evolutionary pressures as visible racial characteristics.
     
    may not be true, because even though height or intelligence overlap each other, it doesn't necessarily mean they are under the same environemental evolutionary pressures. (see 1)

    3. therefore, your following assumption that:


    If the IQ gap does not come from evolution, then...
     
    may appear troublesome.


    4.


    The hereditarians say that North Eurasians have developped a superior intelligence in order to survive in a colder and supposedly harsher climate. That only makes sense to them because they experience winter and know it as the tougher season in the latitudes wher they and their readers live. What they seem to ignore is that tropical and equatorial climates are harsh and hostile environements quite far from the postcard image that they have in mind.
     
    At least 3 things here:
    A. the climates they each experiences eons ago may not be the climates you you see today...
    B. another crutial factor as well: widespread interbreeding with much larger brained Nearthentals for a long time
    C. if "Out of Africa" theory is not entirely correct, there would be many other "local races" of humans living in Asia and Europe at the same when some human groups "went out of Africa". So there could be some other layers of extra interbreeding as well.


    5.


    During agriculturalist stage, Europe and Noth-East Asia had fertile soils, moderate precipitations and a long growing season (winter is only 3 month) that give serious advantages for agricultural productivity.
     
    Yes, this advantage gave advantage on productivity, culture, etc, then gene-culture co-evolution accelerats more...

    But humans are not fools, everyone can see the lands were good and tried to get hold of it. The reason why NE Asia and Europeans took theses pieces of advantaged lands was the direct result of intense and prolonged fighting against all otehrs who tried to take the lands. e.g. Chinese historical records and myths both say that the ancestors of Han Chinese, Huang di and Yan di 2 tribes, were fighting intensely and for a loooong time against at least 2 or 3 dozens of different groups to get hold of central China fertile land in the very beginning and they beat them all - the losing ones were either killed off , chased away, or got assimilated to some extend . Needless to say, the winning side must have superior intelligence to start with.


    6.


    Africans were subjected to severe drought that caused the desertification of most of the continent. I do belive that the absence of water is more problematic than low temperatures.
     
    The lack of water was also one of the biggest problems with the ancestors of Han Chinese according to our historical records. Guess what? instead of complaining for thousands of years as some people have done, one of famous earlier Han Chinese ancestor tribe leaders has spent almost entire his life building dams to effectively control water AND floods - this became one of the most decroated things in earlier Han Chinese (pre)history - long before unified China was formed.


    7.


    It is not surprising that Europe and East Asia ended up surpassing the Middle East in terms of civilizational development eventhough East Asia’s developpement appears quite inferior when we take its larger population and the much earlier begining of its civilization into account. In fact the most troubling with East Asia is the extreme staticity of its history.
     
    Every groups have loved to have large population in any point of history, because large population means more powerful hence more chance of survival as a group.

    But the problem has always been CAN You Afford It?

    You need larger landmass (by conquering and defending), better agricultural technologies (e.g. grow varieties of food, irregation water control, invention of agricultural high tech tools, etc) for more food, in order to support that level of population, which were all heavily depending on the intelligence. Then you should now know why Han Chinese have become the largest? Actually han Chinese has been the largest racial group in almost entire written history of humans.

    If you wonder why "East Asia's development was inferior", you probably have never read the related basic knowledge in Wiki China and Wiki Chinese Civilisation to start with?

    8.


    ...Neither did Siberian peoples who could have had contacts with China.

     

    Not that mus for Siberians - that was teh very purpose of the Great Wall of China was built for.

    nevertheless, the Mongols gained a lot of high tech(e.g. crossbow), military strategies and tactics when fighting with Han Chinese fore centries in the control of the China heartland. No doubt some of these have been put into use when they fought their way into ME and Europe later...


    9.


    Examples of unsystematic selection are numerous and always intended to lower African or black Caribbean countries’ averages IQs while China’s well known unrepresentative PISA scores are found unquestionably relevant.
     
    How about every Chinese entities on the planet such as Singapore, HK, Taiwan, Macao, along with similar entities such as Korea and Japan, all had the similar PISA scores. Are they also "well known unrepresentative" and irrelevent?

    10.


    , it even makes no sense to me that Africans given their general health status and lower acces to education or many other first-world life improvements should magically be able to perform as well on IQ test as well fed Swedes, Chinese only-child cram schoolers or malaria-free Argentines.
     
    ROFL. Dunno the Swedes part, but to perform as well as the Chinese? You gotta be seriously day dreaming? You can bet your house that it's not gonna happen in your lifetime. LoL

    11.


    If we except the very provincially minded Northern Nigerians and other muslims of the Sahel, middle class West Africans have an achievement thurst similar to the Indians and the Chinese.
     
    Please, do not insult Chinese by lumping Chinese and Indians together as if they were in any way similar.

    Han Chinese have been the largest racial group holding together as a unified empire with continuous writtten history for thousands of years.

    Whereas there were no "Indians" and "India" until 1947 AD. Without the British, there would be no such a term and such as modern unified nation state like "India" or "Indians".

    Chinese and Indians , China and India, are polar-opposite in almost everything you can name of:

    they are from completely different racial groups, religions, cultures, languages, facial appearances, physical appearances, bone development stages, dental development stages, skulls, characteristics, personal traits, group mentalities, histories (Chinese have the longest written history on earth and that has been as a unified civilisation, whereas "Indians" barely had any written history until the British went over, with most of history being 100s of seperated small tribal groups. India is just a brand modern state granted to independence by the Queen of England in 1947), social cohesions, ... and average IQ levels, etc.

    Moreover, China´s 1,2 billion and India are fundamentally very different:

    China got 1,2 billiod (despite having 1-child policy and one of the lowest birth rates on earth), because historically the Han Chinese have always been the largest racial group in the world ( no prize now for guess why). India´s 1,2 billion population exploision, however, just like most parts of Sub Sahara Africa, has been come into being mostly post WWII, being the direct result of the assistance of the UN Aid and Medicare Programmes, countless NGOs and charities across the rest of the world. In fact India and Sub-Sahara Africa have been the single largest top 2 free Food Aid and Development Aid receivers of the UN and the World Bank since 1947, and ongoing!

    To lump (Han) Chinese and "Indians" ( or China and India) together by MSM bullshit (except some for obvious geopolitic- realpolitik purposes) is as laughable as to lump Germany and Morroco together (or USA and Mexico together) as if they were "twins". Actually Germany and Morroco have shared more similarities than China and India do historically, because at least the former pair all belong to general Caucasoid! And historically it was much easily for one to reach Morocco from Germany, than for one to reach India from China, hence Germany and Morocco have had more historical interchanges than China and India have ever had...


    Modern term Indians are actually just like the term Africans - both have been merely a geographic term, consisting of similar people but from 100s of different, seperate tribes, and have closer average IQ levels to each other.

    ...

    In the end, Panda thinks that there are many unbridgeable holes in your theory unfortunately.

    , @Chuck
    You are invited to post a condensed version of this essay in the forum section of Open Differential Psychology/Open Behavioral Genetics. When I have time, I will (constructively) critique it there.
    , @Anonymous
    If you were to multiply the number of West Africans in the West in high finance and scientific research by 5x. There still would be many more Indians in the West in those fields.

    However, India and West Africa are at similar development levels.

    India has a GDP per capita of about $1500 while West Africa would be about $1000.
  135. One discrete mystery re Heber has been why the award winning journalist expose articles by Rob Fixmer that were published in the Madison, Wisconsin, CAPITOL TIMES (1980-81, with some tailings into 1982 etc.) never were published or excerpted or commented on around the nation–especially in the “gown towns” having a large local newspaper readership of campus based people. R. J. Herrnstein was among the critics of the Milwaukee Project who made sidebar reference to this odd lack of general awareness about Heber’s downfall. A friend took a course about 1989 from a person getting a PhD at Madison about 1979 who had a faint intimation that “something” had happened to Heber but didn’t know what. Upon phone inquiry to people she knew who were still on campus at Madison, she found many of them had a “we don’t go there” posture about any mention of Heber.

    When the Bureau of Prisons was making a very thorough effort to get background information re Heber, an effort was made to get copies of Fixmer’s newspaper reports. They were available to BoP people in, near, Madison, but they “disappeared” when mailed BoP people where Heber was held in Texas. There appears to have been nothing ever in the Amarillo, Texas, newspapers re Heber’s trial and conviction–notwithstanding his leading “photo safaris” from there–that are now revealed to have involved research…not merely, or even mainly, tourist fun.

    Read More
  136. @Bob Woodwort
    The cluster of question marks about all this "international research" re low IQ / mental retardation from early release from parole on October 01, 1985 until 14 plane wreck deaths on Dec. 03, 1987, in Rwanda---these are questions that if the CIA did not know about at the time--or soon thereafter--would betoken a very very strange "gap" in CIA vigilance and awareness. The CIA was thoroughly into Rwanda and Zaire by early 1987 but was unable to stop what later resulted in genocide. Yet, somehow, the CIA just "went Ostrich" about experts in Black IQ / nature , nurture (see Wikipedia re "Milwaukee Project" ) going rather covertly into and out of Central Africa??? Doesn't pass the credibility sense. Heber's own very clever "disinformation" tricks would be the envy of most CIA field agents. (He had about seven or eight variations of his name; gave his date of birth in varied ways to suggest at times he was born Jan. 12, 1932 (he was) and at times on Dec. 01,1932 (he wasn't); at times, he confessed to
    treatment of mental disorder in the spring and early summer of 1981; at times, he denied ever having mental treatment. He refused for 21 years to record with the University of Wisconsin at Madison his reportedly very large private and brilliantly carried out consultation and program
    design in mental retardation. (His design of the program for the nation of Egypt circa 1971 was engendered huge gratitude (in addition, no doubt, to huge consultation fees). If Heber had not been anchored to the CIA since , say, 1957 or so---the CIA sure as hell should have monitored him for years to be secure that he was not in the service of rival agencies of other governments. The CIA would have been hugely derelict in not having enough information to be assured that whatever was or was not going on circa October 1985--Dec. 1987--did not violate basic ethics
    about research upon humans, about informed consent of humans so studies, about any involvement--directly or indirectly--of US tax dollars. CIA Director John Brennan should get on top of this. True "affirmative action" was called for...yet is...to gain assurance that whatever happened did not violate basic research and human ethics.

    The prison records of Heber as thus far released, clearly suggest he never had any doubt at all
    as to whether he would remain in academic research (and probably in high paid consultation based upon a mastery of research and a skill in practical applications ). He never seems to have intended to depart from academe. A letter written in his behalf from the University of Gothenburg ( an entity of the University specializing in research in Europe and sub Sahara Africa on mental retardation ) in August 1981, just after he had been convicted on 13 felony counts, is glowing in it praise. It was written in the interest of a lenient sentence. Another letter, under the same letter head, written on March 01, 1985, is equally laudatory and offers him the position of Research Director. Neither letter contains any regard to his trial, conviction, or to academic misgivings about the Milwaukee Project, etc. The 1981 letter reveals Heber had been very active on that campus and his own reply to the March letter reveals he had spent a year on sabbatical at Gothenburg in the mid 60′s. It is not clear how it became “common knowledge” in the US that Heber , after his conviction and sentencing, had never returned to academe. But it does betoken the astounding secrecy that he was accorded
    during 21 years at Madison.

    Read More
  137. Numinous says:
    @Anti-Hereditarian
    Evolution, natural selection and transracial gene flow (+ a few words about Nigeria)

    Many hereditarians seem confused about the idea that races can't be descended from distinct ancestor and that there is nothing like a black Eve, an Asian Eve and an European Eve. Their common claim is that we have been living separately for so many years that we know form different subspecies with particular and morphological and behavioral traits.

    First of all, as I said in my precedent comment, natural selection happens when an unfit individual is forbidden to reproduce while an advantaged one is given more chances to reproduce. The main factor that plays here is mortality. Mortality was very high in prehistorical times, life expectancy was around 30 and reaching the age of puberty was a privilege. What mattered then was not intelligence but resistance to environemental forces: white children in the tropics would die from sunburn at higher rate and be filtered from selection, black ones would be seriously weakened by D vitamin deficiency and those who developped a mutation for lighter skin would live longer and have at first "mixed race" children whose advantage would after generations of higher mortality of the darkest ones end up to select the whitest ones.

    Now, as you can expect from hunter gatherers, our ancestors where nomads, they they started to wander across Africa some 200 000 years ago and a small tribe of them left the continent to spread across the world replacing archaic men starting from about 60 000 years ago. Some claim that admixture happened but the Africans took over as a whole. Even smaller fractions of the exilees went back to the motherland in different waves that went to spread across Africa blending with the autochtonous as you can see from the haplogroups of the Y chromosome transmitted from father to son (map: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/World_Map_of_Y-DNA_Haplogroups.png ) .

    But these great migrations are only a small fraction of the population movements that have happened on a smaller geographical scale. Hunter gatherers often die at a significant distance from where their grandparents were born and in their wanderings, they encounter other groups. Most often, and that's human nature, encounter with a foreigner is hostile. Defeated men get killed and their women (if they are found) become like sex-prisoners and gene flow occures between different populations. Every time one such interaction happens there can be intra-racial transmission of genetic markers with no selective value coming a very distant place and originating from an other race, only natural obstacle can limit or stop this flow.

    If by miracle a different race ends up in a significantly environement for which it has adapted (genetically and culturally) the chance that its traits persist are very low because 1) higher mortality will cause natural selection 2) the environment is unknown and one can be tempted by a fruit that is actually poisonous, another can be a little bit too careless or curious when encountering a snake 3) other hunter gatherers who know the terrain have an advantage over the intruders and will kill them or procreate and dilute their traits by admixture and racial uniformity over generations.

    The global distribution of the Y chromosome haplotypes is greatly transracial but correlates significantly with language families and sometimes with genetic disorders caused by other genes but originating from a particular population. For instance, Western European R1b indicates that the Spaniard, the French and people from the British Isles have a strong Iberian-Celtic ancestral base and have been superficially romanized or germanized. But R1b is also prevalent in the Lake Chad region in Africa where it coincides with Chadic speakers (related to Arabic, East African and North African languages) and shows traces of a migration from the middle East via the Nile Valley and people being pushed south by desertification after Sahara's wet phase was over.

    Y chromosome haplotypes are the most culturally informative genetic markers that exist and they sometimes reach a 100% frequency in a given ethnicity. I can almost say that we speak this genetic mutations every day if we are from a non acculturated group. Unfortunately for the hereditarians, our intelligence is probably not carried by this gene because 1) it is only found in boys whereas girls follow approximately the same IQ patterns according to your data and 2) the Y chromosome is actually the smallest and genetically the poorest of all.

    Now, I really need to debunk your totally nonsense assertions about IQ based social stratification in history.

    After the transition to agriculture, men had more control over their environement and were somewhat less affected by natural selection. They lived longer, had better nutrition and were less susceptible to die from cold or heat because of improvments in their general standards of living. Longer life expectancy means longer time to accumulate knowledge and pass it to generations, and stability, food security led to less survival-focused communities that could put more effort into cultural and technical developpement. Yet, what mattered then was still not a great intelligence but as many offsprings as possible to use as farm hands. Agricultural societies tend to have an obsession for fecundity, fecundity of the soil, fecundity of women and nothing ever prevented rural dummies to reproduce at faster rate than more intellectually trained urbanites. The peasantry never had any need to raise children to become geniuses, especially when those at the top of the social ladder were not the most intelligent but the strongest.

    In the first forms of state organization, the elites emerged from the warrior castes and nobility has almost always been synonymous with the military. The lord offers security to the peasant in exchange for his subordination and a share of his harvest. The only type of government that would approximate your supposed IQcracy was theocracy but it came later and never was long lasting nor independant from the military, it only focused more on psychological control to subordinate the masses.

    In fact, it was not uncommon that unsophisticated barabarians took over brilliant but somewhat decadant civilizations by the simple fact of their destructive force to become the ruling elite. See the Macedonians over the Greeks, the Franks over the Gallo-Romans, the Manchu over the Chinese, the Arabs over the Byzantine, the Funj of Sennar over the Nubians... But these barbarians were often able to recognize the superiority of the conquered and assimilated in their culture except when they came with a prophetic message...

    For the most of pre-industrial era, the socio-evolutive pattern was more "copulate as much as you can and never forget that might makes right". And now in the developped world, new social pressures have changed our reproductive strategies but who can seriously believe that people fall in love with their partner's IQ ? Some may fall in love with money or power and they often come to regret their decision. As whole and over their lifetime,k the jock, the thug and the cheerleader get more sex than the geek and the bookworm who rather have to keep their right hand safe. If we follow the rules of natural selection or social biology, we must conclude that the Japanese are in the twilight of their evolutionary destiny. The Chinese are even worse since they follow this path by design with their one-child policy that makes them the first people organizing its self destruction...

    I also noticed your sudden intererst about the Igbo people and I find you extremely creative in making new unfounded theories about a black african average IQ niche.Well, I really think you need some historical insight about Nigeria.

    The reason why the Igbo enjoy a better socio-economic position in Nigeria is because of their historical commercial affinities with the British as their main provider of slaves in the Gulf of Guinea. It explains why so many African Americans have a great degree of Igbo ancestry. Further west, still in Nigeria, the Yorubas were the trading partners of the Portuguese and then the Brazilians. So for the British the Igbos were seen as allies while the Yorubas had dangerous affinities with a foreign colonial power. Further north, the Fulani-Hausa had a well established state: the Sokoto Caliphate. This muslim northerners had understood protectorate as protectorate and not as colony or province so they held on tight to their traditional state and even today, they are much less permeable to western influence. Boko Haram originates from their lands and grossly means "western education is sinfull" in Hausa.

    So the friendly Igbos were given a role of middlemen supplementing the colonial administration in the economic exploitation of Nigeria and clearly enjoyed an Igbo privilege in addition to living in the oil-rich region of Nigeria. And the main reason why Nigeria is such a mess is that it is a patchwork of subnationalities and that every discourse about national fraternity in this country is just completely hypocrite. Nigeria is not a nation and is never going to achieve a leadership comitted to equal economic developement for its people. the only person who had a low IQ was the one that defined Nigeria's borders and decided to make it a country.

    If we except the very provincially minded Northern Nigerians and other muslims of the Sahel, middle class West Africans have an achievement thurst similar to the Indians and the Chinese. Their lower visibility overseas is due to 1) amalgamation with other blacks 2) absolute numbers: the Chinese and the Indians are more than 1.2 billions each while West Africa has only 0.4 billion inhabitants (40-50% of them under the age of 15) on an area that is roughly equal to the United States. The high achieving West Africans in the west are as representative of their home country population as the Indians. West Africa and India are at very similar levels of economic and social developpement, they just greatly differ in dimension and West Africa mainly consists in Nigeria + 20 neocolonial microstates. And just for your information, the middle class in Africa is not the top 1%, they reprensent a significant minority of the urban population and those who live modestly but decently are the majority. This continent is not a refugee camp.


    Still pardon my french, I promise that I will reboost my English if I become an habitual commenter on this site.

    Last word: you guys are fascinating, are you aware that your theories are religious in principle ?

    You are trying to make sense of things that you don't even bother understanding correctly and create a whole mythology where genes are your gods, IQ the holly spirit, the Pioneer Fund your Holy Seat, its grantees your prophetes, hereditarian bloggers the exegetist priests, feeble minded recidivist commenters are your parishioners, inherent racial hierarchy is your dogma, the theory of cold climate adaptive intellectual advantage is your version of creation and scientific accuracy is your version of heresy.

    Moderator can edit that last part.

    Very well argued comments! Unfortunately, they will fall on deaf ears in these parts, not least because this is a somewhat old blog article and few people might still be reading comments here (yeah, 2 weeks is “old” in Blog World). Perhaps you could re-post (maybe a shorter version) on more current blog articles, preferably Sailer’s (who is by far the most popular writer here.)

    Read More
  138. @Anti-Hereditarian
    Evolution, natural selection and transracial gene flow (+ a few words about Nigeria)

    Many hereditarians seem confused about the idea that races can't be descended from distinct ancestor and that there is nothing like a black Eve, an Asian Eve and an European Eve. Their common claim is that we have been living separately for so many years that we know form different subspecies with particular and morphological and behavioral traits.

    First of all, as I said in my precedent comment, natural selection happens when an unfit individual is forbidden to reproduce while an advantaged one is given more chances to reproduce. The main factor that plays here is mortality. Mortality was very high in prehistorical times, life expectancy was around 30 and reaching the age of puberty was a privilege. What mattered then was not intelligence but resistance to environemental forces: white children in the tropics would die from sunburn at higher rate and be filtered from selection, black ones would be seriously weakened by D vitamin deficiency and those who developped a mutation for lighter skin would live longer and have at first "mixed race" children whose advantage would after generations of higher mortality of the darkest ones end up to select the whitest ones.

    Now, as you can expect from hunter gatherers, our ancestors where nomads, they they started to wander across Africa some 200 000 years ago and a small tribe of them left the continent to spread across the world replacing archaic men starting from about 60 000 years ago. Some claim that admixture happened but the Africans took over as a whole. Even smaller fractions of the exilees went back to the motherland in different waves that went to spread across Africa blending with the autochtonous as you can see from the haplogroups of the Y chromosome transmitted from father to son (map: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/World_Map_of_Y-DNA_Haplogroups.png ) .

    But these great migrations are only a small fraction of the population movements that have happened on a smaller geographical scale. Hunter gatherers often die at a significant distance from where their grandparents were born and in their wanderings, they encounter other groups. Most often, and that's human nature, encounter with a foreigner is hostile. Defeated men get killed and their women (if they are found) become like sex-prisoners and gene flow occures between different populations. Every time one such interaction happens there can be intra-racial transmission of genetic markers with no selective value coming a very distant place and originating from an other race, only natural obstacle can limit or stop this flow.

    If by miracle a different race ends up in a significantly environement for which it has adapted (genetically and culturally) the chance that its traits persist are very low because 1) higher mortality will cause natural selection 2) the environment is unknown and one can be tempted by a fruit that is actually poisonous, another can be a little bit too careless or curious when encountering a snake 3) other hunter gatherers who know the terrain have an advantage over the intruders and will kill them or procreate and dilute their traits by admixture and racial uniformity over generations.

    The global distribution of the Y chromosome haplotypes is greatly transracial but correlates significantly with language families and sometimes with genetic disorders caused by other genes but originating from a particular population. For instance, Western European R1b indicates that the Spaniard, the French and people from the British Isles have a strong Iberian-Celtic ancestral base and have been superficially romanized or germanized. But R1b is also prevalent in the Lake Chad region in Africa where it coincides with Chadic speakers (related to Arabic, East African and North African languages) and shows traces of a migration from the middle East via the Nile Valley and people being pushed south by desertification after Sahara's wet phase was over.

    Y chromosome haplotypes are the most culturally informative genetic markers that exist and they sometimes reach a 100% frequency in a given ethnicity. I can almost say that we speak this genetic mutations every day if we are from a non acculturated group. Unfortunately for the hereditarians, our intelligence is probably not carried by this gene because 1) it is only found in boys whereas girls follow approximately the same IQ patterns according to your data and 2) the Y chromosome is actually the smallest and genetically the poorest of all.

    Now, I really need to debunk your totally nonsense assertions about IQ based social stratification in history.

    After the transition to agriculture, men had more control over their environement and were somewhat less affected by natural selection. They lived longer, had better nutrition and were less susceptible to die from cold or heat because of improvments in their general standards of living. Longer life expectancy means longer time to accumulate knowledge and pass it to generations, and stability, food security led to less survival-focused communities that could put more effort into cultural and technical developpement. Yet, what mattered then was still not a great intelligence but as many offsprings as possible to use as farm hands. Agricultural societies tend to have an obsession for fecundity, fecundity of the soil, fecundity of women and nothing ever prevented rural dummies to reproduce at faster rate than more intellectually trained urbanites. The peasantry never had any need to raise children to become geniuses, especially when those at the top of the social ladder were not the most intelligent but the strongest.

    In the first forms of state organization, the elites emerged from the warrior castes and nobility has almost always been synonymous with the military. The lord offers security to the peasant in exchange for his subordination and a share of his harvest. The only type of government that would approximate your supposed IQcracy was theocracy but it came later and never was long lasting nor independant from the military, it only focused more on psychological control to subordinate the masses.

    In fact, it was not uncommon that unsophisticated barabarians took over brilliant but somewhat decadant civilizations by the simple fact of their destructive force to become the ruling elite. See the Macedonians over the Greeks, the Franks over the Gallo-Romans, the Manchu over the Chinese, the Arabs over the Byzantine, the Funj of Sennar over the Nubians... But these barbarians were often able to recognize the superiority of the conquered and assimilated in their culture except when they came with a prophetic message...

    For the most of pre-industrial era, the socio-evolutive pattern was more "copulate as much as you can and never forget that might makes right". And now in the developped world, new social pressures have changed our reproductive strategies but who can seriously believe that people fall in love with their partner's IQ ? Some may fall in love with money or power and they often come to regret their decision. As whole and over their lifetime,k the jock, the thug and the cheerleader get more sex than the geek and the bookworm who rather have to keep their right hand safe. If we follow the rules of natural selection or social biology, we must conclude that the Japanese are in the twilight of their evolutionary destiny. The Chinese are even worse since they follow this path by design with their one-child policy that makes them the first people organizing its self destruction...

    I also noticed your sudden intererst about the Igbo people and I find you extremely creative in making new unfounded theories about a black african average IQ niche.Well, I really think you need some historical insight about Nigeria.

    The reason why the Igbo enjoy a better socio-economic position in Nigeria is because of their historical commercial affinities with the British as their main provider of slaves in the Gulf of Guinea. It explains why so many African Americans have a great degree of Igbo ancestry. Further west, still in Nigeria, the Yorubas were the trading partners of the Portuguese and then the Brazilians. So for the British the Igbos were seen as allies while the Yorubas had dangerous affinities with a foreign colonial power. Further north, the Fulani-Hausa had a well established state: the Sokoto Caliphate. This muslim northerners had understood protectorate as protectorate and not as colony or province so they held on tight to their traditional state and even today, they are much less permeable to western influence. Boko Haram originates from their lands and grossly means "western education is sinfull" in Hausa.

    So the friendly Igbos were given a role of middlemen supplementing the colonial administration in the economic exploitation of Nigeria and clearly enjoyed an Igbo privilege in addition to living in the oil-rich region of Nigeria. And the main reason why Nigeria is such a mess is that it is a patchwork of subnationalities and that every discourse about national fraternity in this country is just completely hypocrite. Nigeria is not a nation and is never going to achieve a leadership comitted to equal economic developement for its people. the only person who had a low IQ was the one that defined Nigeria's borders and decided to make it a country.

    If we except the very provincially minded Northern Nigerians and other muslims of the Sahel, middle class West Africans have an achievement thurst similar to the Indians and the Chinese. Their lower visibility overseas is due to 1) amalgamation with other blacks 2) absolute numbers: the Chinese and the Indians are more than 1.2 billions each while West Africa has only 0.4 billion inhabitants (40-50% of them under the age of 15) on an area that is roughly equal to the United States. The high achieving West Africans in the west are as representative of their home country population as the Indians. West Africa and India are at very similar levels of economic and social developpement, they just greatly differ in dimension and West Africa mainly consists in Nigeria + 20 neocolonial microstates. And just for your information, the middle class in Africa is not the top 1%, they reprensent a significant minority of the urban population and those who live modestly but decently are the majority. This continent is not a refugee camp.


    Still pardon my french, I promise that I will reboost my English if I become an habitual commenter on this site.

    Last word: you guys are fascinating, are you aware that your theories are religious in principle ?

    You are trying to make sense of things that you don't even bother understanding correctly and create a whole mythology where genes are your gods, IQ the holly spirit, the Pioneer Fund your Holy Seat, its grantees your prophetes, hereditarian bloggers the exegetist priests, feeble minded recidivist commenters are your parishioners, inherent racial hierarchy is your dogma, the theory of cold climate adaptive intellectual advantage is your version of creation and scientific accuracy is your version of heresy.

    Moderator can edit that last part.

    A well writtened post!

    Panda’s suggestion is the same as Numinous – try to post it again in other most recent and hot HBD blog entries. (and wait to see how some more knowledgeable HBDers shred it apart piece by piece LoL )

    Panda doesn’t have too much time here hence will only comment briefly on the points you raised regarding the Chinese/China/East Asia:

    1. Your analogy on height and intelligence has this crutial difference IMO: earth gravity seems to be the mother constraint on all heights, whereas it seems there is a lack of such a powerful force on general intelligence.

    2. therefore, your statement:

    The fact that racial groups may overlap in height or intelligence means that this traits have not been under the same environemental evolutionary pressures as visible racial characteristics.

    may not be true, because even though height or intelligence overlap each other, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are under the same environemental evolutionary pressures. (see 1)

    3. therefore, your following assumption that:

    If the IQ gap does not come from evolution, then…

    may appear troublesome.

    4.

    The hereditarians say that North Eurasians have developped a superior intelligence in order to survive in a colder and supposedly harsher climate. That only makes sense to them because they experience winter and know it as the tougher season in the latitudes wher they and their readers live. What they seem to ignore is that tropical and equatorial climates are harsh and hostile environements quite far from the postcard image that they have in mind.

    At least 3 things here:
    A. the climates they each experiences eons ago may not be the climates you you see today…
    B. another crutial factor as well: widespread interbreeding with much larger brained Nearthentals for a long time
    C. if “Out of Africa” theory is not entirely correct, there would be many other “local races” of humans living in Asia and Europe at the same when some human groups “went out of Africa”. So there could be some other layers of extra interbreeding as well.

    5.

    During agriculturalist stage, Europe and Noth-East Asia had fertile soils, moderate precipitations and a long growing season (winter is only 3 month) that give serious advantages for agricultural productivity.

    Yes, this advantage gave advantage on productivity, culture, etc, then gene-culture co-evolution accelerats more…

    But humans are not fools, everyone can see the lands were good and tried to get hold of it. The reason why NE Asia and Europeans took theses pieces of advantaged lands was the direct result of intense and prolonged fighting against all otehrs who tried to take the lands. e.g. Chinese historical records and myths both say that the ancestors of Han Chinese, Huang di and Yan di 2 tribes, were fighting intensely and for a loooong time against at least 2 or 3 dozens of different groups to get hold of central China fertile land in the very beginning and they beat them all – the losing ones were either killed off , chased away, or got assimilated to some extend . Needless to say, the winning side must have superior intelligence to start with.

    6.

    Africans were subjected to severe drought that caused the desertification of most of the continent. I do belive that the absence of water is more problematic than low temperatures.

    The lack of water was also one of the biggest problems with the ancestors of Han Chinese according to our historical records. Guess what? instead of complaining for thousands of years as some people have done, one of famous earlier Han Chinese ancestor tribe leaders has spent almost entire his life building dams to effectively control water AND floods – this became one of the most decroated things in earlier Han Chinese (pre)history – long before unified China was formed.

    7.

    It is not surprising that Europe and East Asia ended up surpassing the Middle East in terms of civilizational development eventhough East Asia’s developpement appears quite inferior when we take its larger population and the much earlier begining of its civilization into account. In fact the most troubling with East Asia is the extreme staticity of its history.

    Every groups have loved to have large population in any point of history, because large population means more powerful hence more chance of survival as a group.

    But the problem has always been CAN You Afford It?

    You need larger landmass (by conquering and defending), better agricultural technologies (e.g. grow varieties of food, irregation water control, invention of agricultural high tech tools, etc) for more food, in order to support that level of population, which were all heavily depending on the intelligence. Then you should now know why Han Chinese have become the largest? Actually han Chinese has been the largest racial group in almost entire written history of humans.

    If you wonder why “East Asia’s development was inferior”, you probably have never read the related basic knowledge in Wiki China and Wiki Chinese Civilisation to start with?

    8.

    …Neither did Siberian peoples who could have had contacts with China.

    Not that mus for Siberians – that was teh very purpose of the Great Wall of China was built for.

    nevertheless, the Mongols gained a lot of high tech(e.g. crossbow), military strategies and tactics when fighting with Han Chinese fore centries in the control of the China heartland. No doubt some of these have been put into use when they fought their way into ME and Europe later…

    9.

    Examples of unsystematic selection are numerous and always intended to lower African or black Caribbean countries’ averages IQs while China’s well known unrepresentative PISA scores are found unquestionably relevant.

    How about every Chinese entities on the planet such as Singapore, HK, Taiwan, Macao, along with similar entities such as Korea and Japan, all had the similar PISA scores. Are they also “well known unrepresentative” and irrelevent?

    10.

    , it even makes no sense to me that Africans given their general health status and lower acces to education or many other first-world life improvements should magically be able to perform as well on IQ test as well fed Swedes, Chinese only-child cram schoolers or malaria-free Argentines.

    ROFL. Dunno the Swedes part, but to perform as well as the Chinese? You gotta be seriously day dreaming? You can bet your house that it’s not gonna happen in your lifetime. LoL

    11.

    If we except the very provincially minded Northern Nigerians and other muslims of the Sahel, middle class West Africans have an achievement thurst similar to the Indians and the Chinese.

    Please, do not insult Chinese by lumping Chinese and Indians together as if they were in any way similar.

    Han Chinese have been the largest racial group holding together as a unified empire with continuous writtten history for thousands of years.

    Whereas there were no “Indians” and “India” until 1947 AD. Without the British, there would be no such a term and such as modern unified nation state like “India” or “Indians”.

    Chinese and Indians , China and India, are polar-opposite in almost everything you can name of:

    they are from completely different racial groups, religions, cultures, languages, facial appearances, physical appearances, bone development stages, dental development stages, skulls, characteristics, personal traits, group mentalities, histories (Chinese have the longest written history on earth and that has been as a unified civilisation, whereas “Indians” barely had any written history until the British went over, with most of history being 100s of seperated small tribal groups. India is just a brand modern state granted to independence by the Queen of England in 1947), social cohesions, … and average IQ levels, etc.

    Moreover, China´s 1,2 billion and India are fundamentally very different:

    China got 1,2 billiod (despite having 1-child policy and one of the lowest birth rates on earth), because historically the Han Chinese have always been the largest racial group in the world ( no prize now for guess why). India´s 1,2 billion population exploision, however, just like most parts of Sub Sahara Africa, has been come into being mostly post WWII, being the direct result of the assistance of the UN Aid and Medicare Programmes, countless NGOs and charities across the rest of the world. In fact India and Sub-Sahara Africa have been the single largest top 2 free Food Aid and Development Aid receivers of the UN and the World Bank since 1947, and ongoing!

    To lump (Han) Chinese and “Indians” ( or China and India) together by MSM bullshit (except some for obvious geopolitic- realpolitik purposes) is as laughable as to lump Germany and Morroco together (or USA and Mexico together) as if they were “twins”. Actually Germany and Morroco have shared more similarities than China and India do historically, because at least the former pair all belong to general Caucasoid! And historically it was much easily for one to reach Morocco from Germany, than for one to reach India from China, hence Germany and Morocco have had more historical interchanges than China and India have ever had…

    Modern term Indians are actually just like the term Africans – both have been merely a geographic term, consisting of similar people but from 100s of different, seperate tribes, and have closer average IQ levels to each other.

    In the end, Panda thinks that there are many unbridgeable holes in your theory unfortunately.

    Read More
    • Replies: @swank
    (and wait to see how some more knowledgeable HBDers shred it apart piece by piece LoL

    Doubtful. HBDers don't have any hard evidence that the group mean difference between "blacks" and "whites" is even significantly genetic. They just don't understand that they lack this evidence.
    , @Numinous

    hence Germany and Morocco have had more historical interchanges than China and India have ever had…
     
    Buddhism?

    Modern term Indians are actually just like the term Africans – both have been merely a geographic term, consisting of similar people but from 100s of different, seperate tribes, and have closer average IQ levels to each other.
     
    Every "nation" that exists today is a geographical "term". Some are more assimilated than others. Some have more widely shared cultures than others. The rest is just semantics.

    There are indeed forest dwelling tribes in peninsular India, and in the north eastern borderlands. But referring to all other groups (guilds, castes) comprising the major part of the Indian population as "tribes" is profoundly mistaken. All these caste groups have, for about 3 millenia if not more, been symbiotically linked together in spite of (or perhaps because of) practicing endogamy. They each traditionally had their circumscribed sets of privileges as well as duties. From your vantage point (partly a very modern Enlightenment-derived one), endogamous groups seem like tribes to you because you have no understanding of Indian society or its history. But they aren't that separate. Could "India" well be a collection of nation states, like Africa is, or Christendom (Europe) is? Sure, but the basis would be ethno-linguistic. China could be a collection of nation states too, on that basis, though a lot fewer.

    And Indians do have historical memory; it was just transmitted orally, so is quite unreliable in places. Every piece of historical research done by the British, or every artefact dug up, was corroborated with a corresponding historical account/legend from the Vedas, Puranas, etc.

    It seems to be the fashion among modern Chinese to turn up their noses at Indians, who have demonstrably failed at modern governance after the breakdown of their traditional practices. Comparing themselves favorably to a dirty and disorganized country seems to boost their ego and make them ignore the horrendous corruption in their own political class and the environmental degradation that modernity has brought upon them.
  139. I give up on this conversation and I let the hereditarians conclude that I’m defeated.

    This conversation will lead nowhere simply because we have different perceptions about reality and have a different if not divergent conception of what makes sense and what does not.

    But the most important difference between the hereditarians and I is that I’m ready to change my mind whenever a gene is found to give each individual within a race the same level of cognitive ability (or with a verry narrow range of variation). The hereditarians on the contrary feel that they don’t need any direct proof to claim a fact irrefutable. That’s two conceptions of logic and they can never lead to any form of agreement.

    Read More
  140. swank says:
    @PandaAtWar
    A well writtened post!

    Panda's suggestion is the same as Numinous - try to post it again in other most recent and hot HBD blog entries. (and wait to see how some more knowledgeable HBDers shred it apart piece by piece LoL )

    Panda doesn't have too much time here hence will only comment briefly on the points you raised regarding the Chinese/China/East Asia:


    1. Your analogy on height and intelligence has this crutial difference IMO: earth gravity seems to be the mother constraint on all heights, whereas it seems there is a lack of such a powerful force on general intelligence.

    2. therefore, your statement:


    The fact that racial groups may overlap in height or intelligence means that this traits have not been under the same environemental evolutionary pressures as visible racial characteristics.
     
    may not be true, because even though height or intelligence overlap each other, it doesn't necessarily mean they are under the same environemental evolutionary pressures. (see 1)

    3. therefore, your following assumption that:


    If the IQ gap does not come from evolution, then...
     
    may appear troublesome.


    4.


    The hereditarians say that North Eurasians have developped a superior intelligence in order to survive in a colder and supposedly harsher climate. That only makes sense to them because they experience winter and know it as the tougher season in the latitudes wher they and their readers live. What they seem to ignore is that tropical and equatorial climates are harsh and hostile environements quite far from the postcard image that they have in mind.
     
    At least 3 things here:
    A. the climates they each experiences eons ago may not be the climates you you see today...
    B. another crutial factor as well: widespread interbreeding with much larger brained Nearthentals for a long time
    C. if "Out of Africa" theory is not entirely correct, there would be many other "local races" of humans living in Asia and Europe at the same when some human groups "went out of Africa". So there could be some other layers of extra interbreeding as well.


    5.


    During agriculturalist stage, Europe and Noth-East Asia had fertile soils, moderate precipitations and a long growing season (winter is only 3 month) that give serious advantages for agricultural productivity.
     
    Yes, this advantage gave advantage on productivity, culture, etc, then gene-culture co-evolution accelerats more...

    But humans are not fools, everyone can see the lands were good and tried to get hold of it. The reason why NE Asia and Europeans took theses pieces of advantaged lands was the direct result of intense and prolonged fighting against all otehrs who tried to take the lands. e.g. Chinese historical records and myths both say that the ancestors of Han Chinese, Huang di and Yan di 2 tribes, were fighting intensely and for a loooong time against at least 2 or 3 dozens of different groups to get hold of central China fertile land in the very beginning and they beat them all - the losing ones were either killed off , chased away, or got assimilated to some extend . Needless to say, the winning side must have superior intelligence to start with.


    6.


    Africans were subjected to severe drought that caused the desertification of most of the continent. I do belive that the absence of water is more problematic than low temperatures.
     
    The lack of water was also one of the biggest problems with the ancestors of Han Chinese according to our historical records. Guess what? instead of complaining for thousands of years as some people have done, one of famous earlier Han Chinese ancestor tribe leaders has spent almost entire his life building dams to effectively control water AND floods - this became one of the most decroated things in earlier Han Chinese (pre)history - long before unified China was formed.


    7.


    It is not surprising that Europe and East Asia ended up surpassing the Middle East in terms of civilizational development eventhough East Asia’s developpement appears quite inferior when we take its larger population and the much earlier begining of its civilization into account. In fact the most troubling with East Asia is the extreme staticity of its history.
     
    Every groups have loved to have large population in any point of history, because large population means more powerful hence more chance of survival as a group.

    But the problem has always been CAN You Afford It?

    You need larger landmass (by conquering and defending), better agricultural technologies (e.g. grow varieties of food, irregation water control, invention of agricultural high tech tools, etc) for more food, in order to support that level of population, which were all heavily depending on the intelligence. Then you should now know why Han Chinese have become the largest? Actually han Chinese has been the largest racial group in almost entire written history of humans.

    If you wonder why "East Asia's development was inferior", you probably have never read the related basic knowledge in Wiki China and Wiki Chinese Civilisation to start with?

    8.


    ...Neither did Siberian peoples who could have had contacts with China.

     

    Not that mus for Siberians - that was teh very purpose of the Great Wall of China was built for.

    nevertheless, the Mongols gained a lot of high tech(e.g. crossbow), military strategies and tactics when fighting with Han Chinese fore centries in the control of the China heartland. No doubt some of these have been put into use when they fought their way into ME and Europe later...


    9.


    Examples of unsystematic selection are numerous and always intended to lower African or black Caribbean countries’ averages IQs while China’s well known unrepresentative PISA scores are found unquestionably relevant.
     
    How about every Chinese entities on the planet such as Singapore, HK, Taiwan, Macao, along with similar entities such as Korea and Japan, all had the similar PISA scores. Are they also "well known unrepresentative" and irrelevent?

    10.


    , it even makes no sense to me that Africans given their general health status and lower acces to education or many other first-world life improvements should magically be able to perform as well on IQ test as well fed Swedes, Chinese only-child cram schoolers or malaria-free Argentines.
     
    ROFL. Dunno the Swedes part, but to perform as well as the Chinese? You gotta be seriously day dreaming? You can bet your house that it's not gonna happen in your lifetime. LoL

    11.


    If we except the very provincially minded Northern Nigerians and other muslims of the Sahel, middle class West Africans have an achievement thurst similar to the Indians and the Chinese.
     
    Please, do not insult Chinese by lumping Chinese and Indians together as if they were in any way similar.

    Han Chinese have been the largest racial group holding together as a unified empire with continuous writtten history for thousands of years.

    Whereas there were no "Indians" and "India" until 1947 AD. Without the British, there would be no such a term and such as modern unified nation state like "India" or "Indians".

    Chinese and Indians , China and India, are polar-opposite in almost everything you can name of:

    they are from completely different racial groups, religions, cultures, languages, facial appearances, physical appearances, bone development stages, dental development stages, skulls, characteristics, personal traits, group mentalities, histories (Chinese have the longest written history on earth and that has been as a unified civilisation, whereas "Indians" barely had any written history until the British went over, with most of history being 100s of seperated small tribal groups. India is just a brand modern state granted to independence by the Queen of England in 1947), social cohesions, ... and average IQ levels, etc.

    Moreover, China´s 1,2 billion and India are fundamentally very different:

    China got 1,2 billiod (despite having 1-child policy and one of the lowest birth rates on earth), because historically the Han Chinese have always been the largest racial group in the world ( no prize now for guess why). India´s 1,2 billion population exploision, however, just like most parts of Sub Sahara Africa, has been come into being mostly post WWII, being the direct result of the assistance of the UN Aid and Medicare Programmes, countless NGOs and charities across the rest of the world. In fact India and Sub-Sahara Africa have been the single largest top 2 free Food Aid and Development Aid receivers of the UN and the World Bank since 1947, and ongoing!

    To lump (Han) Chinese and "Indians" ( or China and India) together by MSM bullshit (except some for obvious geopolitic- realpolitik purposes) is as laughable as to lump Germany and Morroco together (or USA and Mexico together) as if they were "twins". Actually Germany and Morroco have shared more similarities than China and India do historically, because at least the former pair all belong to general Caucasoid! And historically it was much easily for one to reach Morocco from Germany, than for one to reach India from China, hence Germany and Morocco have had more historical interchanges than China and India have ever had...


    Modern term Indians are actually just like the term Africans - both have been merely a geographic term, consisting of similar people but from 100s of different, seperate tribes, and have closer average IQ levels to each other.

    ...

    In the end, Panda thinks that there are many unbridgeable holes in your theory unfortunately.

    (and wait to see how some more knowledgeable HBDers shred it apart piece by piece LoL

    Doubtful. HBDers don’t have any hard evidence that the group mean difference between “blacks” and “whites” is even significantly genetic. They just don’t understand that they lack this evidence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @PandaAtWar
    LoL. Are you telling a joke?

    Of course it's largely genetic.

    Since you've already admitted that there is a clear mean difference, how else you could explain the cocsistency of all genetic differences of the rest of 60 genetic traits (Rushton etc) remain almost intact with >200 years hisotory of Blacks living in the West, if not largely genetic for the brain as well? So all remain largely genetic only the brian mystically have switched to environmental? and for all people together? ROFL
  141. @Chuck
    "the evidence for high IQ amongst certain African ethnic groups such as the Igbo – are quite compelling"

    Did you bother to read the source papers e.g., "Raising the Achievement of Black African Pupils: Good Practice in Schools"?

    “Six secondary schools with a high number of Black African students that serve disadvantaged communities were selected for case studies. The case study schools’ GCSE results were exceptionally good.. Key criteria for the selection of schools were as follow:
    –an above‐average proportion of students who are eligible for free school meals
    –‘outstanding’ or ‘good with outstanding features’ grades overall in the most recent Ofsted inspection
    –exceptionally good results, high standards
    –sustained GCSE improvement over the last 10 years”

    Or to take a look at the sample sizes:

    “Of the 411 Black African students who took GCSE, 21% spoke English at home, 22% Yoruba, 13% Somali, 9% Twi‐Fante, 5% French, 4% Igbo, 4% Krio…”

    Compelling? Really?

    It is wise to focus “one bite at a time” on the astounding mystery world Rich Heber was allowed to cultivate and hide within during the 22 years he was (rather nominally, in a sense ) at U. of Wisconsin , Madison. One small matter would be an exact chronology concerning the preparation of the final Report of the Milwaukee Project. Local news items–especially attendant to the scandal that brought down Heber (and gave him two years in federal prison) –
    note that about May 1980, Prof. Howard Garber, working under Heber, brought to Heber, what he, Garber, considered the final Report–anticipating Heber’s approval and then the submission of the Report for publication. Garber had been in close communication with Heber–notwithstanding that Heber was often away and within contact only by phone or Fax, etc. The Report was noted by Heber, if a bit tersely, in an archival interview he was forced to give on May 14, 1979. Heber never gave interviews. In this instance, however, someone within the hierarchy at UW Madison (Prof. Glen Eye? ) directed Heber as an element of contract to
    submit to an archival interview. It is likely this was done, in reality, as part of what may have been an incipient investigation of Heber that ripened into his being banned from campus (Dec. 05, 1980) and indicted in federal court (April 1981) and prosecuted and convicted on 13 felony
    counts (July 1981). In the May 14, 1979, archival interview, Heber notes that the Report on the Milwaukee Project is being “pulled together” and that the massive detailed data from the Project have been under detailed analyses. By 1979, R. J. Herrnstein was among a growing
    number of academics bemused by the endless delays in providing data about the Project. In 1972, Professor Ellis Page had begun meticulously documented questioning about the lack of data from the Project vis a vis the glitzy journalistic claim ( in an article in a U.S. Office of Education publication that Heber had covertly arranged to be written) re the Project “Miracle in Milwaukee”. Thus, by May 14, 1979, Heber had plenty of reason to be “pulling together” the Report in a rather top priority fashion. In context, then, it is odd indeed that somehow Garber “fails” to include material that Heber–out of nowhere–suddenly decides in May 1980 needs to be added to what Garber had faithfully and very capably put together. In this connection, it is interesting to note from pre-sentencing interviews with Heber and other comments elicited from Heber via the federal judicial system upon his conviction on the 13 felony counts–that Heber had begun clearly to sense by April or May of 1980 that he was an object of investigation. He states in response to pre-sentence commentary elicited from him
    circa August 1981 that “for fifteen months ” he has been under great pressure from being an object of investigation. It is most likely that his imposing delay on the May submission for publication of the Milwaukee Project Report was determined by some sense of strategy re his situation rather than by any genuine sense that more information needed to be infused into the Report as presented by Garber. In a newspaper article, in 1982, Rob Fixmer–the investigative journalist whose articles re Heber left Heber in disgrace at UW Madison–noted that the Milwaukee Project Report was being submitted for publication. Yet it did not see publication. On Dec. 26, 1983, investigative reporter Susan Trebach, then writing for the Milwaukee Sentinel, published an article based on interviews with several persons that noted specifics of the Report that had been accepted for publication and would be formally published in the Spring of 1984. Details were given for what clearly was then a consummated publication agreement. Yet the Report was not published in 1984. By 1985 Herman Spitz book on research fraud was in an advanced stage of preparation and Prof. Ellis Page had pulled together his 13 years of meticulous investigation / questioning/ of the Project into a major contribution to that text. The Spitz book was published in 1986. Heber was killed in a yet mysterious plane wreck–along with his long time companion and research associate, Mary Alice Slater, on Dec. 03, 1987, Slater by that time, a prolific academic researcher of mental retardation, having gone from Madison to the Texas Tech University Health Science Center (Amarillo) in June 1984.
    Toward the end of 1988, the Report finally got into print. Arthur Jensen in a definitive review, while having some criticisms and reservations, was generally laudatory about Garber’s effort and the detail of it and the honesty and competence of it. But what is the “Cui Bono?” of
    all the delays???? And there is no overt indication that the University of Wisconsin at Madison was ever really much perturbed by the delays. And it appears the federal grantors of the $14 million that went into the Project were not militantly objecting to the Report delays. There is no indication Garber wished the Report delayed. Sooo?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bob Woodwort
    Documents recently obtained under the FOIA, clearly reveal that Heber for a long , long time had enormous influence at the University of Gothenburg. Upon his conviction (along with a co-defendant) on several felony accounts regarding mishandling funds--this jury decision on July 30, 1981--Heber sought letters of "recommendation" for sentencing leniency--no doubt to try to escape having to serve time and thus to be permitted to resume academic work likely at Gothenburg. At the U. of Gothenburg for some time there had been in operation an entity for conducting international research in "cultural familial" mental retardation. Heber had contributed a lot of time and effort---just apparently on a personal basis and not as any commercial consultation--to aid this entity, IDRERI. Heber had spent a year at the U. of Gothenburg back in the mid-60's--his first sabbatical. A letter written under IDRERI and U. of Gothenburg letter head on August 18, 1981, greatly praises Heber and notes his very central importance in the creation and development of IDRERI. It was signed by IDRERI then vice-president. The letter contains no indication of interest about the trial and conviction or the investigative journalism exposes of Rob Fixmer or of several years of questioning about the Milwaukee Project and Heber's delays and denials of research data from that Project. The
    letter affirms a totally high regard for Heber and an affirmation that his conduct at Gothenburg had never given any basis to suspect him of wrongdoing, etc. Under this same letter head, the then semi-retired Swedish political wrote Heber on March 01, 1985, offering Heber the position of Research Director of IDRERI--either half or full time, to Heber's preference. It is equally laudatory. And it, too, has utterly no reservations about...or even mention of...his trial and conviction and prison time. The letter does note that IDRERI is financed from corporate donations and notes the Swedish auto maker (Hdq in Gothenburg ) as a donor.
    The letter notes that part of the Research Director position will involve extensive travel into and out of sub Sahara Africa, as well as much travel within Europe. Heber's oblique letter of desired acceptance (subject to his gaining early release from parole ) does note the position as
    involving " a major research project"---clearly indicating Heber envisioned the role as devoted to a single major project. Heber's letter also mentions Volvo as a source of financing for the undertaking. Heber notes that he will be working half time as Research Dircector and will continue working half time with Tom Askelson/ Askelson Associates / on Askelson's cognitively stimulating carpet designs for inlaid carpeting in mental retardation centers, hospitals, etc. Askelson was one of the 14 victims of the Rwanda plane crash that killed Heber and Slater and others mostly directly or indirectly linked to research at Texas Tech University Health Science Center, where Slater was a very prolific researcher--having come there from U. of Wisconsin, Madison, in June 1984.

    Documents relevant to Heber's prison time, reveal that Slater visited him in prison, almost certainly as soon as he arrived at Bastrop, if not in the various previous "way stations" within the Bureau of Prisons ? But in September 1982, after Heber had been transferred at his Request to the more thoroughly "country club" prison of Big Spring, Texas, Slater came in the company of an official of the Swedish Educational Ministry to visit Heber on three consecutive days. Other documents reveal that Askelson had originally designed his product and set up his company after communication with, and interface with, the Waisman Center at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, that Heber had Directed (He was responsible for the legislation that funded that and about 12 other similar centers ) until he was banned from campus on Dec. 03, 1980. Slater and Askelson, then, almost certainly were involved in the Askelson Associates, as was Heber after gaining half-way-house-status in Dec. 1983. And Heber continued with Askelson (devoting half time to his, Heber's, Arabian horse "Ranchera" near Colorado Springs ) after this time and on apparently until they were both killed, along with Slater, in the Dec. 03,
    1987, plane crash.

    There is a very clear coalescence of purpose in all this that seems to revolve around the IDRERI operation within the University of Gothenburg. But aside from getting away from U.S. government grants by way of having Volvo grants--Heber seems at IDRERI to be right back into Mystery Land--traveling enormously, doing projects that seem to have no overt description, etc. If he was whispered at Madison (Fixmer's reporting) to be "the Howard Hughes of Academe" , he certainly upon early release from parole (October 1985) resumed that role linked to IDRERI .

    The letter under IDRERI and U. of Gothenburg letter head of March 01, 1985, clearly emphasizes that significant research in mental retardation/ low IQ/ will be done in sub Sahara Africa, involving a lot of travel there. While both the "photo safaris" of 1986 and the fatal one of 1987 out of TTU Amarillo would seem on the surface to be typical tourist "photo safaris", the obit of Mary Alice Slater, informed by both her sisters, and published in her home town newspaper of Minto , N.D., clearly notes that the fatal excursion saliently involved research and photography attendant to research. And the eulogy delivered in Amarillo by Slater's immediate superior, Dr. Tom Hale, M.D., clearly noted that at the time of death Slater had four research papers almost completed for submission for publication.. He firmly committed that they would be finished out and published. Yet to date, no one knows of any one of them having been published. There is no basis for doubting Dr. Hale's sincerity of commitment. There is no yet detected overt indication of what they were about or whether they were published in another language, etc.

    The over arching problem--and for Volvo Corporation , in particular---is that the lack of information about what was and was not going on with Heber from October 1985 through Dec. 03, 1987, is simply ethically intolerable. The relevant portions of the Nuremberg tribunals and the Helsinki accords, and APA standards, etc. all clearly demand AFFIRMATIVE ACTION is making at least some information publicly accessible as to whether research involving human subjects was carried out and whether informed consent to any degree was obtained; whether US grant funds were indirectly utilized, etc.

    Prison documents reveal the pervasive extent to which Heber practiced rather reflexively deceptions and misinformation. Yet there is reason to believe that in his basic role of high fee consultation re program design, etc. concerning mental retardation (He had set up programs for the governments of Egypt and Tunisia, among other nations ) he was strictly
    direct and above board. There is some sense, in Churchill's memorable phrase, of "lies that protect the truth". ? But he deliberately plays upon the distinctions between European and American ways of listing birthdates. He was born Jan. 12, 1932, in Winnipeg, Manitoba, but when it is possible to do so, he lists his birthdate so that it is interpreted in the US as "Dec. 12, 1932, and even his current Colorado Driver's License listed his birthdate as "Dec. 12, 1932". He had about six variants of his name: Rick Franz/ Franz R. / Richard Franz / etc. He lists the year of his divorce from his first wife as 1962. He knew very well, it was 1964, in Madison.

    It is very difficult to imagine that national security entities--whether the FBI or CIA, etc.--would not have either been involved with Heber as an asset or been involved with monitoring him in case he was connected to rival powers. It is astounding how he led such a secretive life for 22 years at Madison and was right back into Shadow Land in Sweden/ Africa/ upon release from parole.

    , @Bob Woodwort
    Information recently attained under FOIA re Rick (Franz) Heber's prison time, helps reveal why some very perceptive people--e.g. Prof. Ellis Page; Prof. Cecil Reynolds; Prof. R. J. Herrnstein; and many others--had a lot of reservations about anything Heber was linked to. Heber, in responding / "responding"/ to pre-sentencing interviews after his conviction on 13 felony counts of juggling money in July 1981, reveals himself to be reflexively disposed to misinformation, dissembling, etc. Born in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada on January 12, 1093, he has misinfo fun by confusing European and American renditions of such a date---thus he
    manages to introduce onto his Colorado DL (in the name of Franz Richard Heber, btw ) a Dob of Dec. 01, 1932. He used many variations of his name. His name probably was "morphed" a bit (?) when he took American citizenship. His Canadian birth name was Richard Frank Heber.
    After , if not before?, his mother's death in the summer of 1955, he began to drop "Frank" and become "Franz". He was variously Franz R. Heber; Rick F. Heber; Richard F. Heber; F. Richard Heber, etc. He was dismissed from his administrative positon as Director of the Waisman Center at UW Madison on Dec. 03, 1980, and banned from campus. His tenured faculty position, however, presented more obstacles to dismissal. Accordingly, after his trial, he announced he would appeal and did appeal. But he also tendered a resignation from the tenured position. UW Madison appears to have accepted the resignation in early August 1981. Heber a couple of years later asserts he took a leave of absence from UW Madison in Dec. 1980 because of his emotional upset over knowing he was being investigated. His "leave" was a ban on stepping foot on campus (other than in custody to get his mail ). He asserts he resigned from his prestigious position as Waisman Director in August 1981. He forgets to mention to his pre-sentencing interviewer that he had been married before his then current marriage. He had four children with a woman he married in September 1953 in Fayetteville, AR. He refused to have any personal contact with her or the children but did from time to time send them cards and small presents. When the older child, himself in Wisconsin for some Project or something, looked Heber up to visit with him, Heber sent him away. Heber claimed he had been divorced from his first wife in 1962; he was divorced in 1964, to take effect in 1966. He could not recall the exact year his mother died, although he had been in Manitoba for months before she died in order,, in part, to be near her. He told his interviewer that his mother had come from Sweden to Canada. While it is true his father was born in Austria , just over the German border, his mother was born in Saskatchewan. Thus, the interview dismissed making contact with any of Heber's maternal aunts or uncles. In fact, his mother had four brothers born in Saskatchewan and at least one sister. These deception games seem reflexive and are all serving the purpose of making it very difficult for anyone to get accurate and detailed information of any sort about him. The sentencing comments about him both at his own sentencing on October 30, 1981, and on Dec. 22, 1982, at the exoneration "sentencing" of his underling , Howard Garber--are scathing in their portrayal of Heber as a psychopath aiming only at his own wealth and gratification and having no genuine concern for the risks he puts others at in his own selfish strategies. In this context, it is amazing that Texas Tech University and the University of Gothenburg and the Volvo Corporation (Corporate donor to the U of Gothenburg IDRERI research entity Heber was Director of from October 1985 until presumably his death on Dec. 03, 1987 ) all seemed oblivious to his trial and prison sentence and the award winning expose articles about Heber by then Madison Capitol Journal writer, Rob Fixmer. One is left with the keen sense that the Dallas FBI Field Office , either at its own preference or from order higher up in the American national security apparatus ? , seemed to be "all Ostrich" about Heber when he was a "tour guide" for "photo safaris" from TTU Amarillo in 1986 and on the fatal one of 1987. As noted, the obit for Mary Alice Slater, his long time close collaborator and associate, was entered into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD--SENATE for Dec. 11, 1987, at about page 35285 or so. It establishes that whatever "photo safari" was involved, the salient purpose of the excursions was research (research re low IQ and mental retardation ). Two universities are left to plead "ignorance" as an excuse. Hmmmm.
  142. @Bob Woodwort
    It is wise to focus "one bite at a time" on the astounding mystery world Rich Heber was allowed to cultivate and hide within during the 22 years he was (rather nominally, in a sense ) at U. of Wisconsin , Madison. One small matter would be an exact chronology concerning the preparation of the final Report of the Milwaukee Project. Local news items--especially attendant to the scandal that brought down Heber (and gave him two years in federal prison) --
    note that about May 1980, Prof. Howard Garber, working under Heber, brought to Heber, what he, Garber, considered the final Report--anticipating Heber's approval and then the submission of the Report for publication. Garber had been in close communication with Heber--notwithstanding that Heber was often away and within contact only by phone or Fax, etc. The Report was noted by Heber, if a bit tersely, in an archival interview he was forced to give on May 14, 1979. Heber never gave interviews. In this instance, however, someone within the hierarchy at UW Madison (Prof. Glen Eye? ) directed Heber as an element of contract to
    submit to an archival interview. It is likely this was done, in reality, as part of what may have been an incipient investigation of Heber that ripened into his being banned from campus (Dec. 05, 1980) and indicted in federal court (April 1981) and prosecuted and convicted on 13 felony
    counts (July 1981). In the May 14, 1979, archival interview, Heber notes that the Report on the Milwaukee Project is being "pulled together" and that the massive detailed data from the Project have been under detailed analyses. By 1979, R. J. Herrnstein was among a growing
    number of academics bemused by the endless delays in providing data about the Project. In 1972, Professor Ellis Page had begun meticulously documented questioning about the lack of data from the Project vis a vis the glitzy journalistic claim ( in an article in a U.S. Office of Education publication that Heber had covertly arranged to be written) re the Project "Miracle in Milwaukee". Thus, by May 14, 1979, Heber had plenty of reason to be "pulling together" the Report in a rather top priority fashion. In context, then, it is odd indeed that somehow Garber "fails" to include material that Heber--out of nowhere--suddenly decides in May 1980 needs to be added to what Garber had faithfully and very capably put together. In this connection, it is interesting to note from pre-sentencing interviews with Heber and other comments elicited from Heber via the federal judicial system upon his conviction on the 13 felony counts--that Heber had begun clearly to sense by April or May of 1980 that he was an object of investigation. He states in response to pre-sentence commentary elicited from him
    circa August 1981 that "for fifteen months " he has been under great pressure from being an object of investigation. It is most likely that his imposing delay on the May submission for publication of the Milwaukee Project Report was determined by some sense of strategy re his situation rather than by any genuine sense that more information needed to be infused into the Report as presented by Garber. In a newspaper article, in 1982, Rob Fixmer--the investigative journalist whose articles re Heber left Heber in disgrace at UW Madison--noted that the Milwaukee Project Report was being submitted for publication. Yet it did not see publication. On Dec. 26, 1983, investigative reporter Susan Trebach, then writing for the Milwaukee Sentinel, published an article based on interviews with several persons that noted specifics of the Report that had been accepted for publication and would be formally published in the Spring of 1984. Details were given for what clearly was then a consummated publication agreement. Yet the Report was not published in 1984. By 1985 Herman Spitz book on research fraud was in an advanced stage of preparation and Prof. Ellis Page had pulled together his 13 years of meticulous investigation / questioning/ of the Project into a major contribution to that text. The Spitz book was published in 1986. Heber was killed in a yet mysterious plane wreck--along with his long time companion and research associate, Mary Alice Slater, on Dec. 03, 1987, Slater by that time, a prolific academic researcher of mental retardation, having gone from Madison to the Texas Tech University Health Science Center (Amarillo) in June 1984.
    Toward the end of 1988, the Report finally got into print. Arthur Jensen in a definitive review, while having some criticisms and reservations, was generally laudatory about Garber's effort and the detail of it and the honesty and competence of it. But what is the "Cui Bono?" of
    all the delays???? And there is no overt indication that the University of Wisconsin at Madison was ever really much perturbed by the delays. And it appears the federal grantors of the $14 million that went into the Project were not militantly objecting to the Report delays. There is no indication Garber wished the Report delayed. Sooo?

    Documents recently obtained under the FOIA, clearly reveal that Heber for a long , long time had enormous influence at the University of Gothenburg. Upon his conviction (along with a co-defendant) on several felony accounts regarding mishandling funds–this jury decision on July 30, 1981–Heber sought letters of “recommendation” for sentencing leniency–no doubt to try to escape having to serve time and thus to be permitted to resume academic work likely at Gothenburg. At the U. of Gothenburg for some time there had been in operation an entity for conducting international research in “cultural familial” mental retardation. Heber had contributed a lot of time and effort—just apparently on a personal basis and not as any commercial consultation–to aid this entity, IDRERI. Heber had spent a year at the U. of Gothenburg back in the mid-60′s–his first sabbatical. A letter written under IDRERI and U. of Gothenburg letter head on August 18, 1981, greatly praises Heber and notes his very central importance in the creation and development of IDRERI. It was signed by IDRERI then vice-president. The letter contains no indication of interest about the trial and conviction or the investigative journalism exposes of Rob Fixmer or of several years of questioning about the Milwaukee Project and Heber’s delays and denials of research data from that Project. The
    letter affirms a totally high regard for Heber and an affirmation that his conduct at Gothenburg had never given any basis to suspect him of wrongdoing, etc. Under this same letter head, the then semi-retired Swedish political wrote Heber on March 01, 1985, offering Heber the position of Research Director of IDRERI–either half or full time, to Heber’s preference. It is equally laudatory. And it, too, has utterly no reservations about…or even mention of…his trial and conviction and prison time. The letter does note that IDRERI is financed from corporate donations and notes the Swedish auto maker (Hdq in Gothenburg ) as a donor.
    The letter notes that part of the Research Director position will involve extensive travel into and out of sub Sahara Africa, as well as much travel within Europe. Heber’s oblique letter of desired acceptance (subject to his gaining early release from parole ) does note the position as
    involving ” a major research project”—clearly indicating Heber envisioned the role as devoted to a single major project. Heber’s letter also mentions Volvo as a source of financing for the undertaking. Heber notes that he will be working half time as Research Dircector and will continue working half time with Tom Askelson/ Askelson Associates / on Askelson’s cognitively stimulating carpet designs for inlaid carpeting in mental retardation centers, hospitals, etc. Askelson was one of the 14 victims of the Rwanda plane crash that killed Heber and Slater and others mostly directly or indirectly linked to research at Texas Tech University Health Science Center, where Slater was a very prolific researcher–having come there from U. of Wisconsin, Madison, in June 1984.

    Documents relevant to Heber’s prison time, reveal that Slater visited him in prison, almost certainly as soon as he arrived at Bastrop, if not in the various previous “way stations” within the Bureau of Prisons ? But in September 1982, after Heber had been transferred at his Request to the more thoroughly “country club” prison of Big Spring, Texas, Slater came in the company of an official of the Swedish Educational Ministry to visit Heber on three consecutive days. Other documents reveal that Askelson had originally designed his product and set up his company after communication with, and interface with, the Waisman Center at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, that Heber had Directed (He was responsible for the legislation that funded that and about 12 other similar centers ) until he was banned from campus on Dec. 03, 1980. Slater and Askelson, then, almost certainly were involved in the Askelson Associates, as was Heber after gaining half-way-house-status in Dec. 1983. And Heber continued with Askelson (devoting half time to his, Heber’s, Arabian horse “Ranchera” near Colorado Springs ) after this time and on apparently until they were both killed, along with Slater, in the Dec. 03,
    1987, plane crash.

    There is a very clear coalescence of purpose in all this that seems to revolve around the IDRERI operation within the University of Gothenburg. But aside from getting away from U.S. government grants by way of having Volvo grants–Heber seems at IDRERI to be right back into Mystery Land–traveling enormously, doing projects that seem to have no overt description, etc. If he was whispered at Madison (Fixmer’s reporting) to be “the Howard Hughes of Academe” , he certainly upon early release from parole (October 1985) resumed that role linked to IDRERI .

    The letter under IDRERI and U. of Gothenburg letter head of March 01, 1985, clearly emphasizes that significant research in mental retardation/ low IQ/ will be done in sub Sahara Africa, involving a lot of travel there. While both the “photo safaris” of 1986 and the fatal one of 1987 out of TTU Amarillo would seem on the surface to be typical tourist “photo safaris”, the obit of Mary Alice Slater, informed by both her sisters, and published in her home town newspaper of Minto , N.D., clearly notes that the fatal excursion saliently involved research and photography attendant to research. And the eulogy delivered in Amarillo by Slater’s immediate superior, Dr. Tom Hale, M.D., clearly noted that at the time of death Slater had four research papers almost completed for submission for publication.. He firmly committed that they would be finished out and published. Yet to date, no one knows of any one of them having been published. There is no basis for doubting Dr. Hale’s sincerity of commitment. There is no yet detected overt indication of what they were about or whether they were published in another language, etc.

    The over arching problem–and for Volvo Corporation , in particular—is that the lack of information about what was and was not going on with Heber from October 1985 through Dec. 03, 1987, is simply ethically intolerable. The relevant portions of the Nuremberg tribunals and the Helsinki accords, and APA standards, etc. all clearly demand AFFIRMATIVE ACTION is making at least some information publicly accessible as to whether research involving human subjects was carried out and whether informed consent to any degree was obtained; whether US grant funds were indirectly utilized, etc.

    Prison documents reveal the pervasive extent to which Heber practiced rather reflexively deceptions and misinformation. Yet there is reason to believe that in his basic role of high fee consultation re program design, etc. concerning mental retardation (He had set up programs for the governments of Egypt and Tunisia, among other nations ) he was strictly
    direct and above board. There is some sense, in Churchill’s memorable phrase, of “lies that protect the truth”. ? But he deliberately plays upon the distinctions between European and American ways of listing birthdates. He was born Jan. 12, 1932, in Winnipeg, Manitoba, but when it is possible to do so, he lists his birthdate so that it is interpreted in the US as “Dec. 12, 1932, and even his current Colorado Driver’s License listed his birthdate as “Dec. 12, 1932″. He had about six variants of his name: Rick Franz/ Franz R. / Richard Franz / etc. He lists the year of his divorce from his first wife as 1962. He knew very well, it was 1964, in Madison.

    It is very difficult to imagine that national security entities–whether the FBI or CIA, etc.–would not have either been involved with Heber as an asset or been involved with monitoring him in case he was connected to rival powers. It is astounding how he led such a secretive life for 22 years at Madison and was right back into Shadow Land in Sweden/ Africa/ upon release from parole.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bob Woodwort
    It is especially interesting that Mary Alice Slater came to Texas rather often to visit federal prisoner, Rick Franz Heber, herself still holding a powerful position cultivated for her by Heber at the Waisman Center for research of familial-cultural retardation at the U. of Wisconsin , Madison. As noted, she left Madison for Texas Tech U. Health Science Center in Amarillo in June 1984--Heber having entered parole on March 09,,1984. When in 1982, Heber was held at the "white collar" BoP Prison in Big Spring, Texas, she spent three consecutive days visiting him in the company of an official of the Swedish Education Ministry. Whether before at Madison, after she came to TTU HSC in Amarillo, she appears to have started "consultation" work in Sweden (as well as other locations ). Yet it is unclear any of those from Amarillo who were killed in the plane wreck of Dec. 03, 1987, ever had any information--or any clear information--about the dark sides of Heber's past. It is unclear they had any information, in fact, that "Franz R. Heber" of "Monument, Colorado" was the one and same "Rick Heber" of vast national and international regard before getting dismissed and prosecuted at Madison in 1980-81. While , oddly, the FBI investigations of Heber circa 1979-82 or so, seemed all to have been turned over the Wisconsin state investigators, they nonetheless ended up in the hands of the federal prosecutor. But the FBI was keenly aware of the extent of Heber's suspected wrongdoings. Heber was prosecuted on 13 pin point charges. But in her sentencing comments on Dec. 22, 1982, re Heber at the exoneration "sentencing" of Howard Garber, federal judge
    Barbara Crabb noted that the extent of money mishandled by Heber was so great it would probably not be known how much was in question. Again, her sentencing statement re Heber on October 30, 1981, were scathing. It is indeed amazing that the Dallas Field Office of the FBI seems to have notified no Amarillo sources sufficiently that the participants in the "photo safari" (research ) excursion knew of Heber's past. The exception was Mary Alice Slater, who reportedly was so enraptured of Heber she could never see his trial as anything but a "set up".
    And, of course, Tom Askelson of Askelson Associates (one of the crash victims) also was in the know, linked as he had been to both Slater and Heber going back to at least 1982. The Dallas Field Office of the FBI seems to have "gone Ostrich" either at its own direction or in response to orders higher up in the US national security apparatus. ??? Given Heber's formerly high status (Research Director of JFK's Panel on Mental Retardation Policy, e.g. ) , the FBI Field Office in Dallas could hardly have failed to be mindful of any visit with Heber over three consecutive days of an official of the Swedish Education Ministry and his former administrative aide and student, Mary Alice Slater.
    , @Bob Woodwort
    The treatment, mistreatment of his first wife Mary Elizabeth Scarborough Heber, married September 19, 1953, in Fayetteville, AR, is probably extremely sordid. And the neglect of any truly affectionate relationship to the children (after the separation in about October 1961 or so) is nauseating. How is it that federal authorities failed to regard this information? More and more and more the spectre looms of Heber having been anchored to the American national security establishment by at least mid 1962, if not by, say, 1957. And then all the cloud cover
    for research covertly underway in Central Africa circa October 1985-Dec. 03, 1987. But, too, Heber associates knew that Heber had been making trips into and from Kenya (central travel hub for that part of Africa ) going way back into the 1960's. For 30 years the lack of overt manifest interest of American national security organs in what research Heber/ Slater did or did not have going on in Central Africa 1985-Dec. 03, 1987--this lack of overt interest and the absence of any degree of safeguard disclosures re such research----this has a truly spooky aura. If Heber was linked to/ anchored to/ the American national security apparatus at the inception
    (1962 population survey grant for the demographics of the inner city of Milwaukee ) of the Milwaukee Project---this is the stuff of retrospective Congressional hearings and investigations. ??
  143. @swank
    (and wait to see how some more knowledgeable HBDers shred it apart piece by piece LoL

    Doubtful. HBDers don't have any hard evidence that the group mean difference between "blacks" and "whites" is even significantly genetic. They just don't understand that they lack this evidence.

    LoL. Are you telling a joke?

    Of course it’s largely genetic.

    Since you’ve already admitted that there is a clear mean difference, how else you could explain the cocsistency of all genetic differences of the rest of 60 genetic traits (Rushton etc) remain almost intact with >200 years hisotory of Blacks living in the West, if not largely genetic for the brain as well? So all remain largely genetic only the brian mystically have switched to environmental? and for all people together? ROFL

    Read More
    • Replies: @swank
    Of course it’s largely genetic.

    Based on...?

    how else you could explain the cocsistency of all genetic differences of the rest of 60 genetic traits (Rushton etc) remain almost intact with >200 years hisotory of Blacks living in the West,

    What "consistency," exactly?

    Current SSA scores at the same level as Victorian era (1900) whites. SSA is worse than the 1900 west.

    For 65 or so of the last 200 years, american blacks were slaves. For another 100 years, black americans lacked basic civil rights. So, for the vast majority of the time, obvious cultural explanations are available.

    Rushton's 60 traits are garbage. A) he made them up (there's no real reason to believe they actually correspond to r-K traits vis a vis humans), B) they represent only modern data, so they tell us nothing about historical trends.
  144. swank says:
    @PandaAtWar
    LoL. Are you telling a joke?

    Of course it's largely genetic.

    Since you've already admitted that there is a clear mean difference, how else you could explain the cocsistency of all genetic differences of the rest of 60 genetic traits (Rushton etc) remain almost intact with >200 years hisotory of Blacks living in the West, if not largely genetic for the brain as well? So all remain largely genetic only the brian mystically have switched to environmental? and for all people together? ROFL

    Of course it’s largely genetic.

    Based on…?

    how else you could explain the cocsistency of all genetic differences of the rest of 60 genetic traits (Rushton etc) remain almost intact with >200 years hisotory of Blacks living in the West,

    What “consistency,” exactly?

    Current SSA scores at the same level as Victorian era (1900) whites. SSA is worse than the 1900 west.

    For 65 or so of the last 200 years, american blacks were slaves. For another 100 years, black americans lacked basic civil rights. So, for the vast majority of the time, obvious cultural explanations are available.

    Rushton’s 60 traits are garbage. A) he made them up (there’s no real reason to believe they actually correspond to r-K traits vis a vis humans), B) they represent only modern data, so they tell us nothing about historical trends.

    Read More
  145. Numinous says:
    @PandaAtWar
    A well writtened post!

    Panda's suggestion is the same as Numinous - try to post it again in other most recent and hot HBD blog entries. (and wait to see how some more knowledgeable HBDers shred it apart piece by piece LoL )

    Panda doesn't have too much time here hence will only comment briefly on the points you raised regarding the Chinese/China/East Asia:


    1. Your analogy on height and intelligence has this crutial difference IMO: earth gravity seems to be the mother constraint on all heights, whereas it seems there is a lack of such a powerful force on general intelligence.

    2. therefore, your statement:


    The fact that racial groups may overlap in height or intelligence means that this traits have not been under the same environemental evolutionary pressures as visible racial characteristics.
     
    may not be true, because even though height or intelligence overlap each other, it doesn't necessarily mean they are under the same environemental evolutionary pressures. (see 1)

    3. therefore, your following assumption that:


    If the IQ gap does not come from evolution, then...
     
    may appear troublesome.


    4.


    The hereditarians say that North Eurasians have developped a superior intelligence in order to survive in a colder and supposedly harsher climate. That only makes sense to them because they experience winter and know it as the tougher season in the latitudes wher they and their readers live. What they seem to ignore is that tropical and equatorial climates are harsh and hostile environements quite far from the postcard image that they have in mind.
     
    At least 3 things here:
    A. the climates they each experiences eons ago may not be the climates you you see today...
    B. another crutial factor as well: widespread interbreeding with much larger brained Nearthentals for a long time
    C. if "Out of Africa" theory is not entirely correct, there would be many other "local races" of humans living in Asia and Europe at the same when some human groups "went out of Africa". So there could be some other layers of extra interbreeding as well.


    5.


    During agriculturalist stage, Europe and Noth-East Asia had fertile soils, moderate precipitations and a long growing season (winter is only 3 month) that give serious advantages for agricultural productivity.
     
    Yes, this advantage gave advantage on productivity, culture, etc, then gene-culture co-evolution accelerats more...

    But humans are not fools, everyone can see the lands were good and tried to get hold of it. The reason why NE Asia and Europeans took theses pieces of advantaged lands was the direct result of intense and prolonged fighting against all otehrs who tried to take the lands. e.g. Chinese historical records and myths both say that the ancestors of Han Chinese, Huang di and Yan di 2 tribes, were fighting intensely and for a loooong time against at least 2 or 3 dozens of different groups to get hold of central China fertile land in the very beginning and they beat them all - the losing ones were either killed off , chased away, or got assimilated to some extend . Needless to say, the winning side must have superior intelligence to start with.


    6.


    Africans were subjected to severe drought that caused the desertification of most of the continent. I do belive that the absence of water is more problematic than low temperatures.
     
    The lack of water was also one of the biggest problems with the ancestors of Han Chinese according to our historical records. Guess what? instead of complaining for thousands of years as some people have done, one of famous earlier Han Chinese ancestor tribe leaders has spent almost entire his life building dams to effectively control water AND floods - this became one of the most decroated things in earlier Han Chinese (pre)history - long before unified China was formed.


    7.


    It is not surprising that Europe and East Asia ended up surpassing the Middle East in terms of civilizational development eventhough East Asia’s developpement appears quite inferior when we take its larger population and the much earlier begining of its civilization into account. In fact the most troubling with East Asia is the extreme staticity of its history.
     
    Every groups have loved to have large population in any point of history, because large population means more powerful hence more chance of survival as a group.

    But the problem has always been CAN You Afford It?

    You need larger landmass (by conquering and defending), better agricultural technologies (e.g. grow varieties of food, irregation water control, invention of agricultural high tech tools, etc) for more food, in order to support that level of population, which were all heavily depending on the intelligence. Then you should now know why Han Chinese have become the largest? Actually han Chinese has been the largest racial group in almost entire written history of humans.

    If you wonder why "East Asia's development was inferior", you probably have never read the related basic knowledge in Wiki China and Wiki Chinese Civilisation to start with?

    8.


    ...Neither did Siberian peoples who could have had contacts with China.

     

    Not that mus for Siberians - that was teh very purpose of the Great Wall of China was built for.

    nevertheless, the Mongols gained a lot of high tech(e.g. crossbow), military strategies and tactics when fighting with Han Chinese fore centries in the control of the China heartland. No doubt some of these have been put into use when they fought their way into ME and Europe later...


    9.


    Examples of unsystematic selection are numerous and always intended to lower African or black Caribbean countries’ averages IQs while China’s well known unrepresentative PISA scores are found unquestionably relevant.
     
    How about every Chinese entities on the planet such as Singapore, HK, Taiwan, Macao, along with similar entities such as Korea and Japan, all had the similar PISA scores. Are they also "well known unrepresentative" and irrelevent?

    10.


    , it even makes no sense to me that Africans given their general health status and lower acces to education or many other first-world life improvements should magically be able to perform as well on IQ test as well fed Swedes, Chinese only-child cram schoolers or malaria-free Argentines.
     
    ROFL. Dunno the Swedes part, but to perform as well as the Chinese? You gotta be seriously day dreaming? You can bet your house that it's not gonna happen in your lifetime. LoL

    11.


    If we except the very provincially minded Northern Nigerians and other muslims of the Sahel, middle class West Africans have an achievement thurst similar to the Indians and the Chinese.
     
    Please, do not insult Chinese by lumping Chinese and Indians together as if they were in any way similar.

    Han Chinese have been the largest racial group holding together as a unified empire with continuous writtten history for thousands of years.

    Whereas there were no "Indians" and "India" until 1947 AD. Without the British, there would be no such a term and such as modern unified nation state like "India" or "Indians".

    Chinese and Indians , China and India, are polar-opposite in almost everything you can name of:

    they are from completely different racial groups, religions, cultures, languages, facial appearances, physical appearances, bone development stages, dental development stages, skulls, characteristics, personal traits, group mentalities, histories (Chinese have the longest written history on earth and that has been as a unified civilisation, whereas "Indians" barely had any written history until the British went over, with most of history being 100s of seperated small tribal groups. India is just a brand modern state granted to independence by the Queen of England in 1947), social cohesions, ... and average IQ levels, etc.

    Moreover, China´s 1,2 billion and India are fundamentally very different:

    China got 1,2 billiod (despite having 1-child policy and one of the lowest birth rates on earth), because historically the Han Chinese have always been the largest racial group in the world ( no prize now for guess why). India´s 1,2 billion population exploision, however, just like most parts of Sub Sahara Africa, has been come into being mostly post WWII, being the direct result of the assistance of the UN Aid and Medicare Programmes, countless NGOs and charities across the rest of the world. In fact India and Sub-Sahara Africa have been the single largest top 2 free Food Aid and Development Aid receivers of the UN and the World Bank since 1947, and ongoing!

    To lump (Han) Chinese and "Indians" ( or China and India) together by MSM bullshit (except some for obvious geopolitic- realpolitik purposes) is as laughable as to lump Germany and Morroco together (or USA and Mexico together) as if they were "twins". Actually Germany and Morroco have shared more similarities than China and India do historically, because at least the former pair all belong to general Caucasoid! And historically it was much easily for one to reach Morocco from Germany, than for one to reach India from China, hence Germany and Morocco have had more historical interchanges than China and India have ever had...


    Modern term Indians are actually just like the term Africans - both have been merely a geographic term, consisting of similar people but from 100s of different, seperate tribes, and have closer average IQ levels to each other.

    ...

    In the end, Panda thinks that there are many unbridgeable holes in your theory unfortunately.

    hence Germany and Morocco have had more historical interchanges than China and India have ever had…

    Buddhism?

    Modern term Indians are actually just like the term Africans – both have been merely a geographic term, consisting of similar people but from 100s of different, seperate tribes, and have closer average IQ levels to each other.

    Every “nation” that exists today is a geographical “term”. Some are more assimilated than others. Some have more widely shared cultures than others. The rest is just semantics.

    There are indeed forest dwelling tribes in peninsular India, and in the north eastern borderlands. But referring to all other groups (guilds, castes) comprising the major part of the Indian population as “tribes” is profoundly mistaken. All these caste groups have, for about 3 millenia if not more, been symbiotically linked together in spite of (or perhaps because of) practicing endogamy. They each traditionally had their circumscribed sets of privileges as well as duties. From your vantage point (partly a very modern Enlightenment-derived one), endogamous groups seem like tribes to you because you have no understanding of Indian society or its history. But they aren’t that separate. Could “India” well be a collection of nation states, like Africa is, or Christendom (Europe) is? Sure, but the basis would be ethno-linguistic. China could be a collection of nation states too, on that basis, though a lot fewer.

    And Indians do have historical memory; it was just transmitted orally, so is quite unreliable in places. Every piece of historical research done by the British, or every artefact dug up, was corroborated with a corresponding historical account/legend from the Vedas, Puranas, etc.

    It seems to be the fashion among modern Chinese to turn up their noses at Indians, who have demonstrably failed at modern governance after the breakdown of their traditional practices. Comparing themselves favorably to a dirty and disorganized country seems to boost their ego and make them ignore the horrendous corruption in their own political class and the environmental degradation that modernity has brought upon them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @PandaAtWar

    Buddhism?
     
    You gotta be kidding Panda= ROFL

    Buddhism had 2 hoots to do with India?

    Buddhism was invented by a Nepal Prince, from a tribe that is overwelmingly quite `East Asian`-Tibetan by appearances.

    Buddhism has been inherently against what Indians have been craving for. The fact on teh ground zero is that Buddhism is trial in India, where the most popular thing is Hinduism. Yeah, a bit related, but still far away.

    Buddhism was forced upon Chinese by several Tang Dynasty Emporers. Buddhism has never been more influential in China than home-grown Daoism and Confuism

    What the Han Chinese have done, they took that primitive and lazy form of Buddhism to a complete different level, more akin to a new brach of philosophy, before passing it on to Korea and Japan who developed their own based on China´s.

    The East Asia Buddhism today in very essence has jack to do with primitive form of Buddhism left in India today .

    Actually Buddhism was about the only major thing between the 2 region in the 2,000 years exchange, spices, elephent tooth, and other minor exchanges aside.

    Oh, Panda forgot so-called `0`, zero. ROFL, Yeah right the Chinese were just too stupid to know about 0.


    Infact to go to South Asia was sooooo difficult, A tang Dynasty monk achieve agsinst all odds has threfore bcome a hero in Chinese folk stories. 1 out of 4 the grestest Chinese classical literature was about the fancy stroies about the trip of this monk, called `The Journey to the West`.


    And Indians do have historical memory; it was just transmitted orally, so is quite unreliable in places

     

    Brilliant. That´s the only thing Panda needs to know. Quite self-evident, isn´t it?

    `Yay, we are the smartest in the world inventing countless things...the only tiny problem is that we forgot to write them down, so trust me or else. ` African supermacists claim so in the similar fashion. Wonderful! ROFL

  146. @Bob Woodwort
    It is wise to focus "one bite at a time" on the astounding mystery world Rich Heber was allowed to cultivate and hide within during the 22 years he was (rather nominally, in a sense ) at U. of Wisconsin , Madison. One small matter would be an exact chronology concerning the preparation of the final Report of the Milwaukee Project. Local news items--especially attendant to the scandal that brought down Heber (and gave him two years in federal prison) --
    note that about May 1980, Prof. Howard Garber, working under Heber, brought to Heber, what he, Garber, considered the final Report--anticipating Heber's approval and then the submission of the Report for publication. Garber had been in close communication with Heber--notwithstanding that Heber was often away and within contact only by phone or Fax, etc. The Report was noted by Heber, if a bit tersely, in an archival interview he was forced to give on May 14, 1979. Heber never gave interviews. In this instance, however, someone within the hierarchy at UW Madison (Prof. Glen Eye? ) directed Heber as an element of contract to
    submit to an archival interview. It is likely this was done, in reality, as part of what may have been an incipient investigation of Heber that ripened into his being banned from campus (Dec. 05, 1980) and indicted in federal court (April 1981) and prosecuted and convicted on 13 felony
    counts (July 1981). In the May 14, 1979, archival interview, Heber notes that the Report on the Milwaukee Project is being "pulled together" and that the massive detailed data from the Project have been under detailed analyses. By 1979, R. J. Herrnstein was among a growing
    number of academics bemused by the endless delays in providing data about the Project. In 1972, Professor Ellis Page had begun meticulously documented questioning about the lack of data from the Project vis a vis the glitzy journalistic claim ( in an article in a U.S. Office of Education publication that Heber had covertly arranged to be written) re the Project "Miracle in Milwaukee". Thus, by May 14, 1979, Heber had plenty of reason to be "pulling together" the Report in a rather top priority fashion. In context, then, it is odd indeed that somehow Garber "fails" to include material that Heber--out of nowhere--suddenly decides in May 1980 needs to be added to what Garber had faithfully and very capably put together. In this connection, it is interesting to note from pre-sentencing interviews with Heber and other comments elicited from Heber via the federal judicial system upon his conviction on the 13 felony counts--that Heber had begun clearly to sense by April or May of 1980 that he was an object of investigation. He states in response to pre-sentence commentary elicited from him
    circa August 1981 that "for fifteen months " he has been under great pressure from being an object of investigation. It is most likely that his imposing delay on the May submission for publication of the Milwaukee Project Report was determined by some sense of strategy re his situation rather than by any genuine sense that more information needed to be infused into the Report as presented by Garber. In a newspaper article, in 1982, Rob Fixmer--the investigative journalist whose articles re Heber left Heber in disgrace at UW Madison--noted that the Milwaukee Project Report was being submitted for publication. Yet it did not see publication. On Dec. 26, 1983, investigative reporter Susan Trebach, then writing for the Milwaukee Sentinel, published an article based on interviews with several persons that noted specifics of the Report that had been accepted for publication and would be formally published in the Spring of 1984. Details were given for what clearly was then a consummated publication agreement. Yet the Report was not published in 1984. By 1985 Herman Spitz book on research fraud was in an advanced stage of preparation and Prof. Ellis Page had pulled together his 13 years of meticulous investigation / questioning/ of the Project into a major contribution to that text. The Spitz book was published in 1986. Heber was killed in a yet mysterious plane wreck--along with his long time companion and research associate, Mary Alice Slater, on Dec. 03, 1987, Slater by that time, a prolific academic researcher of mental retardation, having gone from Madison to the Texas Tech University Health Science Center (Amarillo) in June 1984.
    Toward the end of 1988, the Report finally got into print. Arthur Jensen in a definitive review, while having some criticisms and reservations, was generally laudatory about Garber's effort and the detail of it and the honesty and competence of it. But what is the "Cui Bono?" of
    all the delays???? And there is no overt indication that the University of Wisconsin at Madison was ever really much perturbed by the delays. And it appears the federal grantors of the $14 million that went into the Project were not militantly objecting to the Report delays. There is no indication Garber wished the Report delayed. Sooo?

    Information recently attained under FOIA re Rick (Franz) Heber’s prison time, helps reveal why some very perceptive people–e.g. Prof. Ellis Page; Prof. Cecil Reynolds; Prof. R. J. Herrnstein; and many others–had a lot of reservations about anything Heber was linked to. Heber, in responding / “responding”/ to pre-sentencing interviews after his conviction on 13 felony counts of juggling money in July 1981, reveals himself to be reflexively disposed to misinformation, dissembling, etc. Born in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada on January 12, 1093, he has misinfo fun by confusing European and American renditions of such a date—thus he
    manages to introduce onto his Colorado DL (in the name of Franz Richard Heber, btw ) a Dob of Dec. 01, 1932. He used many variations of his name. His name probably was “morphed” a bit (?) when he took American citizenship. His Canadian birth name was Richard Frank Heber.
    After , if not before?, his mother’s death in the summer of 1955, he began to drop “Frank” and become “Franz”. He was variously Franz R. Heber; Rick F. Heber; Richard F. Heber; F. Richard Heber, etc. He was dismissed from his administrative positon as Director of the Waisman Center at UW Madison on Dec. 03, 1980, and banned from campus. His tenured faculty position, however, presented more obstacles to dismissal. Accordingly, after his trial, he announced he would appeal and did appeal. But he also tendered a resignation from the tenured position. UW Madison appears to have accepted the resignation in early August 1981. Heber a couple of years later asserts he took a leave of absence from UW Madison in Dec. 1980 because of his emotional upset over knowing he was being investigated. His “leave” was a ban on stepping foot on campus (other than in custody to get his mail ). He asserts he resigned from his prestigious position as Waisman Director in August 1981. He forgets to mention to his pre-sentencing interviewer that he had been married before his then current marriage. He had four children with a woman he married in September 1953 in Fayetteville, AR. He refused to have any personal contact with her or the children but did from time to time send them cards and small presents. When the older child, himself in Wisconsin for some Project or something, looked Heber up to visit with him, Heber sent him away. Heber claimed he had been divorced from his first wife in 1962; he was divorced in 1964, to take effect in 1966. He could not recall the exact year his mother died, although he had been in Manitoba for months before she died in order,, in part, to be near her. He told his interviewer that his mother had come from Sweden to Canada. While it is true his father was born in Austria , just over the German border, his mother was born in Saskatchewan. Thus, the interview dismissed making contact with any of Heber’s maternal aunts or uncles. In fact, his mother had four brothers born in Saskatchewan and at least one sister. These deception games seem reflexive and are all serving the purpose of making it very difficult for anyone to get accurate and detailed information of any sort about him. The sentencing comments about him both at his own sentencing on October 30, 1981, and on Dec. 22, 1982, at the exoneration “sentencing” of his underling , Howard Garber–are scathing in their portrayal of Heber as a psychopath aiming only at his own wealth and gratification and having no genuine concern for the risks he puts others at in his own selfish strategies. In this context, it is amazing that Texas Tech University and the University of Gothenburg and the Volvo Corporation (Corporate donor to the U of Gothenburg IDRERI research entity Heber was Director of from October 1985 until presumably his death on Dec. 03, 1987 ) all seemed oblivious to his trial and prison sentence and the award winning expose articles about Heber by then Madison Capitol Journal writer, Rob Fixmer. One is left with the keen sense that the Dallas FBI Field Office , either at its own preference or from order higher up in the American national security apparatus ? , seemed to be “all Ostrich” about Heber when he was a “tour guide” for “photo safaris” from TTU Amarillo in 1986 and on the fatal one of 1987. As noted, the obit for Mary Alice Slater, his long time close collaborator and associate, was entered into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD–SENATE for Dec. 11, 1987, at about page 35285 or so. It establishes that whatever “photo safari” was involved, the salient purpose of the excursions was research (research re low IQ and mental retardation ). Two universities are left to plead “ignorance” as an excuse. Hmmmm.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bob Woodwort
    Heber's letter of provisional "acceptance" (provisional--he had to get released early from parole!) of the position as Research Director of IDRERI at the University of Gothenburg in
    Sweden, actually spoke of "a research project" and did not denote involvement across Europe and across Central Africa in a whole lot of projects. This puts even larger question marks over why there has been no information made public as to what he was doing with IDRERI and
    U. of Gothenburg when he was involved in a 1986 "photo safari" (covert research project) with Mary Alice Slater, then of Texas Tech U. Health Science Center (Amarillo) and in the fatal 1987 safari. As noted repeatedly, her family informed obit makes clear she was involved in the 1987 excursion in research--not mainly, if at all, in touristy "photo safari" fun. Where , as far as needed clarifications and background information, etc., was the Dallas FBI Field Office in all of this?? Given how Heber was excoriated by the federal trial judge and how he was disgraced by the award winning expose newspaper investigative articles of Rob Fixmer, it is really "All Ostrich" that the Dallas field office of the FBI would not have informed suitable elements of TTU HSC and Amarillo law enforcement re Heber's background, the very close personal and professional involvements Heber and Slater had going, etc. Any two such people going in and out of Central Africa would have raised a reasonable question of whether research on low IQ was going on and if so, how much safeguard prior disclosure had been made about it. The term "affirmative action" has huge meaning in this context. Agencies like the FBI or the CIA do not just rest content with what is meeting the eye ball or the ear, but they look into such matters in an "affirmative action" way in the interest or preventing abuses and honoring cultural safeguards re research on human subjects.
  147. @Bob Woodwort
    Documents recently obtained under the FOIA, clearly reveal that Heber for a long , long time had enormous influence at the University of Gothenburg. Upon his conviction (along with a co-defendant) on several felony accounts regarding mishandling funds--this jury decision on July 30, 1981--Heber sought letters of "recommendation" for sentencing leniency--no doubt to try to escape having to serve time and thus to be permitted to resume academic work likely at Gothenburg. At the U. of Gothenburg for some time there had been in operation an entity for conducting international research in "cultural familial" mental retardation. Heber had contributed a lot of time and effort---just apparently on a personal basis and not as any commercial consultation--to aid this entity, IDRERI. Heber had spent a year at the U. of Gothenburg back in the mid-60's--his first sabbatical. A letter written under IDRERI and U. of Gothenburg letter head on August 18, 1981, greatly praises Heber and notes his very central importance in the creation and development of IDRERI. It was signed by IDRERI then vice-president. The letter contains no indication of interest about the trial and conviction or the investigative journalism exposes of Rob Fixmer or of several years of questioning about the Milwaukee Project and Heber's delays and denials of research data from that Project. The
    letter affirms a totally high regard for Heber and an affirmation that his conduct at Gothenburg had never given any basis to suspect him of wrongdoing, etc. Under this same letter head, the then semi-retired Swedish political wrote Heber on March 01, 1985, offering Heber the position of Research Director of IDRERI--either half or full time, to Heber's preference. It is equally laudatory. And it, too, has utterly no reservations about...or even mention of...his trial and conviction and prison time. The letter does note that IDRERI is financed from corporate donations and notes the Swedish auto maker (Hdq in Gothenburg ) as a donor.
    The letter notes that part of the Research Director position will involve extensive travel into and out of sub Sahara Africa, as well as much travel within Europe. Heber's oblique letter of desired acceptance (subject to his gaining early release from parole ) does note the position as
    involving " a major research project"---clearly indicating Heber envisioned the role as devoted to a single major project. Heber's letter also mentions Volvo as a source of financing for the undertaking. Heber notes that he will be working half time as Research Dircector and will continue working half time with Tom Askelson/ Askelson Associates / on Askelson's cognitively stimulating carpet designs for inlaid carpeting in mental retardation centers, hospitals, etc. Askelson was one of the 14 victims of the Rwanda plane crash that killed Heber and Slater and others mostly directly or indirectly linked to research at Texas Tech University Health Science Center, where Slater was a very prolific researcher--having come there from U. of Wisconsin, Madison, in June 1984.

    Documents relevant to Heber's prison time, reveal that Slater visited him in prison, almost certainly as soon as he arrived at Bastrop, if not in the various previous "way stations" within the Bureau of Prisons ? But in September 1982, after Heber had been transferred at his Request to the more thoroughly "country club" prison of Big Spring, Texas, Slater came in the company of an official of the Swedish Educational Ministry to visit Heber on three consecutive days. Other documents reveal that Askelson had originally designed his product and set up his company after communication with, and interface with, the Waisman Center at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, that Heber had Directed (He was responsible for the legislation that funded that and about 12 other similar centers ) until he was banned from campus on Dec. 03, 1980. Slater and Askelson, then, almost certainly were involved in the Askelson Associates, as was Heber after gaining half-way-house-status in Dec. 1983. And Heber continued with Askelson (devoting half time to his, Heber's, Arabian horse "Ranchera" near Colorado Springs ) after this time and on apparently until they were both killed, along with Slater, in the Dec. 03,
    1987, plane crash.

    There is a very clear coalescence of purpose in all this that seems to revolve around the IDRERI operation within the University of Gothenburg. But aside from getting away from U.S. government grants by way of having Volvo grants--Heber seems at IDRERI to be right back into Mystery Land--traveling enormously, doing projects that seem to have no overt description, etc. If he was whispered at Madison (Fixmer's reporting) to be "the Howard Hughes of Academe" , he certainly upon early release from parole (October 1985) resumed that role linked to IDRERI .

    The letter under IDRERI and U. of Gothenburg letter head of March 01, 1985, clearly emphasizes that significant research in mental retardation/ low IQ/ will be done in sub Sahara Africa, involving a lot of travel there. While both the "photo safaris" of 1986 and the fatal one of 1987 out of TTU Amarillo would seem on the surface to be typical tourist "photo safaris", the obit of Mary Alice Slater, informed by both her sisters, and published in her home town newspaper of Minto , N.D., clearly notes that the fatal excursion saliently involved research and photography attendant to research. And the eulogy delivered in Amarillo by Slater's immediate superior, Dr. Tom Hale, M.D., clearly noted that at the time of death Slater had four research papers almost completed for submission for publication.. He firmly committed that they would be finished out and published. Yet to date, no one knows of any one of them having been published. There is no basis for doubting Dr. Hale's sincerity of commitment. There is no yet detected overt indication of what they were about or whether they were published in another language, etc.

    The over arching problem--and for Volvo Corporation , in particular---is that the lack of information about what was and was not going on with Heber from October 1985 through Dec. 03, 1987, is simply ethically intolerable. The relevant portions of the Nuremberg tribunals and the Helsinki accords, and APA standards, etc. all clearly demand AFFIRMATIVE ACTION is making at least some information publicly accessible as to whether research involving human subjects was carried out and whether informed consent to any degree was obtained; whether US grant funds were indirectly utilized, etc.

    Prison documents reveal the pervasive extent to which Heber practiced rather reflexively deceptions and misinformation. Yet there is reason to believe that in his basic role of high fee consultation re program design, etc. concerning mental retardation (He had set up programs for the governments of Egypt and Tunisia, among other nations ) he was strictly
    direct and above board. There is some sense, in Churchill's memorable phrase, of "lies that protect the truth". ? But he deliberately plays upon the distinctions between European and American ways of listing birthdates. He was born Jan. 12, 1932, in Winnipeg, Manitoba, but when it is possible to do so, he lists his birthdate so that it is interpreted in the US as "Dec. 12, 1932, and even his current Colorado Driver's License listed his birthdate as "Dec. 12, 1932". He had about six variants of his name: Rick Franz/ Franz R. / Richard Franz / etc. He lists the year of his divorce from his first wife as 1962. He knew very well, it was 1964, in Madison.

    It is very difficult to imagine that national security entities--whether the FBI or CIA, etc.--would not have either been involved with Heber as an asset or been involved with monitoring him in case he was connected to rival powers. It is astounding how he led such a secretive life for 22 years at Madison and was right back into Shadow Land in Sweden/ Africa/ upon release from parole.

    It is especially interesting that Mary Alice Slater came to Texas rather often to visit federal prisoner, Rick Franz Heber, herself still holding a powerful position cultivated for her by Heber at the Waisman Center for research of familial-cultural retardation at the U. of Wisconsin , Madison. As noted, she left Madison for Texas Tech U. Health Science Center in Amarillo in June 1984–Heber having entered parole on March 09,,1984. When in 1982, Heber was held at the “white collar” BoP Prison in Big Spring, Texas, she spent three consecutive days visiting him in the company of an official of the Swedish Education Ministry. Whether before at Madison, after she came to TTU HSC in Amarillo, she appears to have started “consultation” work in Sweden (as well as other locations ). Yet it is unclear any of those from Amarillo who were killed in the plane wreck of Dec. 03, 1987, ever had any information–or any clear information–about the dark sides of Heber’s past. It is unclear they had any information, in fact, that “Franz R. Heber” of “Monument, Colorado” was the one and same “Rick Heber” of vast national and international regard before getting dismissed and prosecuted at Madison in 1980-81. While , oddly, the FBI investigations of Heber circa 1979-82 or so, seemed all to have been turned over the Wisconsin state investigators, they nonetheless ended up in the hands of the federal prosecutor. But the FBI was keenly aware of the extent of Heber’s suspected wrongdoings. Heber was prosecuted on 13 pin point charges. But in her sentencing comments on Dec. 22, 1982, re Heber at the exoneration “sentencing” of Howard Garber, federal judge
    Barbara Crabb noted that the extent of money mishandled by Heber was so great it would probably not be known how much was in question. Again, her sentencing statement re Heber on October 30, 1981, were scathing. It is indeed amazing that the Dallas Field Office of the FBI seems to have notified no Amarillo sources sufficiently that the participants in the “photo safari” (research ) excursion knew of Heber’s past. The exception was Mary Alice Slater, who reportedly was so enraptured of Heber she could never see his trial as anything but a “set up”.
    And, of course, Tom Askelson of Askelson Associates (one of the crash victims) also was in the know, linked as he had been to both Slater and Heber going back to at least 1982. The Dallas Field Office of the FBI seems to have “gone Ostrich” either at its own direction or in response to orders higher up in the US national security apparatus. ??? Given Heber’s formerly high status (Research Director of JFK’s Panel on Mental Retardation Policy, e.g. ) , the FBI Field Office in Dallas could hardly have failed to be mindful of any visit with Heber over three consecutive days of an official of the Swedish Education Ministry and his former administrative aide and student, Mary Alice Slater.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bob Woodwort
    One thing--there are an increasingly large number--that has possibly a "Langley smell" to it is the odd delay, delay, delay in the final publication of the Report for the Milwaukee Project.
    Howard Garber , a very capable and dedicated researcher, had presented a final Report to Heber about May 1980. As noted, that was the time that Heber (in retrospect while interviewed for pre-sentence assessment by the Court ) had become fully aware he was an object of investigation. He gave some rather flimsy pretext to Garber about the Report needing more information. But Garber had been in close enough contact with Heber all along to make this "discovery" seem rather contrived. The Report was noted in newspaper coverage in 1982 as something on its way to getting published. The same was in an article locally in Dec. 1983, that noted the specifics of a publishing contract that would have the Report published by early 1984. Didn't happen. The only "Cui Bono" that seems suggested in all this is that absent a Report, an amazing portion of the literate press and even academic publications seemed yet to assume that Strickland's glitzy 1971 "Miracle in Milwaukee' was essentially a valid outcome report. The effect partly was to keep big question marks over the valid research of Arthur Jensen, Thomas Bouchard, Hans Eysenck, and others. Smells.
  148. @Bob Woodwort
    Documents recently obtained under the FOIA, clearly reveal that Heber for a long , long time had enormous influence at the University of Gothenburg. Upon his conviction (along with a co-defendant) on several felony accounts regarding mishandling funds--this jury decision on July 30, 1981--Heber sought letters of "recommendation" for sentencing leniency--no doubt to try to escape having to serve time and thus to be permitted to resume academic work likely at Gothenburg. At the U. of Gothenburg for some time there had been in operation an entity for conducting international research in "cultural familial" mental retardation. Heber had contributed a lot of time and effort---just apparently on a personal basis and not as any commercial consultation--to aid this entity, IDRERI. Heber had spent a year at the U. of Gothenburg back in the mid-60's--his first sabbatical. A letter written under IDRERI and U. of Gothenburg letter head on August 18, 1981, greatly praises Heber and notes his very central importance in the creation and development of IDRERI. It was signed by IDRERI then vice-president. The letter contains no indication of interest about the trial and conviction or the investigative journalism exposes of Rob Fixmer or of several years of questioning about the Milwaukee Project and Heber's delays and denials of research data from that Project. The
    letter affirms a totally high regard for Heber and an affirmation that his conduct at Gothenburg had never given any basis to suspect him of wrongdoing, etc. Under this same letter head, the then semi-retired Swedish political wrote Heber on March 01, 1985, offering Heber the position of Research Director of IDRERI--either half or full time, to Heber's preference. It is equally laudatory. And it, too, has utterly no reservations about...or even mention of...his trial and conviction and prison time. The letter does note that IDRERI is financed from corporate donations and notes the Swedish auto maker (Hdq in Gothenburg ) as a donor.
    The letter notes that part of the Research Director position will involve extensive travel into and out of sub Sahara Africa, as well as much travel within Europe. Heber's oblique letter of desired acceptance (subject to his gaining early release from parole ) does note the position as
    involving " a major research project"---clearly indicating Heber envisioned the role as devoted to a single major project. Heber's letter also mentions Volvo as a source of financing for the undertaking. Heber notes that he will be working half time as Research Dircector and will continue working half time with Tom Askelson/ Askelson Associates / on Askelson's cognitively stimulating carpet designs for inlaid carpeting in mental retardation centers, hospitals, etc. Askelson was one of the 14 victims of the Rwanda plane crash that killed Heber and Slater and others mostly directly or indirectly linked to research at Texas Tech University Health Science Center, where Slater was a very prolific researcher--having come there from U. of Wisconsin, Madison, in June 1984.

    Documents relevant to Heber's prison time, reveal that Slater visited him in prison, almost certainly as soon as he arrived at Bastrop, if not in the various previous "way stations" within the Bureau of Prisons ? But in September 1982, after Heber had been transferred at his Request to the more thoroughly "country club" prison of Big Spring, Texas, Slater came in the company of an official of the Swedish Educational Ministry to visit Heber on three consecutive days. Other documents reveal that Askelson had originally designed his product and set up his company after communication with, and interface with, the Waisman Center at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, that Heber had Directed (He was responsible for the legislation that funded that and about 12 other similar centers ) until he was banned from campus on Dec. 03, 1980. Slater and Askelson, then, almost certainly were involved in the Askelson Associates, as was Heber after gaining half-way-house-status in Dec. 1983. And Heber continued with Askelson (devoting half time to his, Heber's, Arabian horse "Ranchera" near Colorado Springs ) after this time and on apparently until they were both killed, along with Slater, in the Dec. 03,
    1987, plane crash.

    There is a very clear coalescence of purpose in all this that seems to revolve around the IDRERI operation within the University of Gothenburg. But aside from getting away from U.S. government grants by way of having Volvo grants--Heber seems at IDRERI to be right back into Mystery Land--traveling enormously, doing projects that seem to have no overt description, etc. If he was whispered at Madison (Fixmer's reporting) to be "the Howard Hughes of Academe" , he certainly upon early release from parole (October 1985) resumed that role linked to IDRERI .

    The letter under IDRERI and U. of Gothenburg letter head of March 01, 1985, clearly emphasizes that significant research in mental retardation/ low IQ/ will be done in sub Sahara Africa, involving a lot of travel there. While both the "photo safaris" of 1986 and the fatal one of 1987 out of TTU Amarillo would seem on the surface to be typical tourist "photo safaris", the obit of Mary Alice Slater, informed by both her sisters, and published in her home town newspaper of Minto , N.D., clearly notes that the fatal excursion saliently involved research and photography attendant to research. And the eulogy delivered in Amarillo by Slater's immediate superior, Dr. Tom Hale, M.D., clearly noted that at the time of death Slater had four research papers almost completed for submission for publication.. He firmly committed that they would be finished out and published. Yet to date, no one knows of any one of them having been published. There is no basis for doubting Dr. Hale's sincerity of commitment. There is no yet detected overt indication of what they were about or whether they were published in another language, etc.

    The over arching problem--and for Volvo Corporation , in particular---is that the lack of information about what was and was not going on with Heber from October 1985 through Dec. 03, 1987, is simply ethically intolerable. The relevant portions of the Nuremberg tribunals and the Helsinki accords, and APA standards, etc. all clearly demand AFFIRMATIVE ACTION is making at least some information publicly accessible as to whether research involving human subjects was carried out and whether informed consent to any degree was obtained; whether US grant funds were indirectly utilized, etc.

    Prison documents reveal the pervasive extent to which Heber practiced rather reflexively deceptions and misinformation. Yet there is reason to believe that in his basic role of high fee consultation re program design, etc. concerning mental retardation (He had set up programs for the governments of Egypt and Tunisia, among other nations ) he was strictly
    direct and above board. There is some sense, in Churchill's memorable phrase, of "lies that protect the truth". ? But he deliberately plays upon the distinctions between European and American ways of listing birthdates. He was born Jan. 12, 1932, in Winnipeg, Manitoba, but when it is possible to do so, he lists his birthdate so that it is interpreted in the US as "Dec. 12, 1932, and even his current Colorado Driver's License listed his birthdate as "Dec. 12, 1932". He had about six variants of his name: Rick Franz/ Franz R. / Richard Franz / etc. He lists the year of his divorce from his first wife as 1962. He knew very well, it was 1964, in Madison.

    It is very difficult to imagine that national security entities--whether the FBI or CIA, etc.--would not have either been involved with Heber as an asset or been involved with monitoring him in case he was connected to rival powers. It is astounding how he led such a secretive life for 22 years at Madison and was right back into Shadow Land in Sweden/ Africa/ upon release from parole.

    The treatment, mistreatment of his first wife Mary Elizabeth Scarborough Heber, married September 19, 1953, in Fayetteville, AR, is probably extremely sordid. And the neglect of any truly affectionate relationship to the children (after the separation in about October 1961 or so) is nauseating. How is it that federal authorities failed to regard this information? More and more and more the spectre looms of Heber having been anchored to the American national security establishment by at least mid 1962, if not by, say, 1957. And then all the cloud cover
    for research covertly underway in Central Africa circa October 1985-Dec. 03, 1987. But, too, Heber associates knew that Heber had been making trips into and from Kenya (central travel hub for that part of Africa ) going way back into the 1960′s. For 30 years the lack of overt manifest interest of American national security organs in what research Heber/ Slater did or did not have going on in Central Africa 1985-Dec. 03, 1987–this lack of overt interest and the absence of any degree of safeguard disclosures re such research—-this has a truly spooky aura. If Heber was linked to/ anchored to/ the American national security apparatus at the inception
    (1962 population survey grant for the demographics of the inner city of Milwaukee ) of the Milwaukee Project—this is the stuff of retrospective Congressional hearings and investigations. ??

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bob Woodwort
    The University of Wisconsin at Madison has very able and accommodative archivist. But don't ask for a lot of information about Heber. In fact, the lack of information is glaring. It is almost like trying to ask in Paris for archival information about Anton Mesmer. But information about Mesmer was deliberately obliterated after he had suffered inquisition, as it were. The University almost certainly compiled its own full and exact transcript of the nine day trial of Heber and Patrick Flanigan, his co-defendant. Indeed, as judge Barbara Crabb herself commented on October 30, 1981, and more so on Dec. 22, 1982, in open court---the University was in many way "on trial" (socially / politically ) as much as Heber. But even the local newspaper expose articles re Heber are not in the archives. Articles about Howard Garber (himself fully exonerated ) are. There are articles about Waisman funding problems in the wake of the Heber scandal . But almost nothing re Heber., And the University, by all overt indications, was rather "hands off' about all the delays re the Report for the Milwaukee Project. There would be many honest lessons for higher education in a thorough retrospective re Heber. And then the odd lack of any national publicity about Fixmer's expose articles and the trial testimony. The American national security apparatus may not have been basic to all these omissions. But it does smell.
    , @Bob Woodwort
    If you study Heber's dissertation (1957 , at Vanderbilt/George Peabody in Nashville ) or his 1967 paper presentation at a symposium at the U.of Oregon, Eugene--you see that he was no Blank Slate advocate. Rather, he seemed to be (as a dollar eager consultant who was considered brilliant as such ) looking for what might be doable rather than what couldn't be done to alleviate, prevent, mitigate mental retardation. He wasn't fixed on the same stars that grabbed Blank Slaters like Watson, Gould, Kamin, Rose, (Skinner?). As noted, he hypothesized (under the influence of Prof. Gordon Cantor ) in setting up the Milwaukee Project design what later Jensen came to discover as "cumulative deficit" within severely environmentally deprived settings. In the archival interview (he was forced via faculty contract to undergo ) of May 14, 1979 (Heber would not voluntarily consent to be interviewed even for the archives of the JFK Project on MR Policy that he was Research Director for in 1961 and into 1962!), Heber makes clear that the hype of the "Miracle in Milwaukee" article was a defensive effort (brilliantly and amorally successful, BTW) to defuse local criticism of the testing of Black IQ vis a vis the Jensen storm from the 1969 HER article.

    By the time he emerged from parole (early) in October 1985, he had a firm basis for hypothesizing a significant degree of nature determination of IQ and not a whole hog nurture degree. All the more reason that 30 years of cloud cover over what did or did not happen with him and Slater et al. in Central Africa be at least somewhat penetrated by a bit of revelatory light.

  149. @Bob Woodwort
    It is especially interesting that Mary Alice Slater came to Texas rather often to visit federal prisoner, Rick Franz Heber, herself still holding a powerful position cultivated for her by Heber at the Waisman Center for research of familial-cultural retardation at the U. of Wisconsin , Madison. As noted, she left Madison for Texas Tech U. Health Science Center in Amarillo in June 1984--Heber having entered parole on March 09,,1984. When in 1982, Heber was held at the "white collar" BoP Prison in Big Spring, Texas, she spent three consecutive days visiting him in the company of an official of the Swedish Education Ministry. Whether before at Madison, after she came to TTU HSC in Amarillo, she appears to have started "consultation" work in Sweden (as well as other locations ). Yet it is unclear any of those from Amarillo who were killed in the plane wreck of Dec. 03, 1987, ever had any information--or any clear information--about the dark sides of Heber's past. It is unclear they had any information, in fact, that "Franz R. Heber" of "Monument, Colorado" was the one and same "Rick Heber" of vast national and international regard before getting dismissed and prosecuted at Madison in 1980-81. While , oddly, the FBI investigations of Heber circa 1979-82 or so, seemed all to have been turned over the Wisconsin state investigators, they nonetheless ended up in the hands of the federal prosecutor. But the FBI was keenly aware of the extent of Heber's suspected wrongdoings. Heber was prosecuted on 13 pin point charges. But in her sentencing comments on Dec. 22, 1982, re Heber at the exoneration "sentencing" of Howard Garber, federal judge
    Barbara Crabb noted that the extent of money mishandled by Heber was so great it would probably not be known how much was in question. Again, her sentencing statement re Heber on October 30, 1981, were scathing. It is indeed amazing that the Dallas Field Office of the FBI seems to have notified no Amarillo sources sufficiently that the participants in the "photo safari" (research ) excursion knew of Heber's past. The exception was Mary Alice Slater, who reportedly was so enraptured of Heber she could never see his trial as anything but a "set up".
    And, of course, Tom Askelson of Askelson Associates (one of the crash victims) also was in the know, linked as he had been to both Slater and Heber going back to at least 1982. The Dallas Field Office of the FBI seems to have "gone Ostrich" either at its own direction or in response to orders higher up in the US national security apparatus. ??? Given Heber's formerly high status (Research Director of JFK's Panel on Mental Retardation Policy, e.g. ) , the FBI Field Office in Dallas could hardly have failed to be mindful of any visit with Heber over three consecutive days of an official of the Swedish Education Ministry and his former administrative aide and student, Mary Alice Slater.

    One thing–there are an increasingly large number–that has possibly a “Langley smell” to it is the odd delay, delay, delay in the final publication of the Report for the Milwaukee Project.
    Howard Garber , a very capable and dedicated researcher, had presented a final Report to Heber about May 1980. As noted, that was the time that Heber (in retrospect while interviewed for pre-sentence assessment by the Court ) had become fully aware he was an object of investigation. He gave some rather flimsy pretext to Garber about the Report needing more information. But Garber had been in close enough contact with Heber all along to make this “discovery” seem rather contrived. The Report was noted in newspaper coverage in 1982 as something on its way to getting published. The same was in an article locally in Dec. 1983, that noted the specifics of a publishing contract that would have the Report published by early 1984. Didn’t happen. The only “Cui Bono” that seems suggested in all this is that absent a Report, an amazing portion of the literate press and even academic publications seemed yet to assume that Strickland’s glitzy 1971 “Miracle in Milwaukee’ was essentially a valid outcome report. The effect partly was to keep big question marks over the valid research of Arthur Jensen, Thomas Bouchard, Hans Eysenck, and others. Smells.

    Read More
  150. @Bob Woodwort
    The treatment, mistreatment of his first wife Mary Elizabeth Scarborough Heber, married September 19, 1953, in Fayetteville, AR, is probably extremely sordid. And the neglect of any truly affectionate relationship to the children (after the separation in about October 1961 or so) is nauseating. How is it that federal authorities failed to regard this information? More and more and more the spectre looms of Heber having been anchored to the American national security establishment by at least mid 1962, if not by, say, 1957. And then all the cloud cover
    for research covertly underway in Central Africa circa October 1985-Dec. 03, 1987. But, too, Heber associates knew that Heber had been making trips into and from Kenya (central travel hub for that part of Africa ) going way back into the 1960's. For 30 years the lack of overt manifest interest of American national security organs in what research Heber/ Slater did or did not have going on in Central Africa 1985-Dec. 03, 1987--this lack of overt interest and the absence of any degree of safeguard disclosures re such research----this has a truly spooky aura. If Heber was linked to/ anchored to/ the American national security apparatus at the inception
    (1962 population survey grant for the demographics of the inner city of Milwaukee ) of the Milwaukee Project---this is the stuff of retrospective Congressional hearings and investigations. ??

    The University of Wisconsin at Madison has very able and accommodative archivist. But don’t ask for a lot of information about Heber. In fact, the lack of information is glaring. It is almost like trying to ask in Paris for archival information about Anton Mesmer. But information about Mesmer was deliberately obliterated after he had suffered inquisition, as it were. The University almost certainly compiled its own full and exact transcript of the nine day trial of Heber and Patrick Flanigan, his co-defendant. Indeed, as judge Barbara Crabb herself commented on October 30, 1981, and more so on Dec. 22, 1982, in open court—the University was in many way “on trial” (socially / politically ) as much as Heber. But even the local newspaper expose articles re Heber are not in the archives. Articles about Howard Garber (himself fully exonerated ) are. There are articles about Waisman funding problems in the wake of the Heber scandal . But almost nothing re Heber., And the University, by all overt indications, was rather “hands off’ about all the delays re the Report for the Milwaukee Project. There would be many honest lessons for higher education in a thorough retrospective re Heber. And then the odd lack of any national publicity about Fixmer’s expose articles and the trial testimony. The American national security apparatus may not have been basic to all these omissions. But it does smell.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bob Woodwort
    All these comments about Rick Heber , the "Milwaukee Project", the yet mysterious research involvements of post-prison life, 1985-87, etc. neglect the encompassing larger issues. It is fairly apt to say that Rick Heber was something of a cap-and-gown counterpart to "The Man Who Corrupted Hadleyburg". The great Twain story is not about a con man--it is a PETT scan/MRI scan of the underside of life in a burgeoning bourgeois America. A key reason so much of what needs to be regarded about Heber's academic career-relevant biography is unexcavated by "scholars" is that it adds up not to a profile of Heber but to what stares any academic in the face when he/she looks into the mirror at Scott Fitzgerland's "three o'clock in the morning of a dark night of the soul". Campus USA both in 1959-80 and now is far more vigorous at pointing what's outside the window than examining "in house" what is to be seen in the mirror. And part of that is that on Campus USA prudence is not the better part of valor--it consumes valor. And part of the lack of excavation is the very eerie sense one gets about the pervasively odd acts and omissions that were allowed to distinguish Heber's campus life until about May 1980 or so. The sense of "what are we getting into?" is a big chill factor for a not very courageous Campus USA. And, then, the massively obsessive concern with "publish or perish" and "his data/ my data....your data/ our data..." renders most of reality as sidebar.Barbara Crabb's personal brilliance (and her detailed acquaintance with the Madison campus and the echelons of leadership at UW Madison ) makes her pithy comment re the University being "on trial" worthy of much specific elaboration. That trial not only has never taken place...the work toward "investigation" has never begun. "The Man Who Corrupted Hadleyburg".
  151. @Numinous

    hence Germany and Morocco have had more historical interchanges than China and India have ever had…
     
    Buddhism?

    Modern term Indians are actually just like the term Africans – both have been merely a geographic term, consisting of similar people but from 100s of different, seperate tribes, and have closer average IQ levels to each other.
     
    Every "nation" that exists today is a geographical "term". Some are more assimilated than others. Some have more widely shared cultures than others. The rest is just semantics.

    There are indeed forest dwelling tribes in peninsular India, and in the north eastern borderlands. But referring to all other groups (guilds, castes) comprising the major part of the Indian population as "tribes" is profoundly mistaken. All these caste groups have, for about 3 millenia if not more, been symbiotically linked together in spite of (or perhaps because of) practicing endogamy. They each traditionally had their circumscribed sets of privileges as well as duties. From your vantage point (partly a very modern Enlightenment-derived one), endogamous groups seem like tribes to you because you have no understanding of Indian society or its history. But they aren't that separate. Could "India" well be a collection of nation states, like Africa is, or Christendom (Europe) is? Sure, but the basis would be ethno-linguistic. China could be a collection of nation states too, on that basis, though a lot fewer.

    And Indians do have historical memory; it was just transmitted orally, so is quite unreliable in places. Every piece of historical research done by the British, or every artefact dug up, was corroborated with a corresponding historical account/legend from the Vedas, Puranas, etc.

    It seems to be the fashion among modern Chinese to turn up their noses at Indians, who have demonstrably failed at modern governance after the breakdown of their traditional practices. Comparing themselves favorably to a dirty and disorganized country seems to boost their ego and make them ignore the horrendous corruption in their own political class and the environmental degradation that modernity has brought upon them.

    Buddhism?

    You gotta be kidding Panda= ROFL

    Buddhism had 2 hoots to do with India?

    Buddhism was invented by a Nepal Prince, from a tribe that is overwelmingly quite `East Asian`-Tibetan by appearances.

    Buddhism has been inherently against what Indians have been craving for. The fact on teh ground zero is that Buddhism is trial in India, where the most popular thing is Hinduism. Yeah, a bit related, but still far away.

    Buddhism was forced upon Chinese by several Tang Dynasty Emporers. Buddhism has never been more influential in China than home-grown Daoism and Confuism

    What the Han Chinese have done, they took that primitive and lazy form of Buddhism to a complete different level, more akin to a new brach of philosophy, before passing it on to Korea and Japan who developed their own based on China´s.

    The East Asia Buddhism today in very essence has jack to do with primitive form of Buddhism left in India today .

    Actually Buddhism was about the only major thing between the 2 region in the 2,000 years exchange, spices, elephent tooth, and other minor exchanges aside.

    Oh, Panda forgot so-called `0`, zero. ROFL, Yeah right the Chinese were just too stupid to know about 0.

    Infact to go to South Asia was sooooo difficult, A tang Dynasty monk achieve agsinst all odds has threfore bcome a hero in Chinese folk stories. 1 out of 4 the grestest Chinese classical literature was about the fancy stroies about the trip of this monk, called `The Journey to the West`.

    And Indians do have historical memory; it was just transmitted orally, so is quite unreliable in places

    Brilliant. That´s the only thing Panda needs to know. Quite self-evident, isn´t it?

    `Yay, we are the smartest in the world inventing countless things…the only tiny problem is that we forgot to write them down, so trust me or else. ` African supermacists claim so in the similar fashion. Wonderful! ROFL

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous

    Buddhism was invented by a Nepal Prince, from a tribe that is overwelmingly quite `East Asian`-Tibetan by appearances.
     
    Completely wrong. Go pick up a history book!

    I'm not going to bother with the rest of your moronic comment. I never claimed India invented everything or was the greatest country in the world. I was just addressing (and refuting) some pointed statements you made. Probably went over your head.
  152. @Bob Woodwort
    The treatment, mistreatment of his first wife Mary Elizabeth Scarborough Heber, married September 19, 1953, in Fayetteville, AR, is probably extremely sordid. And the neglect of any truly affectionate relationship to the children (after the separation in about October 1961 or so) is nauseating. How is it that federal authorities failed to regard this information? More and more and more the spectre looms of Heber having been anchored to the American national security establishment by at least mid 1962, if not by, say, 1957. And then all the cloud cover
    for research covertly underway in Central Africa circa October 1985-Dec. 03, 1987. But, too, Heber associates knew that Heber had been making trips into and from Kenya (central travel hub for that part of Africa ) going way back into the 1960's. For 30 years the lack of overt manifest interest of American national security organs in what research Heber/ Slater did or did not have going on in Central Africa 1985-Dec. 03, 1987--this lack of overt interest and the absence of any degree of safeguard disclosures re such research----this has a truly spooky aura. If Heber was linked to/ anchored to/ the American national security apparatus at the inception
    (1962 population survey grant for the demographics of the inner city of Milwaukee ) of the Milwaukee Project---this is the stuff of retrospective Congressional hearings and investigations. ??

    If you study Heber’s dissertation (1957 , at Vanderbilt/George Peabody in Nashville ) or his 1967 paper presentation at a symposium at the U.of Oregon, Eugene–you see that he was no Blank Slate advocate. Rather, he seemed to be (as a dollar eager consultant who was considered brilliant as such ) looking for what might be doable rather than what couldn’t be done to alleviate, prevent, mitigate mental retardation. He wasn’t fixed on the same stars that grabbed Blank Slaters like Watson, Gould, Kamin, Rose, (Skinner?). As noted, he hypothesized (under the influence of Prof. Gordon Cantor ) in setting up the Milwaukee Project design what later Jensen came to discover as “cumulative deficit” within severely environmentally deprived settings. In the archival interview (he was forced via faculty contract to undergo ) of May 14, 1979 (Heber would not voluntarily consent to be interviewed even for the archives of the JFK Project on MR Policy that he was Research Director for in 1961 and into 1962!), Heber makes clear that the hype of the “Miracle in Milwaukee” article was a defensive effort (brilliantly and amorally successful, BTW) to defuse local criticism of the testing of Black IQ vis a vis the Jensen storm from the 1969 HER article.

    By the time he emerged from parole (early) in October 1985, he had a firm basis for hypothesizing a significant degree of nature determination of IQ and not a whole hog nurture degree. All the more reason that 30 years of cloud cover over what did or did not happen with him and Slater et al. in Central Africa be at least somewhat penetrated by a bit of revelatory light.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bob Woodwort
    There were "question marks" re Heber before he got to wheeling and dealing from the U of
    Wisconsin Madison campus. Back during his doctoral study days in Nashville (George Peabody/Vanderbilt) Heber had made contact with Eunice Shriver, sister of JFK and sister, as well, of the handicapped Rose Mary Kennedy. For a long time--without much,if any, direct mention of Heber, distinguished psychiatrist Bertram Brown had scrutinized the case of Rose Mary Kennedy and proclaimed that the notion she had been mentally retarded was a hoax. Heber was widely and convergently reported to have been involved either directly, or by way of over seeing, a behavioral modification treatment of Rose Mary initiated presumably about 1958 or 59. She had been for many years placed in a nice Catholic care facility in a rather semi rural setting in Wisconsin. The wide and convergent information points to Heber or person under his direction having succeeded in applying behavior modification to eliminate such tell tale signs of disorder as drooling and emotional outbursts,etc. According to Brown, while she almost certainly was a dull normal child in a bright family, she had not been retarded. A lobotomy had been attempted on her in the early 40's, apparently out of fear she might be, or might yet become, sexually profligate. The results were an iatrogenic disaster. At any rate, her behaivors had been modified by Heber or others linked to him so that by 1959 she could return to Hyannis Port for receptions in honor of forthcoming presidential candidate John F.Kennedy and be free of intrusively inappropriate behaviors--could have, if in wall flower status, an appearance of belonging rather than not belonging. It is silly to assume Heber had that sort of proximity and value to Kennedy power without having been a person of positive interest to national security entities. Heber's "wired in" status with the Kennedys does nothing to dissipate factually based suspicions that he may have been closely anchored to the US national security apparatus well before he got grants totally $14 million to carry out the Milwaukee Project, etc., and to keep a massive amount of grant money coming into the Waisman Center while he was Director.
  153. Numinous says:
    @PandaAtWar

    Buddhism?
     
    You gotta be kidding Panda= ROFL

    Buddhism had 2 hoots to do with India?

    Buddhism was invented by a Nepal Prince, from a tribe that is overwelmingly quite `East Asian`-Tibetan by appearances.

    Buddhism has been inherently against what Indians have been craving for. The fact on teh ground zero is that Buddhism is trial in India, where the most popular thing is Hinduism. Yeah, a bit related, but still far away.

    Buddhism was forced upon Chinese by several Tang Dynasty Emporers. Buddhism has never been more influential in China than home-grown Daoism and Confuism

    What the Han Chinese have done, they took that primitive and lazy form of Buddhism to a complete different level, more akin to a new brach of philosophy, before passing it on to Korea and Japan who developed their own based on China´s.

    The East Asia Buddhism today in very essence has jack to do with primitive form of Buddhism left in India today .

    Actually Buddhism was about the only major thing between the 2 region in the 2,000 years exchange, spices, elephent tooth, and other minor exchanges aside.

    Oh, Panda forgot so-called `0`, zero. ROFL, Yeah right the Chinese were just too stupid to know about 0.


    Infact to go to South Asia was sooooo difficult, A tang Dynasty monk achieve agsinst all odds has threfore bcome a hero in Chinese folk stories. 1 out of 4 the grestest Chinese classical literature was about the fancy stroies about the trip of this monk, called `The Journey to the West`.


    And Indians do have historical memory; it was just transmitted orally, so is quite unreliable in places

     

    Brilliant. That´s the only thing Panda needs to know. Quite self-evident, isn´t it?

    `Yay, we are the smartest in the world inventing countless things...the only tiny problem is that we forgot to write them down, so trust me or else. ` African supermacists claim so in the similar fashion. Wonderful! ROFL

    Buddhism was invented by a Nepal Prince, from a tribe that is overwelmingly quite `East Asian`-Tibetan by appearances.

    Completely wrong. Go pick up a history book!

    I’m not going to bother with the rest of your moronic comment. I never claimed India invented everything or was the greatest country in the world. I was just addressing (and refuting) some pointed statements you made. Probably went over your head.

    Read More
  154. Chuck says:
    @swank
    "You keep changing the topic."

    No, I'm not. The average strong hereditarian is not much different than the average individual. And HBDers generally give lip service to races-as-populations before meticulously analyzing data on "blacks" and "whites," and generally confining their analyses to those groups.

    "In Evo Bio, there is considerable disagreement on this issue"

    No, there isn't.

    "A clade is by definition monophyletic, meaning it contains one ancestor (which can be an organism, a population, or a species) and all its descendants."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clade

    "A clade is a grouping that includes a common ancestor and all the descendants (living and extinct) of that ancestor."
    http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/imagedetail.php?id=260&topic_id=&keywords=

    "a group of biological taxa (as species) that includes all descendants of one common ancestor"
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clade

    You're citing to a debate over cladistics in the context of "some degree of" reticulation; the human race has such a high degree of reticulation that there's no evidence of any incipient speciation --- i.e. cladistic branching. This gets back to the "tree-as-a-model," and model assumptions (unsurprisingly, again). With a small amount of reticulation, the model will be accurate. With a larger amount, it will be useless.

    If you represent human races on a cladogram while taking out the main useful feature of a cladogram --- monphyletic branching --- then you are not adding any informative content. In some situations, the reticulation may be slight enough for cladistic representation, but not when reticulate evolution seems to be extremely high within a group.

    In every case in which treeness has been tested for human populations, it has been rejected. In contrast, the evolutionary trees found throughout the human genetic literature, such as that portrayed in Figure 4, are simply invoked. There is no hypothesis testing, even though treeness or multiple lineages are testable hypotheses. Simply invoking conclusions without testing them is scientifically indefensible; yet, that is the norm for population trees in much of the human evolution literature.

    Many of the papers that portray human population trees caution in the text that the populations are not truly genetically isolated, but this makes the tree portrayal even less defensible as the authors are knowingly portraying human evolution in a false fashion. Moreover, it is socially irresponsible.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737365/

    And that is why race realists make their "charts" (they call them cladograms, but given the clear and unrefuted definition of a clade, they are not cladograms); they want to lend their divisions more scientific credibility than is warranted. Just like invoking a reticulation discussion that by its own terms probably doesn't apply to human races. Just like invoking a pop. gen model for short-term selection to supposedly long-term selection.

    “The average strong hereditarian is not much different than the average individual. And HBDers generally give lip service to races-as-populations before meticulously analyzing data on “blacks” and “whites,” and generally confining their analyses to those groups.”

    I presume that the average “strong hereditarian” treats “black” and “white” Americans/British as socially defined ethnic groups (called “races”) and sees theses groups as overlapping, to some degree, with genomically defined races (“genetic clusters”); these genomically defined races, in turn, are seen as being offshoots of two separate major fuzzy, infra-specific clades (called Negroids and Caucasoids). But, of course, I don’t know what YOUR “average strong hereditarian” has in mind. Could you point me to some papers written by one?

    “You’re citing to a debate over cladistics in the context of “some degree of” reticulation; the human race has such a high degree of reticulation that there’s no evidence of any incipient speciation — i.e. cladistic branching… [Cite Templeton].”

    I already pointed you to Velasco (2012) who criticized Templeton on this very point:

    “[I]t has been argued that there has been so much admixture in human history that the concept of race makes no biological sense (Templeton 1998; but see Andreasen 2004). However, trees of human populations are quite useful for understanding major ancestral migratory events (Soares et al. 2009). Obviously there are migrations between human populations. But whether the amount of migration is “sufficient” to be best represented as collapsing the distinction between different lineages depends on what aspects of the lineages we are focusing on. For different inference purposes, different representations of genealogical history focusing on different aspects of that history are appropriate. Looking at trees of populations at the subspecific level, such as those of humans, is common in the growing field of phylogeography (Avise, 2000). This is a clear example of the superiority of the modeling defense of trees since if there were genetic isolation between these lineages they would represent different species. [Italics added.]”

    There are three points here worth reiterating:

    As divisions of a species, races have usually been understood in terms of genealogical networks. This idea goes back to Buffon and Duchesne (mid 1700s).

    Also such, yes, they don’t form strict clades or linage branches (in the Hennig or Mayrian sense).

    Yet in biology “clades” are often used to represent major migration patterns, regardless of admixture and population flows. As noted by Velasco (2012), “Looking at trees of populations at the subspecific level, such as those of humans, is common in the growing field of phylogeography (Avise, 2000).” Thus if you google scholar “subspecies + clade” you will get numerous hits.

    But, yes, you can protest the sloppy term use. This, though, is a generic problem.

    “Just like invoking a reticulation discussion that by its own terms probably doesn’t apply to human races.”

    What possibly do you mean here?

    “Just like invoking a pop. gen model for short-term selection to supposedly long-term selection.”

    You seemed to have missed the point, which was that the difference in genetic variance (and thus heritability assuming constant environmental variance) would be a function of the amount of selection. Since the hypothetical genetic difference under consideration is only around 1 SD the difference in genetic variance must be relatively small; this is true whether the selection is stretched out for 400 generations — at 0.0025 SD per generation — or compacted into one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @swank
    I presume that the average

    That's nice. I presume nothing and point to what is actually done. HBDers give lip service to a trivial notion of race but then confine their analyses to the "social construct" outlines.

    Is your position that HBDers do not routinely look for differences between "blacks" and "whites" and use data sets comparing "blacks" with "whites?"

    As divisions of a species, races have usually been understood in terms of genealogical networks

    No, they haven't. You are trying to rewrite the concept's history. It underwent a gradual shift from vague sometimes geographic typology in the 16th century to connected firmly with biology and descent in the 19th century.

    Also such, yes, they don’t form strict clades or linage branches (in the Hennig or Mayrian sense).

    Which is the original point. You are just, as I have already said, arguing for an exception to the general rule.

    But, yes, you can protest the sloppy term use. This, though, is a generic problem.

    It's not sloppy term use, it's disingenuous term use. HBDers pretend to share the trivial definition of "race-as-population" with modern scientists but then conduct themselves and approach their analyses using data on "blacks," "whites," and "asians."

    What possibly do you mean here?

    The debate you cite to discusses how the mere presence of reticulation does not form a complete barrier to cladistic representation, which is true. Any model can tolerate some deviation from its ideal assumptions. But the level of reticulation in humanity is so high that any cladistic representation will likely be very inaccurate.

    Thus if you google scholar “subspecies + clade” you will get numerous hits.

    And as the paper I cited in my last comment demonstrates --- a tree representation for humanity is unsupported.

    which was that the difference in genetic variance (and thus heritability assuming constant environmental variance) would be a function of the amount of selection. Since the hypothetical genetic difference under consideration is only around 1 SD

    I didn't "miss the point" at all. This statement superficially contradicts the entire assertion that any selection on the trait was "strong," which is why I referred to HBDers saying many contradictory things. And even 1 SD worth of selection will erode genetic variance; whether it's "small" or not actually all depends on how much actual and absolute (the trait itself is redefined every generation in renorming) initial variance there is in a population.
  155. Chuck says:
    @Anti-Hereditarian
    Evolution, natural selection and transracial gene flow (+ a few words about Nigeria)

    Many hereditarians seem confused about the idea that races can't be descended from distinct ancestor and that there is nothing like a black Eve, an Asian Eve and an European Eve. Their common claim is that we have been living separately for so many years that we know form different subspecies with particular and morphological and behavioral traits.

    First of all, as I said in my precedent comment, natural selection happens when an unfit individual is forbidden to reproduce while an advantaged one is given more chances to reproduce. The main factor that plays here is mortality. Mortality was very high in prehistorical times, life expectancy was around 30 and reaching the age of puberty was a privilege. What mattered then was not intelligence but resistance to environemental forces: white children in the tropics would die from sunburn at higher rate and be filtered from selection, black ones would be seriously weakened by D vitamin deficiency and those who developped a mutation for lighter skin would live longer and have at first "mixed race" children whose advantage would after generations of higher mortality of the darkest ones end up to select the whitest ones.

    Now, as you can expect from hunter gatherers, our ancestors where nomads, they they started to wander across Africa some 200 000 years ago and a small tribe of them left the continent to spread across the world replacing archaic men starting from about 60 000 years ago. Some claim that admixture happened but the Africans took over as a whole. Even smaller fractions of the exilees went back to the motherland in different waves that went to spread across Africa blending with the autochtonous as you can see from the haplogroups of the Y chromosome transmitted from father to son (map: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/World_Map_of_Y-DNA_Haplogroups.png ) .

    But these great migrations are only a small fraction of the population movements that have happened on a smaller geographical scale. Hunter gatherers often die at a significant distance from where their grandparents were born and in their wanderings, they encounter other groups. Most often, and that's human nature, encounter with a foreigner is hostile. Defeated men get killed and their women (if they are found) become like sex-prisoners and gene flow occures between different populations. Every time one such interaction happens there can be intra-racial transmission of genetic markers with no selective value coming a very distant place and originating from an other race, only natural obstacle can limit or stop this flow.

    If by miracle a different race ends up in a significantly environement for which it has adapted (genetically and culturally) the chance that its traits persist are very low because 1) higher mortality will cause natural selection 2) the environment is unknown and one can be tempted by a fruit that is actually poisonous, another can be a little bit too careless or curious when encountering a snake 3) other hunter gatherers who know the terrain have an advantage over the intruders and will kill them or procreate and dilute their traits by admixture and racial uniformity over generations.

    The global distribution of the Y chromosome haplotypes is greatly transracial but correlates significantly with language families and sometimes with genetic disorders caused by other genes but originating from a particular population. For instance, Western European R1b indicates that the Spaniard, the French and people from the British Isles have a strong Iberian-Celtic ancestral base and have been superficially romanized or germanized. But R1b is also prevalent in the Lake Chad region in Africa where it coincides with Chadic speakers (related to Arabic, East African and North African languages) and shows traces of a migration from the middle East via the Nile Valley and people being pushed south by desertification after Sahara's wet phase was over.

    Y chromosome haplotypes are the most culturally informative genetic markers that exist and they sometimes reach a 100% frequency in a given ethnicity. I can almost say that we speak this genetic mutations every day if we are from a non acculturated group. Unfortunately for the hereditarians, our intelligence is probably not carried by this gene because 1) it is only found in boys whereas girls follow approximately the same IQ patterns according to your data and 2) the Y chromosome is actually the smallest and genetically the poorest of all.

    Now, I really need to debunk your totally nonsense assertions about IQ based social stratification in history.

    After the transition to agriculture, men had more control over their environement and were somewhat less affected by natural selection. They lived longer, had better nutrition and were less susceptible to die from cold or heat because of improvments in their general standards of living. Longer life expectancy means longer time to accumulate knowledge and pass it to generations, and stability, food security led to less survival-focused communities that could put more effort into cultural and technical developpement. Yet, what mattered then was still not a great intelligence but as many offsprings as possible to use as farm hands. Agricultural societies tend to have an obsession for fecundity, fecundity of the soil, fecundity of women and nothing ever prevented rural dummies to reproduce at faster rate than more intellectually trained urbanites. The peasantry never had any need to raise children to become geniuses, especially when those at the top of the social ladder were not the most intelligent but the strongest.

    In the first forms of state organization, the elites emerged from the warrior castes and nobility has almost always been synonymous with the military. The lord offers security to the peasant in exchange for his subordination and a share of his harvest. The only type of government that would approximate your supposed IQcracy was theocracy but it came later and never was long lasting nor independant from the military, it only focused more on psychological control to subordinate the masses.

    In fact, it was not uncommon that unsophisticated barabarians took over brilliant but somewhat decadant civilizations by the simple fact of their destructive force to become the ruling elite. See the Macedonians over the Greeks, the Franks over the Gallo-Romans, the Manchu over the Chinese, the Arabs over the Byzantine, the Funj of Sennar over the Nubians... But these barbarians were often able to recognize the superiority of the conquered and assimilated in their culture except when they came with a prophetic message...

    For the most of pre-industrial era, the socio-evolutive pattern was more "copulate as much as you can and never forget that might makes right". And now in the developped world, new social pressures have changed our reproductive strategies but who can seriously believe that people fall in love with their partner's IQ ? Some may fall in love with money or power and they often come to regret their decision. As whole and over their lifetime,k the jock, the thug and the cheerleader get more sex than the geek and the bookworm who rather have to keep their right hand safe. If we follow the rules of natural selection or social biology, we must conclude that the Japanese are in the twilight of their evolutionary destiny. The Chinese are even worse since they follow this path by design with their one-child policy that makes them the first people organizing its self destruction...

    I also noticed your sudden intererst about the Igbo people and I find you extremely creative in making new unfounded theories about a black african average IQ niche.Well, I really think you need some historical insight about Nigeria.

    The reason why the Igbo enjoy a better socio-economic position in Nigeria is because of their historical commercial affinities with the British as their main provider of slaves in the Gulf of Guinea. It explains why so many African Americans have a great degree of Igbo ancestry. Further west, still in Nigeria, the Yorubas were the trading partners of the Portuguese and then the Brazilians. So for the British the Igbos were seen as allies while the Yorubas had dangerous affinities with a foreign colonial power. Further north, the Fulani-Hausa had a well established state: the Sokoto Caliphate. This muslim northerners had understood protectorate as protectorate and not as colony or province so they held on tight to their traditional state and even today, they are much less permeable to western influence. Boko Haram originates from their lands and grossly means "western education is sinfull" in Hausa.

    So the friendly Igbos were given a role of middlemen supplementing the colonial administration in the economic exploitation of Nigeria and clearly enjoyed an Igbo privilege in addition to living in the oil-rich region of Nigeria. And the main reason why Nigeria is such a mess is that it is a patchwork of subnationalities and that every discourse about national fraternity in this country is just completely hypocrite. Nigeria is not a nation and is never going to achieve a leadership comitted to equal economic developement for its people. the only person who had a low IQ was the one that defined Nigeria's borders and decided to make it a country.

    If we except the very provincially minded Northern Nigerians and other muslims of the Sahel, middle class West Africans have an achievement thurst similar to the Indians and the Chinese. Their lower visibility overseas is due to 1) amalgamation with other blacks 2) absolute numbers: the Chinese and the Indians are more than 1.2 billions each while West Africa has only 0.4 billion inhabitants (40-50% of them under the age of 15) on an area that is roughly equal to the United States. The high achieving West Africans in the west are as representative of their home country population as the Indians. West Africa and India are at very similar levels of economic and social developpement, they just greatly differ in dimension and West Africa mainly consists in Nigeria + 20 neocolonial microstates. And just for your information, the middle class in Africa is not the top 1%, they reprensent a significant minority of the urban population and those who live modestly but decently are the majority. This continent is not a refugee camp.


    Still pardon my french, I promise that I will reboost my English if I become an habitual commenter on this site.

    Last word: you guys are fascinating, are you aware that your theories are religious in principle ?

    You are trying to make sense of things that you don't even bother understanding correctly and create a whole mythology where genes are your gods, IQ the holly spirit, the Pioneer Fund your Holy Seat, its grantees your prophetes, hereditarian bloggers the exegetist priests, feeble minded recidivist commenters are your parishioners, inherent racial hierarchy is your dogma, the theory of cold climate adaptive intellectual advantage is your version of creation and scientific accuracy is your version of heresy.

    Moderator can edit that last part.

    You are invited to post a condensed version of this essay in the forum section of Open Differential Psychology/Open Behavioral Genetics. When I have time, I will (constructively) critique it there.

    Read More
  156. @Bob Woodwort
    Information recently attained under FOIA re Rick (Franz) Heber's prison time, helps reveal why some very perceptive people--e.g. Prof. Ellis Page; Prof. Cecil Reynolds; Prof. R. J. Herrnstein; and many others--had a lot of reservations about anything Heber was linked to. Heber, in responding / "responding"/ to pre-sentencing interviews after his conviction on 13 felony counts of juggling money in July 1981, reveals himself to be reflexively disposed to misinformation, dissembling, etc. Born in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada on January 12, 1093, he has misinfo fun by confusing European and American renditions of such a date---thus he
    manages to introduce onto his Colorado DL (in the name of Franz Richard Heber, btw ) a Dob of Dec. 01, 1932. He used many variations of his name. His name probably was "morphed" a bit (?) when he took American citizenship. His Canadian birth name was Richard Frank Heber.
    After , if not before?, his mother's death in the summer of 1955, he began to drop "Frank" and become "Franz". He was variously Franz R. Heber; Rick F. Heber; Richard F. Heber; F. Richard Heber, etc. He was dismissed from his administrative positon as Director of the Waisman Center at UW Madison on Dec. 03, 1980, and banned from campus. His tenured faculty position, however, presented more obstacles to dismissal. Accordingly, after his trial, he announced he would appeal and did appeal. But he also tendered a resignation from the tenured position. UW Madison appears to have accepted the resignation in early August 1981. Heber a couple of years later asserts he took a leave of absence from UW Madison in Dec. 1980 because of his emotional upset over knowing he was being investigated. His "leave" was a ban on stepping foot on campus (other than in custody to get his mail ). He asserts he resigned from his prestigious position as Waisman Director in August 1981. He forgets to mention to his pre-sentencing interviewer that he had been married before his then current marriage. He had four children with a woman he married in September 1953 in Fayetteville, AR. He refused to have any personal contact with her or the children but did from time to time send them cards and small presents. When the older child, himself in Wisconsin for some Project or something, looked Heber up to visit with him, Heber sent him away. Heber claimed he had been divorced from his first wife in 1962; he was divorced in 1964, to take effect in 1966. He could not recall the exact year his mother died, although he had been in Manitoba for months before she died in order,, in part, to be near her. He told his interviewer that his mother had come from Sweden to Canada. While it is true his father was born in Austria , just over the German border, his mother was born in Saskatchewan. Thus, the interview dismissed making contact with any of Heber's maternal aunts or uncles. In fact, his mother had four brothers born in Saskatchewan and at least one sister. These deception games seem reflexive and are all serving the purpose of making it very difficult for anyone to get accurate and detailed information of any sort about him. The sentencing comments about him both at his own sentencing on October 30, 1981, and on Dec. 22, 1982, at the exoneration "sentencing" of his underling , Howard Garber--are scathing in their portrayal of Heber as a psychopath aiming only at his own wealth and gratification and having no genuine concern for the risks he puts others at in his own selfish strategies. In this context, it is amazing that Texas Tech University and the University of Gothenburg and the Volvo Corporation (Corporate donor to the U of Gothenburg IDRERI research entity Heber was Director of from October 1985 until presumably his death on Dec. 03, 1987 ) all seemed oblivious to his trial and prison sentence and the award winning expose articles about Heber by then Madison Capitol Journal writer, Rob Fixmer. One is left with the keen sense that the Dallas FBI Field Office , either at its own preference or from order higher up in the American national security apparatus ? , seemed to be "all Ostrich" about Heber when he was a "tour guide" for "photo safaris" from TTU Amarillo in 1986 and on the fatal one of 1987. As noted, the obit for Mary Alice Slater, his long time close collaborator and associate, was entered into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD--SENATE for Dec. 11, 1987, at about page 35285 or so. It establishes that whatever "photo safari" was involved, the salient purpose of the excursions was research (research re low IQ and mental retardation ). Two universities are left to plead "ignorance" as an excuse. Hmmmm.

    Heber’s letter of provisional “acceptance” (provisional–he had to get released early from parole!) of the position as Research Director of IDRERI at the University of Gothenburg in
    Sweden, actually spoke of “a research project” and did not denote involvement across Europe and across Central Africa in a whole lot of projects. This puts even larger question marks over why there has been no information made public as to what he was doing with IDRERI and
    U. of Gothenburg when he was involved in a 1986 “photo safari” (covert research project) with Mary Alice Slater, then of Texas Tech U. Health Science Center (Amarillo) and in the fatal 1987 safari. As noted repeatedly, her family informed obit makes clear she was involved in the 1987 excursion in research–not mainly, if at all, in touristy “photo safari” fun. Where , as far as needed clarifications and background information, etc., was the Dallas FBI Field Office in all of this?? Given how Heber was excoriated by the federal trial judge and how he was disgraced by the award winning expose newspaper investigative articles of Rob Fixmer, it is really “All Ostrich” that the Dallas field office of the FBI would not have informed suitable elements of TTU HSC and Amarillo law enforcement re Heber’s background, the very close personal and professional involvements Heber and Slater had going, etc. Any two such people going in and out of Central Africa would have raised a reasonable question of whether research on low IQ was going on and if so, how much safeguard prior disclosure had been made about it. The term “affirmative action” has huge meaning in this context. Agencies like the FBI or the CIA do not just rest content with what is meeting the eye ball or the ear, but they look into such matters in an “affirmative action” way in the interest or preventing abuses and honoring cultural safeguards re research on human subjects.

    Read More
  157. @Bob Woodwort
    If you study Heber's dissertation (1957 , at Vanderbilt/George Peabody in Nashville ) or his 1967 paper presentation at a symposium at the U.of Oregon, Eugene--you see that he was no Blank Slate advocate. Rather, he seemed to be (as a dollar eager consultant who was considered brilliant as such ) looking for what might be doable rather than what couldn't be done to alleviate, prevent, mitigate mental retardation. He wasn't fixed on the same stars that grabbed Blank Slaters like Watson, Gould, Kamin, Rose, (Skinner?). As noted, he hypothesized (under the influence of Prof. Gordon Cantor ) in setting up the Milwaukee Project design what later Jensen came to discover as "cumulative deficit" within severely environmentally deprived settings. In the archival interview (he was forced via faculty contract to undergo ) of May 14, 1979 (Heber would not voluntarily consent to be interviewed even for the archives of the JFK Project on MR Policy that he was Research Director for in 1961 and into 1962!), Heber makes clear that the hype of the "Miracle in Milwaukee" article was a defensive effort (brilliantly and amorally successful, BTW) to defuse local criticism of the testing of Black IQ vis a vis the Jensen storm from the 1969 HER article.

    By the time he emerged from parole (early) in October 1985, he had a firm basis for hypothesizing a significant degree of nature determination of IQ and not a whole hog nurture degree. All the more reason that 30 years of cloud cover over what did or did not happen with him and Slater et al. in Central Africa be at least somewhat penetrated by a bit of revelatory light.

    There were “question marks” re Heber before he got to wheeling and dealing from the U of
    Wisconsin Madison campus. Back during his doctoral study days in Nashville (George Peabody/Vanderbilt) Heber had made contact with Eunice Shriver, sister of JFK and sister, as well, of the handicapped Rose Mary Kennedy. For a long time–without much,if any, direct mention of Heber, distinguished psychiatrist Bertram Brown had scrutinized the case of Rose Mary Kennedy and proclaimed that the notion she had been mentally retarded was a hoax. Heber was widely and convergently reported to have been involved either directly, or by way of over seeing, a behavioral modification treatment of Rose Mary initiated presumably about 1958 or 59. She had been for many years placed in a nice Catholic care facility in a rather semi rural setting in Wisconsin. The wide and convergent information points to Heber or person under his direction having succeeded in applying behavior modification to eliminate such tell tale signs of disorder as drooling and emotional outbursts,etc. According to Brown, while she almost certainly was a dull normal child in a bright family, she had not been retarded. A lobotomy had been attempted on her in the early 40′s, apparently out of fear she might be, or might yet become, sexually profligate. The results were an iatrogenic disaster. At any rate, her behaivors had been modified by Heber or others linked to him so that by 1959 she could return to Hyannis Port for receptions in honor of forthcoming presidential candidate John F.Kennedy and be free of intrusively inappropriate behaviors–could have, if in wall flower status, an appearance of belonging rather than not belonging. It is silly to assume Heber had that sort of proximity and value to Kennedy power without having been a person of positive interest to national security entities. Heber’s “wired in” status with the Kennedys does nothing to dissipate factually based suspicions that he may have been closely anchored to the US national security apparatus well before he got grants totally $14 million to carry out the Milwaukee Project, etc., and to keep a massive amount of grant money coming into the Waisman Center while he was Director.

    Read More
  158. swank says:
    @Chuck
    "The average strong hereditarian is not much different than the average individual. And HBDers generally give lip service to races-as-populations before meticulously analyzing data on “blacks” and “whites,” and generally confining their analyses to those groups."

    I presume that the average "strong hereditarian" treats “black” and “white” Americans/British as socially defined ethnic groups (called "races") and sees theses groups as overlapping, to some degree, with genomically defined races ("genetic clusters"); these genomically defined races, in turn, are seen as being offshoots of two separate major fuzzy, infra-specific clades (called Negroids and Caucasoids). But, of course, I don't know what YOUR "average strong hereditarian" has in mind. Could you point me to some papers written by one?

    "You’re citing to a debate over cladistics in the context of “some degree of” reticulation; the human race has such a high degree of reticulation that there’s no evidence of any incipient speciation — i.e. cladistic branching... [Cite Templeton]."

    I already pointed you to Velasco (2012) who criticized Templeton on this very point:

    "[I]t has been argued that there has been so much admixture in human history that the concept of race makes no biological sense (Templeton 1998; but see Andreasen 2004). However, trees of human populations are quite useful for understanding major ancestral migratory events (Soares et al. 2009). Obviously there are migrations between human populations. But whether the amount of migration is “sufficient” to be best represented as collapsing the distinction between different lineages depends on what aspects of the lineages we are focusing on. For different inference purposes, different representations of genealogical history focusing on different aspects of that history are appropriate. Looking at trees of populations at the subspecific level, such as those of humans, is common in the growing field of phylogeography (Avise, 2000). This is a clear example of the superiority of the modeling defense of trees since if there were genetic isolation between these lineages they would represent different species. [Italics added.]"

    There are three points here worth reiterating:

    As divisions of a species, races have usually been understood in terms of genealogical networks. This idea goes back to Buffon and Duchesne (mid 1700s).

    Also such, yes, they don't form strict clades or linage branches (in the Hennig or Mayrian sense).

    Yet in biology "clades" are often used to represent major migration patterns, regardless of admixture and population flows. As noted by Velasco (2012), "Looking at trees of populations at the subspecific level, such as those of humans, is common in the growing field of phylogeography (Avise, 2000)." Thus if you google scholar "subspecies + clade" you will get numerous hits.

    But, yes, you can protest the sloppy term use. This, though, is a generic problem.

    "Just like invoking a reticulation discussion that by its own terms probably doesn’t apply to human races."

    What possibly do you mean here?

    "Just like invoking a pop. gen model for short-term selection to supposedly long-term selection."

    You seemed to have missed the point, which was that the difference in genetic variance (and thus heritability assuming constant environmental variance) would be a function of the amount of selection. Since the hypothetical genetic difference under consideration is only around 1 SD the difference in genetic variance must be relatively small; this is true whether the selection is stretched out for 400 generations -- at 0.0025 SD per generation -- or compacted into one.

    I presume that the average

    That’s nice. I presume nothing and point to what is actually done. HBDers give lip service to a trivial notion of race but then confine their analyses to the “social construct” outlines.

    Is your position that HBDers do not routinely look for differences between “blacks” and “whites” and use data sets comparing “blacks” with “whites?”

    As divisions of a species, races have usually been understood in terms of genealogical networks

    No, they haven’t. You are trying to rewrite the concept’s history. It underwent a gradual shift from vague sometimes geographic typology in the 16th century to connected firmly with biology and descent in the 19th century.

    Also such, yes, they don’t form strict clades or linage branches (in the Hennig or Mayrian sense).

    Which is the original point. You are just, as I have already said, arguing for an exception to the general rule.

    But, yes, you can protest the sloppy term use. This, though, is a generic problem.

    It’s not sloppy term use, it’s disingenuous term use. HBDers pretend to share the trivial definition of “race-as-population” with modern scientists but then conduct themselves and approach their analyses using data on “blacks,” “whites,” and “asians.”

    What possibly do you mean here?

    The debate you cite to discusses how the mere presence of reticulation does not form a complete barrier to cladistic representation, which is true. Any model can tolerate some deviation from its ideal assumptions. But the level of reticulation in humanity is so high that any cladistic representation will likely be very inaccurate.

    Thus if you google scholar “subspecies + clade” you will get numerous hits.

    And as the paper I cited in my last comment demonstrates — a tree representation for humanity is unsupported.

    which was that the difference in genetic variance (and thus heritability assuming constant environmental variance) would be a function of the amount of selection. Since the hypothetical genetic difference under consideration is only around 1 SD

    I didn’t “miss the point” at all. This statement superficially contradicts the entire assertion that any selection on the trait was “strong,” which is why I referred to HBDers saying many contradictory things. And even 1 SD worth of selection will erode genetic variance; whether it’s “small” or not actually all depends on how much actual and absolute (the trait itself is redefined every generation in renorming) initial variance there is in a population.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chuck
    "And even 1 SD worth of selection will erode genetic variance; whether it’s “small” or not actually all depends on how much actual and absolute (the trait itself is redefined every generation in renorming) initial variance there is in a population."

    Tendious. The post is titled "Africa and Cognitive Colonialism". The presumption is that we are discussing general cognitive ability. The variance is typically SQRT(15). Assuming a h^2 of 0.7 (upper bounds), the genetic variance would be 157.5. Let me know what differential heritability you predict as a result of continuous differential selection for 1 SD = 15 IQ points spread out across e.g., 400 generations.

    "Is your position that HBDers do not routinely look for differences between “blacks” and “whites” and use data sets comparing “blacks” with “whites?”"

    Why would I contend this? I myself "routinely look" at "differences between “blacks” and “whites” in the Americas. And I often do so from a biological racial perspective. For example, I look to see if European "biogeographical ancestry" (i.e.. European racial ancestry) correlates with certain phenotypes in the African American ethnic group.

    "You are trying to rewrite the concept’s history. It underwent a gradual shift from vague sometimes geographic typology in the 16th century to connected firmly with biology and descent in the 19th century."

    Provide a couple of references in which races in the sense of divisions of a species -- not to be confused with Linnean varieties -- were not understood as lineages, breeds, or the like.

    " HBDers pretend to share the trivial definition of “race-as-population” with modern scientists but then conduct themselves and approach their analyses using data on “blacks,” “whites,” and “asians.”

    This sounds confused. The ethnic groups called, for example in the US and UK, "blacks" and "whites" differ in part owing to their racial composition. "Whites" are mostly europid and "blacks" are mostly a europid and negroid mix -- where "europid" refers to a caucasoid subrace and "caucasoid" and "negroid" refer to biological races as simultaneously genomic populations, genealogy-based divisions, and major continental lineages.

    "But the level of reticulation in humanity is so high that any cladistic representation will likely be very inaccurate....And as the paper I cited in my last comment demonstrates — a tree representation for humanity is unsupported."

    Nonsense. You can represent the same populations as tree-branches or as mixed tree branches.
    See, for example: http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2012/10/globe13-participant-results.html
    The representations provide different information, the latter about admixture events, the former about broad patterns of affinity due to major migratory ones. An (unmixed) tree-branch representation is only misleading if you take it for something which it is not. Now, as said, such are commonly presented and commonly referred to as clades without an insinuation of a lack of admixture. If you wish to continue to argue that "strong hereditarians" have been misrepresenting their diagrams, you will have to point to specific instances.
  159. Chuck says:
    @swank
    I presume that the average

    That's nice. I presume nothing and point to what is actually done. HBDers give lip service to a trivial notion of race but then confine their analyses to the "social construct" outlines.

    Is your position that HBDers do not routinely look for differences between "blacks" and "whites" and use data sets comparing "blacks" with "whites?"

    As divisions of a species, races have usually been understood in terms of genealogical networks

    No, they haven't. You are trying to rewrite the concept's history. It underwent a gradual shift from vague sometimes geographic typology in the 16th century to connected firmly with biology and descent in the 19th century.

    Also such, yes, they don’t form strict clades or linage branches (in the Hennig or Mayrian sense).

    Which is the original point. You are just, as I have already said, arguing for an exception to the general rule.

    But, yes, you can protest the sloppy term use. This, though, is a generic problem.

    It's not sloppy term use, it's disingenuous term use. HBDers pretend to share the trivial definition of "race-as-population" with modern scientists but then conduct themselves and approach their analyses using data on "blacks," "whites," and "asians."

    What possibly do you mean here?

    The debate you cite to discusses how the mere presence of reticulation does not form a complete barrier to cladistic representation, which is true. Any model can tolerate some deviation from its ideal assumptions. But the level of reticulation in humanity is so high that any cladistic representation will likely be very inaccurate.

    Thus if you google scholar “subspecies + clade” you will get numerous hits.

    And as the paper I cited in my last comment demonstrates --- a tree representation for humanity is unsupported.

    which was that the difference in genetic variance (and thus heritability assuming constant environmental variance) would be a function of the amount of selection. Since the hypothetical genetic difference under consideration is only around 1 SD

    I didn't "miss the point" at all. This statement superficially contradicts the entire assertion that any selection on the trait was "strong," which is why I referred to HBDers saying many contradictory things. And even 1 SD worth of selection will erode genetic variance; whether it's "small" or not actually all depends on how much actual and absolute (the trait itself is redefined every generation in renorming) initial variance there is in a population.

    “And even 1 SD worth of selection will erode genetic variance; whether it’s “small” or not actually all depends on how much actual and absolute (the trait itself is redefined every generation in renorming) initial variance there is in a population.”

    Tendious. The post is titled “Africa and Cognitive Colonialism”. The presumption is that we are discussing general cognitive ability. The variance is typically SQRT(15). Assuming a h^2 of 0.7 (upper bounds), the genetic variance would be 157.5. Let me know what differential heritability you predict as a result of continuous differential selection for 1 SD = 15 IQ points spread out across e.g., 400 generations.

    “Is your position that HBDers do not routinely look for differences between “blacks” and “whites” and use data sets comparing “blacks” with “whites?””

    Why would I contend this? I myself “routinely look” at “differences between “blacks” and “whites” in the Americas. And I often do so from a biological racial perspective. For example, I look to see if European “biogeographical ancestry” (i.e.. European racial ancestry) correlates with certain phenotypes in the African American ethnic group.

    “You are trying to rewrite the concept’s history. It underwent a gradual shift from vague sometimes geographic typology in the 16th century to connected firmly with biology and descent in the 19th century.”

    Provide a couple of references in which races in the sense of divisions of a species — not to be confused with Linnean varieties — were not understood as lineages, breeds, or the like.

    ” HBDers pretend to share the trivial definition of “race-as-population” with modern scientists but then conduct themselves and approach their analyses using data on “blacks,” “whites,” and “asians.”

    This sounds confused. The ethnic groups called, for example in the US and UK, “blacks” and “whites” differ in part owing to their racial composition. “Whites” are mostly europid and “blacks” are mostly a europid and negroid mix — where “europid” refers to a caucasoid subrace and “caucasoid” and “negroid” refer to biological races as simultaneously genomic populations, genealogy-based divisions, and major continental lineages.

    “But the level of reticulation in humanity is so high that any cladistic representation will likely be very inaccurate….And as the paper I cited in my last comment demonstrates — a tree representation for humanity is unsupported.”

    Nonsense. You can represent the same populations as tree-branches or as mixed tree branches.
    See, for example: http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2012/10/globe13-participant-results.html
    The representations provide different information, the latter about admixture events, the former about broad patterns of affinity due to major migratory ones. An (unmixed) tree-branch representation is only misleading if you take it for something which it is not. Now, as said, such are commonly presented and commonly referred to as clades without an insinuation of a lack of admixture. If you wish to continue to argue that “strong hereditarians” have been misrepresenting their diagrams, you will have to point to specific instances.

    Read More
    • Replies: @swank
    The variance is "typically" so because it is DEFINED to be so every renorming. If I give the labels 1st 2nd and 3rd to arbitrary times of 1, ,5, and 20 seconds, and the next set of times are 1, 1.1, and 1.2 seconds...the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd "gap" has remained but the absolute difference is also trivial. Let me know if you realize what this implies going both forward and backward.

    I myself “routinely look” at “differences between “blacks” and “whites” in the Americas.

    So you use biologically incoherent conceptions of race to perform analysis of "genetic" and "biological" differences. You don't actually deal with "populations."

    This sounds confused

    Nothing "confused" about it. You're still referring to folk taxonomic definitions of race like "negroid" and "europid."

    Provide a couple of references in which races

    So provide references for your viewpoint? There were several conflicts over "race" during the Enlightenment and several different views on the matter; many if not most of the concepts were purely descriptive. Until the 19th century, it wasn't a clear "lineage-based" paradigm.
    "In the 16th and 17th century, scientists attempted to classify Homo sapiens based on a geographic arrangement of human populations based on skin color, others simply on geographic location, shape, stature, food habits, and other distinguishing characteristics. Occasionally the term “race” was used but most of the early taxonomist used classificatory terms such as “peoples,” “nations,” “types,” “varieties,” and “species."

    "The 19th century saw attempts to change race from a taxonomic to a biological concept."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_race_concepts#Age_of_Enlightenment

    Nonsense.

    Yes, that "mixed tree" you showed me is nonsense.

    is only misleading if you take it for something which it is not.

    Information presented as a cladogram is only misleading if you take it as a cladogram. Right.

    If you wish to continue to argue that “strong hereditarians” have been misrepresenting their diagrams, you will have to point to specific instances.

    You already admitted to mostly using the classic folk taxonomies of race in your analyses. You just don't seem to believe that this makes your personal definition of "race" (which as far as I can tell is so inconsequential so as to be meaningless) seem disingenuous because you don't deploy it in practice. And instance #1 is the chart you tried to show me.
  160. swank says:
    @Chuck
    "And even 1 SD worth of selection will erode genetic variance; whether it’s “small” or not actually all depends on how much actual and absolute (the trait itself is redefined every generation in renorming) initial variance there is in a population."

    Tendious. The post is titled "Africa and Cognitive Colonialism". The presumption is that we are discussing general cognitive ability. The variance is typically SQRT(15). Assuming a h^2 of 0.7 (upper bounds), the genetic variance would be 157.5. Let me know what differential heritability you predict as a result of continuous differential selection for 1 SD = 15 IQ points spread out across e.g., 400 generations.

    "Is your position that HBDers do not routinely look for differences between “blacks” and “whites” and use data sets comparing “blacks” with “whites?”"

    Why would I contend this? I myself "routinely look" at "differences between “blacks” and “whites” in the Americas. And I often do so from a biological racial perspective. For example, I look to see if European "biogeographical ancestry" (i.e.. European racial ancestry) correlates with certain phenotypes in the African American ethnic group.

    "You are trying to rewrite the concept’s history. It underwent a gradual shift from vague sometimes geographic typology in the 16th century to connected firmly with biology and descent in the 19th century."

    Provide a couple of references in which races in the sense of divisions of a species -- not to be confused with Linnean varieties -- were not understood as lineages, breeds, or the like.

    " HBDers pretend to share the trivial definition of “race-as-population” with modern scientists but then conduct themselves and approach their analyses using data on “blacks,” “whites,” and “asians.”

    This sounds confused. The ethnic groups called, for example in the US and UK, "blacks" and "whites" differ in part owing to their racial composition. "Whites" are mostly europid and "blacks" are mostly a europid and negroid mix -- where "europid" refers to a caucasoid subrace and "caucasoid" and "negroid" refer to biological races as simultaneously genomic populations, genealogy-based divisions, and major continental lineages.

    "But the level of reticulation in humanity is so high that any cladistic representation will likely be very inaccurate....And as the paper I cited in my last comment demonstrates — a tree representation for humanity is unsupported."

    Nonsense. You can represent the same populations as tree-branches or as mixed tree branches.
    See, for example: http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2012/10/globe13-participant-results.html
    The representations provide different information, the latter about admixture events, the former about broad patterns of affinity due to major migratory ones. An (unmixed) tree-branch representation is only misleading if you take it for something which it is not. Now, as said, such are commonly presented and commonly referred to as clades without an insinuation of a lack of admixture. If you wish to continue to argue that "strong hereditarians" have been misrepresenting their diagrams, you will have to point to specific instances.

    The variance is “typically” so because it is DEFINED to be so every renorming. If I give the labels 1st 2nd and 3rd to arbitrary times of 1, ,5, and 20 seconds, and the next set of times are 1, 1.1, and 1.2 seconds…the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd “gap” has remained but the absolute difference is also trivial. Let me know if you realize what this implies going both forward and backward.

    I myself “routinely look” at “differences between “blacks” and “whites” in the Americas.

    So you use biologically incoherent conceptions of race to perform analysis of “genetic” and “biological” differences. You don’t actually deal with “populations.”

    This sounds confused

    Nothing “confused” about it. You’re still referring to folk taxonomic definitions of race like “negroid” and “europid.”

    Provide a couple of references in which races

    So provide references for your viewpoint? There were several conflicts over “race” during the Enlightenment and several different views on the matter; many if not most of the concepts were purely descriptive. Until the 19th century, it wasn’t a clear “lineage-based” paradigm.
    “In the 16th and 17th century, scientists attempted to classify Homo sapiens based on a geographic arrangement of human populations based on skin color, others simply on geographic location, shape, stature, food habits, and other distinguishing characteristics. Occasionally the term “race” was used but most of the early taxonomist used classificatory terms such as “peoples,” “nations,” “types,” “varieties,” and “species.”

    “The 19th century saw attempts to change race from a taxonomic to a biological concept.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_race_concepts#Age_of_Enlightenment

    Nonsense.

    Yes, that “mixed tree” you showed me is nonsense.

    is only misleading if you take it for something which it is not.

    Information presented as a cladogram is only misleading if you take it as a cladogram. Right.

    If you wish to continue to argue that “strong hereditarians” have been misrepresenting their diagrams, you will have to point to specific instances.

    You already admitted to mostly using the classic folk taxonomies of race in your analyses. You just don’t seem to believe that this makes your personal definition of “race” (which as far as I can tell is so inconsequential so as to be meaningless) seem disingenuous because you don’t deploy it in practice. And instance #1 is the chart you tried to show me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chuck
    With every reply, you add yet another layers of idiocy. Now, according to you, it's impossible to study the genetic basis of disease disparities between culturally delineated groups such as Jews and Gentiles or White, Hispanics, and African Americans. Or to study the congenital basis of behavioral differences between, respectively, social classes and cultural groups. Despite this being routinely done. Imaginably, by your logic, one also can't account for differences, such as in skin color, between ethnic groups such as African, Hispanic, and European U.S. Americans in terms of biological racial admixture with respect to historic continental races.
    ...
    Referring to my genealogically-delineated classifications as "folk taxonomic definitions of race" doesn't render them less in accords with the traditional conception of race, where races qua races were understood as breeds and lineages and are now often called biogeographic ancestry groups, genetic populations, and genomic clusters. (FYI, the definition of a concept is not the same as classifications drawn in accords with it -- for example, Europe, Asia, and North America are not definitions of "continents", they are names of commonly delineated ones.)
  161. @Bob Woodwort
    The University of Wisconsin at Madison has very able and accommodative archivist. But don't ask for a lot of information about Heber. In fact, the lack of information is glaring. It is almost like trying to ask in Paris for archival information about Anton Mesmer. But information about Mesmer was deliberately obliterated after he had suffered inquisition, as it were. The University almost certainly compiled its own full and exact transcript of the nine day trial of Heber and Patrick Flanigan, his co-defendant. Indeed, as judge Barbara Crabb herself commented on October 30, 1981, and more so on Dec. 22, 1982, in open court---the University was in many way "on trial" (socially / politically ) as much as Heber. But even the local newspaper expose articles re Heber are not in the archives. Articles about Howard Garber (himself fully exonerated ) are. There are articles about Waisman funding problems in the wake of the Heber scandal . But almost nothing re Heber., And the University, by all overt indications, was rather "hands off' about all the delays re the Report for the Milwaukee Project. There would be many honest lessons for higher education in a thorough retrospective re Heber. And then the odd lack of any national publicity about Fixmer's expose articles and the trial testimony. The American national security apparatus may not have been basic to all these omissions. But it does smell.

    All these comments about Rick Heber , the “Milwaukee Project”, the yet mysterious research involvements of post-prison life, 1985-87, etc. neglect the encompassing larger issues. It is fairly apt to say that Rick Heber was something of a cap-and-gown counterpart to “The Man Who Corrupted Hadleyburg”. The great Twain story is not about a con man–it is a PETT scan/MRI scan of the underside of life in a burgeoning bourgeois America. A key reason so much of what needs to be regarded about Heber’s academic career-relevant biography is unexcavated by “scholars” is that it adds up not to a profile of Heber but to what stares any academic in the face when he/she looks into the mirror at Scott Fitzgerland’s “three o’clock in the morning of a dark night of the soul”. Campus USA both in 1959-80 and now is far more vigorous at pointing what’s outside the window than examining “in house” what is to be seen in the mirror. And part of that is that on Campus USA prudence is not the better part of valor–it consumes valor. And part of the lack of excavation is the very eerie sense one gets about the pervasively odd acts and omissions that were allowed to distinguish Heber’s campus life until about May 1980 or so. The sense of “what are we getting into?” is a big chill factor for a not very courageous Campus USA. And, then, the massively obsessive concern with “publish or perish” and “his data/ my data….your data/ our data…” renders most of reality as sidebar.Barbara Crabb’s personal brilliance (and her detailed acquaintance with the Madison campus and the echelons of leadership at UW Madison ) makes her pithy comment re the University being “on trial” worthy of much specific elaboration. That trial not only has never taken place…the work toward “investigation” has never begun. “The Man Who Corrupted Hadleyburg”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bob Woodwort
    "renders most of reality as sidebar" It is fascinating what a helluva a problem it has been on Campus USA to get at the facts of the investigation, grand jury examination, indictment, trial, and conviction of Heber on 13 pin-point charges of misuse of varied amounts of money--none of which amounted to a great sum. What for 30 years has not been redacted (with redundant caution and thus perfection ) is the vast amount of investigative material from which the pin point indictments were made. It is not directly relevant whether Heber's acts and omissions regarding the vast amount of money he handled at UW Madison amounted to violations of law.
    It is more relevant that they amounted clearly to violations of common social standards for transparency and safeguarding. Heber sidestepped the manners and methods by way of which the sinful side of human nature is fenced out and the virtuous side is empowered. Since the
    "manner" of research is the "matter" of research--this tends to create a presumption, if reversible, that Heber would juggle data, etc. But in the behavioral sciences some "thinking dirty" will enable people, if in whispers, to regard Heber's mind/soul/ and the more prosaic
    matter of his "MOTIVE". Heber seemed to be organized around making money for himself in generally lawful ways. He was a self confessed "academic entrepreneur" who aim no doubt in the Milwaukee Project was to explore what came to be regarded as "cumulative deficit" and to see if in that particular niche of child development (of children in severely deprived environments) diminution of IQ growth could be prevented and thus notable "gains" could be engineered within these limited parameters of very deprived social groupings. It doesn't have much to do with the larger issue in general society of "nature/nurture". Eventually, Howard Garber's conscientious and detailed Report of the Milwaukee Project got published...just before 1989. There does not seem to be convincing evidence that Heber (in charge of the Project in its active "treatment" phase 1965-1971 ) cooked the data books. Since his massive consultation life was buried by him in about four or five layers of confidentiality ( Rob Fixmer's award winning expose journalism reported that very quietly on campus Heber was referred to as "the Howard Hughes of Academe" ) and was never reported to the UW Madison (and UW Madison never apparently ever insisted on his reporting it ??) , it remains conjectural that he most likely was 100% upfront, candid, honest, and direct in his consultation work ? Likely as part of an incipient investigation of him, he was forced as per his faculty contract to give an archival interview in 1979. His remarks , his voice tightening in anger and frustration, about the demagogic questioning of the IQ testing in the Milwaukee Project by Milwaukee priest (soon to be removed from the Church ) Fr. James Groppi, illuminates his motive in covertly getting the brilliantly successful popularly written and massively published propaganda items "Miracle in Milwaukee" published. It was masterfully , if amorally, successful in "assuring" the radical left that the results of the Project would be what they wished to know. In fact, as he knew, the proof of the research pudding was soon to follow---whether the gains would wash out in a lack of academic success greater than that of the control group. By 1973, it was becoming evident that wash out was far greater than had been hoped. A 1989 unpublished dissertation about the Project revealed the nearly uniform failure of the treatment group to have academic achievement superior at all to that of the control group.

    Even as meticulous and brilliant and conscientious scientists as Arthur Jensen could not overcome the layers of concealment and disinformation re Heber. In his definitive review in 1989 of the Milwaukee Project, Jensen notes that after his trial and imprisonment, Heber never returned to academe. In fact, in a never noticed hearing for early release from parole held in Madison on Sept. 30, 1985, Heber was released early to accept a position at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden as Research Director at a corporate funded entity of the University devoted to cross cultural (international) research in cultural familial retardation. Jensen mentions the amount of money at state in the 13 count indictment and trial and conviction of Heber, but like almost everyone else , had no access to the vast never redacted investigatory information or to any details of Heber's vast consultation work. And even the assertion--commonly made and regarded generally as established fact--that Heber had been dismissed at the UW Madison is less clear and much more complicated and revealing than
    surface indications suggested. Jensen made no errors. His remarks in retrospect demonstrate the massive secrecy and disinformation surrounding Heber and the odd lack over 20 years at the UW Madison of any discernable effort by the administration to check or counter all the "Howard Hughes of Academe" circumstances. In her remarks directly centered upon Heber but as an exoneration of Howard Garber, Judge Barbara Crabb in federal court on Dec. 22, 1982, referred to the vast amount of money Heber handled in ways departing from established transparency and accountability. She commented that the amount of money Heber could have made off with would probably never be known. Heber resigned from his tenured faculty position on about August 09, 1981, after the July 30 verdict. But while he was barred from campus on Dec. 05, 1980, by UW Madison for excessive absences from campus--his attorney likely registered a letter with the UW Madison that potentially would have negated that assertion--likely pointing out that both parties to his Waisman Center administration contract had consistently ignored the element of written contract prohibiting such excessive absences.
    Heber submitted a resignation from the Waisman position on about Dec. 28, 1980, that while not acted upon, it seems, was not explicitly repudiated or returned to him. A trail over whether the University had standing to dismiss him for excessive absences would likely have been a mutual mud bath that lawyers will not allow to take place.

    "renders most reality as sidebar" ? One sees early on in any retrospective of Heber's career, that some out-of-step intellectual (with maybe a psychology PhD bed mate ? ) over in the American lit department or over in theatre and drama might actually get into a retrospective
    re Heber, making use of such anachronistic concepts as soul, sin and punishment, mind and choice, and MOTIVE. Don't count on it coming from "behavioral science".

  162. @Bob Woodwort
    All these comments about Rick Heber , the "Milwaukee Project", the yet mysterious research involvements of post-prison life, 1985-87, etc. neglect the encompassing larger issues. It is fairly apt to say that Rick Heber was something of a cap-and-gown counterpart to "The Man Who Corrupted Hadleyburg". The great Twain story is not about a con man--it is a PETT scan/MRI scan of the underside of life in a burgeoning bourgeois America. A key reason so much of what needs to be regarded about Heber's academic career-relevant biography is unexcavated by "scholars" is that it adds up not to a profile of Heber but to what stares any academic in the face when he/she looks into the mirror at Scott Fitzgerland's "three o'clock in the morning of a dark night of the soul". Campus USA both in 1959-80 and now is far more vigorous at pointing what's outside the window than examining "in house" what is to be seen in the mirror. And part of that is that on Campus USA prudence is not the better part of valor--it consumes valor. And part of the lack of excavation is the very eerie sense one gets about the pervasively odd acts and omissions that were allowed to distinguish Heber's campus life until about May 1980 or so. The sense of "what are we getting into?" is a big chill factor for a not very courageous Campus USA. And, then, the massively obsessive concern with "publish or perish" and "his data/ my data....your data/ our data..." renders most of reality as sidebar.Barbara Crabb's personal brilliance (and her detailed acquaintance with the Madison campus and the echelons of leadership at UW Madison ) makes her pithy comment re the University being "on trial" worthy of much specific elaboration. That trial not only has never taken place...the work toward "investigation" has never begun. "The Man Who Corrupted Hadleyburg".

    “renders most of reality as sidebar” It is fascinating what a helluva a problem it has been on Campus USA to get at the facts of the investigation, grand jury examination, indictment, trial, and conviction of Heber on 13 pin-point charges of misuse of varied amounts of money–none of which amounted to a great sum. What for 30 years has not been redacted (with redundant caution and thus perfection ) is the vast amount of investigative material from which the pin point indictments were made. It is not directly relevant whether Heber’s acts and omissions regarding the vast amount of money he handled at UW Madison amounted to violations of law.
    It is more relevant that they amounted clearly to violations of common social standards for transparency and safeguarding. Heber sidestepped the manners and methods by way of which the sinful side of human nature is fenced out and the virtuous side is empowered. Since the
    “manner” of research is the “matter” of research–this tends to create a presumption, if reversible, that Heber would juggle data, etc. But in the behavioral sciences some “thinking dirty” will enable people, if in whispers, to regard Heber’s mind/soul/ and the more prosaic
    matter of his “MOTIVE”. Heber seemed to be organized around making money for himself in generally lawful ways. He was a self confessed “academic entrepreneur” who aim no doubt in the Milwaukee Project was to explore what came to be regarded as “cumulative deficit” and to see if in that particular niche of child development (of children in severely deprived environments) diminution of IQ growth could be prevented and thus notable “gains” could be engineered within these limited parameters of very deprived social groupings. It doesn’t have much to do with the larger issue in general s