The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJames Thompson Archive
Weaponizing Race
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

If you are a racist, then you are asking for a fight. But science is my ally, not yours, and your fight is not just with me, but with reality.

This book, shortly to be published in the US, is written by a geneticist. Racism is a topic of contemporary interest, and there are certainly different conceptions of reality. The book is diminished by its title, which proclaims it an aggressive polemic, looking for a fight. “How to argue about race” would advertise a better book, on which new readers might choose to rely, finding in it an evaluation of opposing arguments. On the contrary, this author says his book is a weapon. Not a sextant, microscope, thermometer, weighing machine, assay kit or surveyor’s theodolite. He wants arguments to be weaponized. His aim is combat, not an even-handed evaluation of a fascinating science.

If you jump to the References then the one-sided nature of the material is clear to see. Papers critical of race differences in intelligence are presented without the rejoinders.

https://www.unz.com/jthompson/james-watson-nobel-laureate-and-unperson/?highlight=Wicherts

Despite a publication date of December 2019 much recent work on the genetics of intelligence, including a major study in July 2018 which in passing looks at race differences is simply omitted.

https://www.unz.com/jthompson/journey-of-1-1-million-miles/

Not only that, but the references are very sparse. Some 40 references cannot do justice to the scope of the argument, and the engaging style cannot compensate for sweeping generalizations and omissions. Potential readers might wish to proceed no further.

However, I believe that there is reason to read on, if only because the title will attract readers and get supportive reviews, but also because the book admits as much as it denies, conceding that many apparent disputes are about nomenclature (“population” “ancestry” “lineage” are described as “more technical”, but although said to be incoherent in scientific taxonomy, the author admits “race” will do). It admits that “racism” will be applied only to Western and European cultures, because they “started it” in the Enlightenment; and also concedes that racial differences are rooted in biology.

Our quintessential nature as wanderers, hunters, farmers, and social creatures meant that, over the last few thousand years, Earth has become smaller, and peoples from around the world have met, traded, mated, fought, conquered and a whole lot more. In these interactions, we engage with people who are different from each other. These differences are rooted in biology, in DNA, and also in our behaviour as social animals – in our dress, our speech, our religions and our interests. In the pursuit of power and wealth, the fetishisation of these differences has been the source of the cruellest acts in our short history.

So, racial differences are rooted in biology, in DNA. The problem does not lie in these differences, but in the fetishization of these differences. It is a matter of degree. All this by page 4. Readers inclined to genetic determinism may be tempted to stop reading: Rutherford has given them enough to feel that they are in agreement with him, and the “fetishisms” are details of minor significance.

Contrary to his claim, cruel acts in our short history have arisen for many reasons, not only race. Contrary ideas have often split families and races sufficiently to make them fight each other in civil wars, despite genetic similarities. Germany and Russia jointly did cruel things to Poland in 1939 because they shared a common political purpose. A detail perhaps. Russia did cruel things to its own citizens, China likewise, and Cambodia as well, because of ideas about social class. All sorts of ideas can lead to unfairness and cruelty.

Rutherford says he will provide:

a scientific description of real human similarities and differences that will provide a foundation to contest racism that appears to be grounded in science. Here, I am focusing on four key areas where we often slip up by adhering to stereotypes and assumptions; I am outlining what we can and cannot know according to contemporary science on the subjects of skin colour, ancestral purity, sports, and intelligence.

I agree with Rutherford that skin colour is part of racial differences, but hardly all or even the most important part of it. It is simply one facet of differences which together make up evident racial groupings: skull shape; body shape and size; muscle and fat distribution; bone density; early motor development; vulnerability to illnesses and others.

Equally, ancestral purity is hardly much of an issue. Some groups have lived together for sufficient generations to have developed characteristics in common. The fact that they are purely that group does not mean that they are better. People who have always lived for generations in Norfolk are purely Norfolk. Whether that is a good or bad thing can be determined by other means.

Rutherford mounts an argument about the genetic isopoint (pg 76):

Everyone alive today is descended from all of the global population in the fourteenth century bce. Irrespective of how plausible that sounds, or how contrary it seems to our own experiences of family and family trees, it is true – the isopoint is a mathematical and genetic certainty. It is likely that the proportion of a person’s ancestors at the isopoint are not equally distributed around the world: a Chinese woman or man will have far fewer southern African ancestors than East Asian, and vice versa. But they will have some, and each of those ancestors has an equal relationship with their living descendants regardless of where on Earth they lived and died.

At times this seems to be intended to lead to the conclusion that we are all one “race” but the explanation concedes that the proportion will vary. However, the conclusion he comes to is:

No nation is static, no people are pure.
Racial purity is a pure fantasy. For humans, there are no purebloods, only mongrels enriched by the blood of multitudes.

However, he accepts there will be “proportions”, and those different proportions develop characteristics which are rooted in biology.

How does the author define racism?

Racism has many definitions; a simple version is that racism is a prejudice concerning ancestral descent that can result in discriminatory action. It is the coupling of a prejudice against biological traits that are inalterable with unfair behaviour predicated on those judgements, and can operate at a personal, institutional or structural level. Pg 20.

I prefer Hazlitt (1830) because it applies to everything and everyone:

Prejudice is prejudging any question without having sufficiently examined it, and adhering to our opinion upon it through ignorance, malice or perversity, in spite of every evidence to the contrary.

Although Rutherford does not spell it out, he implies he would accept valid judgments about ancestral descent, and actions based on good evidence. In the text the accusation of racism is frequent and broadly applied. Rutherford agrees that race exists, but goes on to ask:

Are there essential biological (that is, genetic) differences between populations that account for socially important similarities or divisions within or between those populations? Pg 21

Certainly, to deny the importance of genetics in influencing our behaviours is folly. Pg 23.

this book is a tool – a weapon – to be brandished when science is warped, misrepresented or abused to make a point, or to justify hatred. Pg 26

Rutherford writes in an engaging way, gathering broad general trends into concise summaries, and peppering them with his conclusions early on. However, he is keener on making arguments than giving references. Here are his comments on Lewontin:

Lewontin also used blood to test concepts of race. In the 1972 paper ‘The Apportionment of Human Diversity’, Lewontin found that the vast majority (85 per cent) of genetic differences were within classical races, not between them. Only 6 per cent of differences segregated by race. This conclusion has been questioned on and off since its publication, but remains broadly correct. The main challenge was formalised as ‘Lewontin’s Fallacy’ in 2003 by the mathematician Anthony Edwards, which pointed out that if you aggregate multiple sites of variation across a genome, you can in fact predict the population from which a person comes accurately. Both results are true; it just depends on the detail and the resolution.

Well, yes, but the sense of “races are 85% the same” of Lewontin’s argument faded once more markers became available. The later result is more informative than the earlier one because it includes the correlational structure of the markers.

https://www.unz.com/jthompson/superior-ideology/?highlight=lewontin

Rutherford says that only racists would claim that modern genetics confirms the same groupings of traditional races.

Rosenberg’s paper is often used by racists to erroneously claim that there are indeed five genetically distinct races. In fact, it does no such thing, and this is obvious in the data: when the clusters are set at two, Africa, Europe and West Asia are lumped together as one and the rest of the world as another. There is no a priori reason to settle on five clusters as being the definitive categorisation of humans, and deciding to do so because it corresponds with an earlier yet debunked classification is simply affirming pre-existing biases. When you increase the cluster number to six, the next distinct group to emerge are the Kalasha. They are a northern Pakistani tribe of around 4,000 people who marry almost exclusively within their own ethnic population, which is tucked away in relative isolation in the mountains of the Hindu Kush. Though these people are somewhat genetically distinct, not even the most committed racist describes the Kalasha as a sixth human race.

Rutherford’s argument is that a classification system which works reasonably well to group 7.8 billion people into 5 groups is invalidated by a 4000-person enclave! There are certainly no sacrosanct numbers in cluster analysis. Researchers keep trying different numbers of clusters to look for a configuration which covers most of the data in a reasonable way, and which corresponds to some relevant factors, in the case of human groupings, their appearance linked to their continent of origin. If you are a “lumper” you might settle on two or three races, if you are a splitter you may choose 57 varieties of human. Every measure has a range of convenience. Economists often divide the world by major geographic zones because in terms of transport links and history it makes sense to do so.

For practical purposes you might want to set a minimal number of persons for any group to be considered a race at the global level. For more specific matters, like rarer diseases, it might be better to discuss far smaller sub-groups. A group is not invalidated by being divisible into smaller groupings. A group is not invalidated because there are some people who are just at the edge of one grouping and very close to the adjoining grouping. “Where are you from?” remains a good question, and can be answered in both genetic and cultural terms.

To take another example of groups, language groups differ, and that is not invalidated by the observation that there are separate languages within larger language groups. The five most spoken Romance languages have a common root but also differ, and within each language there are dialects, and also border regions where people speak in mixtures of two languages.

The same is true of the definition of wealth. The Credit Suisse wealth report divides the world population into 4 groups, with the most important break point being at $10,000, below which 57% of people languish. This useful 4 group exposition is not invalidated by them later taking the 0.9% of the world population who are millionaires and splitting them into another 4 groups so as to distinguish the really wealthy from the riff-raff, thus ending up with 8 groups in total. It is understood that 4 groups are sufficient to cover the world, and that splitting the wealthy into their own groups will interest readers (and providers of banking and investment services). Arguments about wealth inequalities are not invalidated by the fact that groups may be drawn up slightly differently, and that wealth is a continuum. Which of the 4 groups you are in has big consequences for how you and your family live.

In race, as in linguistics and economics: “It depends on the detail and the resolution” as Rutherford says when discussing Lewontin.

I would have expected that any book about race would have engaged with a key finding (Tang, et al. 2005) which is that even using the US census, people in the US know what race they are. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. These 5 were people of mixed race.

https://www.unz.com/jthompson/more-markers-more-differentiation-and/

I have read the section on sport, and am aware that others will have much more knowledge in this sphere, so will be very brief. Rutherford argues that genetics is secondary to culture in sporting success. Some places have a culture of running, and others don’t. A scarcity of swimming pools in poor parts of town accounts for racial differences in swimming.

The real-world consequence of this structural and cultural racism is that the death rate from drowning in African American children aged five to fourteen is three times higher than for white children. Racism is literally lethal. Pg 135.

Now to intelligence. His treatment of the topic is in many ways rather subdued. He has taken good advice and does not decry intelligence as an important and measurable aspect of human ability. Nonetheless, he ignores the difficulties that have beset many intelligence researchers, from Jensen onwards, and continue to do so right now. Either he does not know how many academics have been subjected to sanctions or “unpublished” or he chooses to ignore it, claiming (Pg 141) that they are seeking to be martyrs.

He himself points out with relish the number of sports commentators who lost their jobs the day after they spoke about genetic differences in sports ability. Intelligence researchers have lost their jobs with similar speed.

Having denied that anyone working on race and intelligence gets into any particular trouble, without batting an eyelid on the next page Rutherford lays into James Watson for saying of Africa “‘all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says, not really’. In fact, that is a true statement. That is what the testing of intelligence and scholastic ability finds. The causes can be disputed, but the results less so.

Further testing might find something different. Rutherford argues that higher living standards will change the picture. It is to be hoped that they do. Calculations have been made about when African intelligence will equal European intelligence, and Meisenberg and Woodley (2013) say:

On PISA, on current trends the differences between high-scoring and low-scoring countries will converge in only 40 years, whilst on the maths and science TIMSS test, complete convergence would result after 341 years. Convergence is not guaranteed.

http://www.sciencedirect.com.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/science/article/pii/S016028961300086X

There are ways of calculating scholastic attainment for African countries which do not take part in PISA, and these are close to the results of intelligence testing.

https://www.unz.com/jthompson/africa-and-the-cold-beauty-of-maths/

Rutherford keeps going back to the fact that some researchers are right wing. At this level of reasoning it would be relevant to denounce other researchers for being left wing. In some moods Rutherford wants to let the science speak for itself, but these good intentions do not last long. He describes a murder by a white supremacist (pg 70) but no other US murders.

The most up-to-date meta-analyses suggest that countries in sub-Saharan Africa are likely to score in the 80s,* as compared to UK IQ standards, though these results are not universally accepted. Pg 150

He is referring to Wicherts 2010 which did not include the Ravens Matrices, the most widely used cross-cultural test. Rutherford does not mention more recent studies, notably Rindermann (2013) who calculates that IQ 75 is a reasonable estimate for sub-Saharan Africa.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886912003741

Also, it would be decent to reference Lynn’s reply to Wicherts:

Lynn, R. (2010). The average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans assessed by the Progressive Matrices: Some comments on Wicherts, Dolan, Carlson & van der Maas. Learning & Individual Differences, 20, 152-154.

In fact, Wicherts advanced a first argument that the low African scores were caused by a restriction of the upper range, that is, the tests had a ceiling which cut out higher ability Africans. Lynn was able to show that the distributions peaked in the lower range, and that there were plenty of harder items for Africans to shine on, so Wicherts dropped that objection. This is an example of having a factual debate. Wicherts’ choice of papers showing higher scores included university students, and Lynn objected to those as being unrepresentative of the general population. In the end they could not agree on which studies were representative.

Rutherford skips these matters, and attacks Lynn for being right-wing, and thus likely to cherry-pick examples for his cause. To be consistent, Rutherford should have checked whether Wicherts was left wing, and if so discounted his choices on an equal basis. My view is that it is far better to stick to the arguments, and to show all the relevant studies so that researchers can come to their own conclusions.

One should note an internal inconsistency. Rutherford has excoriated James Watson for saying African intelligence was not at European levels (pg 142) but by page 150 Rutherford apparently accepts African IQ results of 80, which is more than a standard deviation below the European mean.

Rutherford argues that the results are “not likely to be genetic because of the immense genetic diversity that is now well established across that continent.” However, that does not rule out that those populations have a pattern in common. Widening the DNA studies in Africa would help resolve this issue.

Then another sally into a blind alley.

In response to the assertion that professions involving commerce require high levels of intellect, I am unaware of strong evidence that success in business correlates with significantly above average intelligence. Pg 164

Unawareness rectified.

https://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-comparative-advantage-of-eminence/
https://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-wages-of-intellect/
https://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-wages-of-intellect-part-2/

Some of the scientists and race-fixated ideologues are actual racists, others merely contrarians, or sceptics convinced that they have unearthed some secret knowledge that has been quelled by a conspiratorial majority. Pg 171

No conspiracy is required. Contemporary academia is quite open about marginalizing genetic explanations for group differences, and marginalizing researchers and publications which discuss these issues.

People are born different, with different innate capabilities and potential. How these abilities cluster within and between populations is not easily explained by fundamental biology, by genetics. Instead, when digging into the data as best as we can, the answers lie not in DNA, but in culture. Pg 175

Culture must come from somewhere. It does not rise from the soil as a miasma. It is created by people.

What can one make of this book? I think it has three moods. The first is embodied by the title and the stated aims, which is to have a fight. This accounts for the selective attention to the literature, and the frequent denunciation of imputed racism.

Second, arguments against a genetic interpretation of group differences and in favour of cultural explanations. This is similar to the position actually maintained by most researchers on group differences, where both contributions are discussed, and debate surrounds the relative contribution of each. What Rutherford doesn’t cover is why some racial and national groups chose some cultural practices. For example, why do Jews have a culture of scholarship? Is it just one of those random things which Zulus considered and then rejected? If the Chinese are good at maths and science because they study hard, why don’t South Americans study as hard? If education is key, why is there not a stronger correlation between educational expenditures and outcomes?

Third, a few concessions and doubts. It is as if a marcher carrying a banner was quietly confiding to a companion that on some particular factual points the position was more complicated than the slogan suggested.

Despite that, this book still looks for a fight. In a field where most authors would like to be a trusted advisor, this one sets out to be a warrior. Given his objective, we have to evaluate his prowess, not his judgment. The author has a good conversational style, engaging examples and humour, but his battle is on a limited front and his weapons have a restricted range.

He argues that races are not pure. Fine, but that leaves him open to the obvious point that we are dealing with the current impure blends, and those blends show significant behavioural differences. The European blend, even if you judge it on only the last thousand years, can show a set of achievements which gave it cultural and economic prosperity. European Jews have even higher culture and prosperity. These blends do well wherever they are on the planet.

Success depends primarily on two factors: bright people and open markets. (If you have raw materials or beautiful places you can make a subsidiary living selling or renting those to richer countries). China and the Far East are brighter than Europeans, and with open markets should surpass them in another decade or two. The world is much as the intelligence testers find it. Whether these intellectual advantages are primarily due to genetic or sociological/environmental causes is open to question, but on this issue the book does not engage much.

For example, it lays great store on culture, but is silent on where culture comes from. Aborigines, on this argument, have made a strategic error they must now correct: they should emulate European Jews and the Chinese, and become scholarly. Peruvians should take up a running culture. Olympic success in ping-pong depends primarily on good ping-pong training clubs, so we should have more of those.

I found the section on intelligence to be a mixed bag. He has taken good advice on intelligence, but then paid cursory intelligence to the actual debate about racial differences. It is an almost reference-free discussion. He quotes James Flynn without reporting that Flynn accepts that secular rises in intelligence have not closed the racial gap, as he had formerly expected. He attacks Richard Lynn without admitting that Lynn has always assumed that poor environments in Africa accounted for some of the intellectual and scholastic results.

Rutherford knows that racial differences in intelligence are the most contentious, yet fails to put up much of a fight. I expected at least a comment on predicting African intelligence from European polygenic risk scores, and what level of predictive power would need to be achieved to concede that genetics made a contribution to racial differences in achievement.

In sum, the book offers less than expected or threatened. If research on group differences continues, there is hope that as more genetic material is gathered on non-European population all hypotheses about group differences can be subjected to more intensive testing.

 
Hide 203 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. res says:

    Thanks for your review of that book!

    Your Hazlitt quote is the first sentence of his essay “On Prejudice.” For anyone interested, here is the full essay:
    http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Essays/Hazlitt/Prejudice.htm

    I think the first sentence of the third paragraph provides an interesting lens to view this book.

    The most dangerous enemies to established opinions are those who, by always defending them, call attention to their weak sides.

    Regarding lumping, splitting, and skin color, I am reading this book right now.

    The data they work with has in many ways been superseded by the revolution in genetics, but the analysis ideas are still highly relevant and the specific data is quite interesting (unsurprisingly, some of the more interesting and genetically simpler human characteristics were studied first).

    One technique they used which caught my attention was looking at the correlation of their Principal Components with the individual traits (e.g. ABO blood types or HLA alleles). I think it would be interesting to apply that idea to skin color. How well do each of the PCs we see in modern genetic analysis correspond to skin color or other phenotypes? This might give some insight into how related population ancestry is to various characteristics. And also permit looking at outliers.

    Regarding

    Rutherford argues that genetics is secondary to culture in sporting success.

    I think the insistence on a universal primary vs. secondary is a good window into Rutherford’s thinking. First, he is happy to admit genetic differences as long as he can claim the environment is more important. Second, he does not think very deeply.

    One interesting aspect of sports is it gives window into phenomena of the far right tail. Usain Bolt is (well, was) literally one in seven billion as a sprinter.

    The 100m is interesting because it might be one of the least culture loaded sporting events there is. As others have observed (I think Steve Sailer, but can’t find an exact quote), pretty much every child learns early how fast they are relative to other children. In an environment with even minimal sporting culture the fastest of those children will end up competing at ever higher levels and should eventually encounter good coaches. Culture may dictate which specific sport they pursue though.

    Let’s compare and contrast two different cases. First, the worlds best sprinter. Anyone who doubts that good genetics (probably at bare minimum +2 SD, though I would argue for even higher) is REQUIRED to achieve that is IMHO a fool. How much culture matters relatively is an interesting question, but I find it hard to credit the idea that a similarly high culture threshold is required for that case.

    But now let’s consider a more typical case. Recreational team sports played at a relatively non-selective level. For more obscure sports culture probably dominates. Consider ice hockey. If someone did not encounter an environment where skating is popular it is doubtful they ever learned to play hockey at all–no matter how good their genetic attributes might have been. On the other hand, in places where hockey is extremely popular (say Canada) genetics probably matters relatively more.

    Another way to think about this is that culture probably matters most between groups and at the lowest levels while genetics matters more within groups and at the highest levels.

    Another factor which can matter here is if the sport does have more selective levels. This will result in creaming off the top of the non-selective population (NBA stars aren’t playing pickup basketball with average players). This can result in interesting restriction of range phenomena (for non-athletes it might be easier to think about college admissions over a range of college selectivity). This might result in the environment appearing to be even more important because the genetically able people who also have the right cultural background (and/or willingness to work hard) are not present in the less selective group.

    Also worth noting is there is probably some correlation between sports a GROUP is genetically better at and sports which are popular within that group. Good old GxE. A similar effect applies to individuals. Then there are countries which do widespread athletic testing and channeling (USSR back in the day, China now?) making it even more likely the best genetic talents will shine.

    Anyone have more thoughts on this?

  2. mikemikev says:

    I wonder if Adam Rutherford will come here and argue with the racists.

    • Replies: @James Thompson
  3. dearieme says:

    At school I noticed an interesting sporting phenomenon. We’d all played football for years. So culturally it was level pegging, and those who were best were those best gifted by (i) speed, acceleration, nimbleness, co-ordination, and (ii) a great deal of practice.

    Then we swapped to rugby. Learning a new game, with quite intricate rules, meant that the more intelligent shone quickly. And yet in many positions in the team the skills required translated pretty well from football. Frinstance, I’d been a half-back at football (now called midfielder); I played number eight (then called lock) at rugby. I found the positional sense required to be much the same. My height and strength were more useful playing as a forward in rugby, of course, suggesting that I might have been better off playing football as a central defender. Nonetheless, the big lesson for me was how much faster the intelligent adjusted to a new game.

    • Replies: @annoymous
  4. dearieme says:

    P.S., doc: your second sentence used “contemporary” in a way I deplore. Yah boo, as we said at school.

    • Replies: @James Thompson
  5. @res

    Hazlitt’s essay is very good. When I first read it I assumed it would be about the role of the critic, but then found it was about race after all. I owe the quote to the British Psychological Society publication The Psychologist, I think, who raised it in an article a decade ago. I had forgotten the piece you so aptly quote about weak defenders of causes. Thanks!

    Cavalli Sforza I had as bedside reading when it first came out, but struggled with it. The first 20 pages denigrated intelligence testing and group differences, and it took me a while to realize that this was window dressing, before he got onto his results (though not about intelligence). I noted the tree concept, but did not really get in to it.

    Principal components ranks high in my estimation. I can understand its lack of pretension. It just clunks through the matrix, resolving vectors. Denis Childs very helpful.

    I was hoping Steve Sailer would deal with the sports material. It feels very clear to me that no amount of training can compensate for a lack of natural ability. I went to a sports-mad school, and my accomplishments were few, but instructive. Because I was thin I could play Rugby in the under 45 Kg teams, and made tries with ease. The game was fun. A year or two later I was the lightest of a heavier group, and got nowhere, and lost interest.
    Long distance running saved me. I got into the school finals, but even there a few boys better built for the task could beat me.
    The school had excellent facilities, good teachers, tremendous encouragement. It was a level playing field which convinced me that different bodies made different achievements possible.

    • Replies: @Bert
  6. @mikemikev

    Comment is free.

    • Replies: @Wally
  7. I don’t know who to actually send this to, but since I noticed it with your article first I suppose I will let you know and you can tell whoever might care.

    Reddit seems to have added unz.com to their “soft-ban” list. In effect, any time the unz domain is submitted on reddit it is automatically removed site-wide. I would guess the domain has been added to a spam or porn filter list. Moderators can still manually approve the site, or set up a subreddit specific rule to have it automatically approved. I am probably the only mod on the site who would bother doing that, and I have already set up that rule on /r/darkenlightenment. That won’t do you much good though, since 99.9% of the site is now a “no unz.com” zone. So, if you noticed traffic from reddit is way down, that is why.

    This is perhaps better than a hard-ban though, which I wouldn’t actually be able to do anything about. It forces the use of archive sites to get around the filter. More detail on that below.

    https://atavisionary.com/anti-evil-operations/

    @ron unz

    • Replies: @RudyM
  8. @dearieme

    I know you dislike it, and flinch when I use it, but it works.

    Ya boo, and sucks to you, as we said at school. We said other things, but I will spare you those. I have no animosity towards your sister.

  9. anon[152] • Disclaimer says:

    a Chinese woman or man will have far fewer southern African ancestors than East Asian, and vice versa. But they will have some, and each of those ancestors has an equal relationship with their living descendants regardless of where on Earth they lived and died.

    I don’t understand what he’s trying to say here. The first sentence blatantly contradicts the second — those African ancestors obviously have a much weaker relationship to their Chinese descendants than they do to their African descendants.

    This is the point Steve Sailer always makes about how the number of positions in your family tree in 1300 BC greatly exceeds the population of the world in 1300 BC. All of your ancestors fill multiple positions. Some of them fill many more positions than others do.

    • Agree: Julian of Norwich
  10. Racism is an emotion right?

    How do you reason with an emotion?

    Same as a belief. It is something they decided to believed in. You cannot reason with that.

    Emotions and beliefs are both unreasonable.

  11. @Astuteobservor II

    “Emotions and beliefs are both unreasonable.”

    Really? Are you telling me that if I believe that sunrise tomorrow is at about 6:00 AM that my belief is unreasonable? Furthermore, if my plans tomorrow were to conduct a mechanized harvest of a very valuable crop on the verge of loss and the weather forecast were for heavy rains all day tomorrow and I were emotionally distraught over that impending financial setback that my emotions would be unreasonable?

    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    , @sally
  12. No nation is static, no people are pure.

    Well, I think the more than 1.3 billion Chinese would disagree with the author there. Sub-Saharan Blacks might as well.

  13. @res

    The 100m is interesting because it might be one of the least culture loaded sporting events there is.

    This is probably true for all extreme sports, like, say the marathon where a specific cluster of characteristics that are genetic ensure that one particular group dominates such sports.

    However, sporting events are a relatively recent phenomenon (sure, going back a couple of thousand years) and prowess at any such events is likely piggybacking on characteristics acquired for more direct survival reasons.

    Further, these characteristics have likely been selected over long periods of time for their survival value in specific environments, but it seems foolish to say that the environment is in control in any way. If a portion of a group that is adapted to environment A migrates to another area where the environment is different, they will adapt to that environment over time.

    And, worse than that, some humans routinely change their environment. They routinely change both their physical environment to be more suitable to themselves, they also routinely change their cultural environments as well.

    • Replies: @res
    , @Anon
  14. @anon

    The first sentence blatantly contradicts the second — those African ancestors obviously have a much weaker relationship to their Chinese descendants than they do to their African descendants.

    I don’t think that is true.

    My grandparents have pretty much the same relationship to me and all their other grandchildren, but I have a weaker relationship to all their other grandchildren except for my brothers and sisters.

    Go back far enough generations (and we are talking thousands now) and I will have a much stronger relationship to all the people in my race than I do to people in other races, but our shared distant ancestors will have the same relationship to us all.

    Then there is the likelihood that each race will have been selected in different directions and that some will be inherently superior at certain activities, eg building complex societies. It sure seems like the Chinese and the Europeans have been strongly selected for that activity.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Nodwink
  15. ” . . . they [some people] also routinely change their cultural environments as well.”

    They also, not too infrequently, make errors in judgment in their globetrotting endeavors–errors that cost them their fortunes or their lives.

  16. RudyM says:
    @Atavisionary

    Reddit is on a roll:

    Reddit announced in February that users “who consistently upvote policy-breaking content within quarantined communities will receive automated warnings, followed by further consequences like a temporary or permanent suspension.”

    http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=61546

  17. res says:
    @anon

    His second sentence is simply wrong in that after enough generations pass very little identity by descent exists from any given ancestor, with some actually being at zero genetic contribution. Here is Graham Coop discussing this.
    https://gcbias.org/2013/11/04/how-much-of-your-genome-do-you-inherit-from-a-particular-ancestor/

    Your point about pedigree collapse is even more important. FWIW at his stated isopoint of 14,000 BC we are looking at about 640 generations (assuming 25 years each). This implies 2 ^ 640 ancestor slots (4.56e192) with an estimate of 1-10 million humans around 10,000 BC.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates_of_historical_world_population
    Now THAT is pedigree collapse!

    Also consider how 640 generations compares to the numbers discussed in Coop’s post! Consider that the human genome consists of about 3e9 base pairs and what that implies for how many of those ancestor slots actually made an IBD contribution to a present day genome.

    Another point Rutherford elides is that the path of descent is important. 640 generations offers substantial time for mutations and selection to have occurred. Even if people have a similar ancestral profile at that time, if their intermediate ancestors lived in different places with different selection pressures it is quite possible the present day people are rather different.

  18. res says:
    @Peripatetic Commenter

    The 100m is interesting because it might be one of the least culture loaded sporting events there is.

    This is probably true for all extreme sports, like, say the marathon where a specific cluster of characteristics that are genetic ensure that one particular group dominates such sports.

    To some degree, but I still think it is dramatically more true for the 100m. As I said, virtually every child learns how they rank in sprinting. But how many children learn how they do in a 2-3+ hour run? Much less do the necessary training to maximize their performance? Endurance requires much more training than sprinting.

    I don’t know much about the culture of the groups dominating the marathon, but I suspect they tend to run long distances when young (or there is an expectation they will do so as adults).

    However, sporting events are a relatively recent phenomenon (sure, going back a couple of thousand years) and prowess at any such events is likely piggybacking on characteristics acquired for more direct survival reasons.

    I strongly agree with that.

    Further, these characteristics have likely been selected over long periods of time for their survival value in specific environments

    And that.

    but it seems foolish to say that the environment is in control in any way. If a portion of a group that is adapted to environment A migrates to another area where the environment is different, they will adapt to that environment over time.

    But I strongly disagree with that. First, was my ice hockey and Canada example not clear? Children don’t migrate on their own (though their parents might) and learning some skills works much better in childhood. Especially when there is tension between having enough time to learn skills and becoming too old for maximum athletic performance.

    There can be some adaptation for adults, but consider my point about levels of competition.

    But here are some counterexamples from the NBA:
    https://fadeawayworld.net/2018/06/29/10-nba-players-who-started-playing-basketball-very-late/
    Sufficiently gifted genetics and willingness to work hard can accomplish a great deal.

    And, worse than that, some humans routinely change their environment. They routinely change both their physical environment to be more suitable to themselves, they also routinely change their cultural environments as well.

    Again, for children, not so much. Let’s consider some environmental aspects.
    – Pre-natal environment.
    – Early childhood nutrition.
    – Childhood peers influencing activities.

    When talking about things like this it is good to make clear the distinction between what is possible and what is experienced by the majority of people (e.g. explains most of the variance in a population). What proportion of people make major changes to their physical and cultural environment before they are 20?

  19. @res

    Also consider how 640 generations compares to the numbers discussed in Coop’s post! Consider that the human genome consists of about 3e9 base pairs and what that implies for how many of those ancestor slots actually made an IBD contribution to a present day genome.

    Isn’t it more correct to talk about the number of genes involved and not the number of base pairs?

    • Replies: @res
  20. @res

    I don’t know much about the culture of the groups dominating the marathon, but I suspect they tend to run long distances when young (or there is an expectation they will do so as adults).

    I have met people who think that because a marathon runner of Kenyan descent was born in the UK it has noting to do with genes.

    A quick search came up with more than this article:

    https://sportsscientists.com/2019/04/we-need-to-talk-about-east-african-runners-and-general-trust-vs-skepticism-in-performances/

    Which says, in part:

    I think THERE IS a physiological basis for the concentration of east African/Kenyan/Kalenjin/Nandi runners. I believe that THERE ARE legitimate biomechanical advantages that are more likely to be found in these populations than elsewhere, and which explain their over-representation.

    What cultural advantages do those few tribes have that allow them to dominate? I think it is a genetic advantage.

    When talking about things like this it is good to make clear the distinction between what is possible and what is experienced by the majority of people (e.g. explains most of the variance in a population). What proportion of people make major changes to their physical and cultural environment before they are 20?

    Well, humans use fire to make their lives more comfortable, and some make more use of fire than others, including using it to help make steel and etc.

    Humans also make shelters, ranging from simple shelters to very complex shelters.

    And on the cultural front, I suspect that my grandparents, if they were still alive, would not recognize the world today because there has been an enormous amount of change, generation by generation.

    Sure, people do not change their lives significantly after about their 30s or so, but each generation in some groups make big changes and these select for people who can deal with the changes, although in some cases groups of people opt out (like the Amish).

    And sure, it is not everyone who makes those changes. They tend to be made by a smallish percentage of mostly males …

    • Replies: @res
  21. It admits that “racism” will be applied only to Western and European cultures, because they “started it” in the Enlightenment

    …and later started “antiracism”, which has no basis in reality, and is rejected by all the other (healthier) races of the world.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  22. res says:
    @Peripatetic Commenter

    Isn’t it more correct to talk about the number of genes involved and not the number of base pairs?

    I don’t think so. The minimum granularity is the base pair. It might make sense to talk about only base pairs which have significant variation (i.e. SNPs) though. Which would make the relevant number more like 10-100e6 rather than 3e9.

    In any case, all of those numbers are tiny compared to the 4.56e192 ancestor slots back at the isopoint.

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Commenter
  23. @Jim Bob Lassiter

    That is not a belief. You don’t seem to understand what a belief is.

    That is almost as bad as it gets as an example to support your case.

    And your emotional example has a direct cause, impending financial loss.

    You can try again if you care. I will be reading.

    • Agree: Realist
    • Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter
  24. res says:
    @Peripatetic Commenter

    I have met people who think that because a marathon runner of Kenyan descent was born in the UK it has noting to do with genes.

    Yes, there are plenty of idiots in the world.

    What cultural advantages do those few tribes have that allow them to dominate? I think it is a genetic advantage.

    I think the primary advantage is genetic. I am not sure how much their culture has changed recently, but the primary cultural advantage I would expect would be if they are accustomed to run long distances in daily life.

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Commenter
  25. swamped says:

    “For example, it lays great store on culture, but is silent on where culture comes from. Aborigines, on this argument, have made a strategic error they must now correct: they should emulate European Jews and the Chinese, and become scholarly. Peruvians should take up a running culture. Olympic success in ping-pong depends primarily on good ping-pong training clubs, so we should have more of those”…or better still, perhaps we should have less – or none at all – ping pong at the Olympics. Does anyone seriously believe a gold medal in ping pong denotes an equal amount of athletic ability to a gold medal in the Decathlon? Ping pong was only first added to the Olympics as an official event in 1988 in Korea, which as the host country that year had the option of introducing a new ‘sport’ to the tournament; and Asian countries did better at events that didn’t require large body mass, so they had a better chance at upping their medal totals with a girlish game like ping pong. It worked well for the Chinese commies too in padding their medals total at the Beijing Olympics twenty years later. This is where not only ‘culture’ but politics as well comes in in prestige sporting events. But despite having the world’s largest population to draw from, China has fared very poorly in international football. They have only qualified for a World Cup finals tournament once – in 2002, losing all three group stage matches without scoring a single goal – despite having participated in WC pre-qualifying competition since 1957. Communist China is currently taking up a football culture in a big way so we shall perhaps see whether they can some day achieve the same footballing prominence as say, tiny, little Croatia which has a population gene pool 300 times smaller than China but which has done so much better. Or even miniscule Iceland which has a population 3,000 times smaller than China but sits 37 places higher than totalitarian China in the latest FIFA world rankings. Go figure.

  26. Pheasant says:

    Adam Rutherford.

    Half Guyanese Indian.

    No dog in the fight here…

    • Replies: @Amerimutt Golems
  27. @Reg Cæsar

    It admits that “racism” will be applied only to Western and European cultures because they “started it” in the Enlightenment

    He who sees is – guilty of seeing something… It’s the old conundrum of enlightenment (and Christianity (!) itself (one of the Frankfurt School’s main points***), which boils down to the point that there is no such thing as a secular activity that could be free of errors.

    This setting allows for literally endless self-criticism of all those engaged in science.

    The latter fact is especially threatening because science is indeed the institutionalized practice of self-criticism and – – – – corrections – – – -etc.

    *** to add a little complexity here, one has to distinguish between different fractions of the old Frankfurt School, in that especially the widely underrated Erich Fromm managed oftentimes to stay clear of the unproductive part of the Frankfurt Way of critique (he managed to avoided to become desperate or drift into hopeless and quite unpleasant fundamentalism. Ok – but that is only one example, there are a few others too and – – -then there is the second Generation of Frankfurters, especially Jürgen Habermas, who managed to show that the old Frankfurt School did indeed more to attack enlightenment thinking than would have been reasonable (cf. especially The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity (1985) and Between Facts and Norms (2002) and This Too a History of Philosophy (2019) ).

    • Replies: @Half Back
  28. Realist says:

    Genetic attributes differ across racial lines. So many studies on genetic racial differences have been conducted that at this point…denial is the only recourse for SJWs.

  29. @res

    What cultural advantages do those few tribes have that allow them to dominate? I think it is a genetic advantage.

    I think the primary advantage is genetic. I am not sure how much their culture has changed recently, but the primary cultural advantage I would expect would be if they are accustomed to run long distances in daily life.

    Well, sure, but there are other people who do not have their genetic advantage who are accustomed to run long distances in daily life. For example, all those who train for the Boston Marathon.

    However, none of them will win against someone with the genetic advantage members of those tribes have.

  30. Sean says:

    To counter a disparate impact argument one ends up having to speak of such things. However, to start a discussion by introducing race differences is akin to leading with an uppercut in boxing: you will almost certainly get crushed.

    If you are forced into the realm of genetic influences on a certain criterion for achievement, I think it is best to preface your remarks about race differences by noting that you are reluctantly going to have to point out the theoretical assumption an egalitarian is making about populations.

  31. Bert says:
    @James Thompson

    Your athletic experiences mirror the evolutionary tradeoffs that occur in species origination, not that such ideas have been developed seriously. In fact, the intricacy of the link between morphology+physiology and ecological performance has been woefully ignored due to evolutionary biology’s focus on genetics. Quite unfortunate because the link can explain a lot about how evolution is constrained, why certain evolutionary pathways are unlikely to be derived from a particular, specialized starting point.

  32. @Pheasant

    Half Guyanese Indian.

    That is what I told Derbs a while back.

    In tandem writing for The Guardian means Rutherford has conform to orthodoxy or progressive dogma aka race is just a social construct.

  33. botazefa says:

    Now to intelligence

    Those three words following the racism of structural drownings is the funniest punchline!

    Dr. Thompson, should you ever get deplatformed you may well exceed your current career with a follow-on in standup comedy.

    • Replies: @James Thompson
  34. @res

    Here is an interesting article on the definition of genes:

    https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2020/06/dan-graur-proposes-new-definition-of.html

    Well, a new definition …

  35. @botazefa

    thank you. I dream of doing standup, but fear I have left it too late.

  36. anon[284] • Disclaimer says:
    @Peripatetic Commenter

    My grandparents have pretty much the same relationship to me and all their other grandchildren, but I have a weaker relationship to all their other grandchildren except for my brothers and sisters.

    This is true, but at the scale we’re discussing the analogy does not hold. The remote African ancestors really do have a stronger relationship to African descendants than to Chinese descendants, and not the other way around, because they constitute more of the family tree of the African descendants than they do of the Chinese descendants.

    Within just two generations (grandparent – grandchild), that phenomenon would require very severe inbreeding. But over thousands of years, it is literally inevitable.

  37. anon[284] • Disclaimer says:
    @res

    He puts the isopoint in 1,400 BC (“the fourteenth century BC”), just 3400 years ago, not 14,000 BC.

  38. res says:
    @anon

    Thanks. So 64 generations and 1.8e19 ancestor slots. Still a great deal of pedigree collapse, but nothing like as extreme as I wrote by mistake.

    It turns out he is actually wrong about that isopoint as far as I can tell. We discussed that last year here. See this comment:
    https://www.unz.com/jthompson/explaining-race-and-genetics-no-need-to-despair/?showcomments#comment-3529386

    Can someone please double check whether Adam Rutherford made an error by conflating a MRCA 3500 years ago (4:16 AM tweet) with an isopoint (aka IA or Identical Ancestors point) (pair of tweets including 4:45 AM) 3500 years ago?

    In addition, this point from Rohde et al. (2004)
    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02842
    casts some doubt on the isopoint dates (and what about the standard of proof Rutherford is using here?!) even if the MRCA dates are reasonable.

    In the case of Tasmania, which may have been completely isolated from mainland Australia between the flooding of the Bass Strait, 9,000–12,000 years ago, and the European colonization of the island, starting in 1803 (ref. 13), the IA date for all living humans must fall before the start of isolation. However, the MRCA date would be unaffected, because today there are no remaining native Tasmanians without some European or mainland Australian ancestry.

    P.S. Is Rutherford really as clueless as this makes him seem, or am I making a mistake somewhere?

    eugyppius elaborates in a response to my comment.

    https://www.nature.com/news/2004/040927/full/040927-10.html

    Not sure what you get from the Nature paper itself, which I can’t access right now, but Rohde’s computer models put the MRCA at 3500 years ago and the isopoint at 5400 BC according to Nature’s own press report.

    Indeed, the first sentence of Rutherford’s “common ancestors” tweet could be ambiguous on a generous reading but then he goes on to nail down what he means (“ancestor of everyone alive today”), so it is hard to see how he’s not wrong.

    I wonder if this post by Dr. Thompson will cause a reappearance of commenter “Anti-HBD” given that the earlier post seems to be what brought him here in the first place.

    P.P.S. That other thread reminded me of the funny earlier version of the book cover for this book which had a blurb touting Adam Rutherford as a “master storyteller.” Which was hilarious given the context.

  39. res says:
    @res

    Since Amazon has updated the cover at the book page I linked in the earlier thread, here is the original cover with the “A master storyteller” blurb.

  40. @res

    “When it comes to race-baiting White people, Rutherford is a master baiter.” — Ta-Genius Coates

    Sorry, somebody had to. May as well get it out of the way.

  41. @res

    Not sure what you get from the Nature paper itself, which I can’t access right now, but Rohde’s computer models put the MRCA at 3500 years ago and the isopoint at 5400 BC according to Nature’s own press report.

    This seems unlikely given the age of remains found in North America …

    • Replies: @res
  42. “So, racial differences are rooted in biology, in DNA. The problem does not lie in these differences, but in the fetishization of these differences. It is a matter of degree.”

    Racial brain size differences are significant, as is the 2SD Black-White IQ gap.

    Brain Size and Weight by Race:  American Whites vs. American Blacks (average 24% White admixture)

    A study by Ho et al. (1980) recorded the brain weights of 1,261 Americans, including 416 White and 228 Black men, taken from five years of records at Case Western Reserve University.

    [MORE]

             RESULTS:
             Whites: 1392 grams (1442cc)
             Blacks: 1286 grams (1332cc)

    Analysis of brain weight. I. Adult brain weight in relation to sex, race, and age (1980), by Ho, Roessmann, Straumfjord, and Monroe.

    A study by Bean (1906) recorded the brain weights of 125 Americans, including 37 White and 51 Black men, from an anatomical laboratory in Baltimore.

             RESULTS:
             Whites: 1341 grams (1389cc)
             Blacks: 1292 grams (1339cc)

    Source: Some racial peculiarities of the Negro brain (1906), by Bean; page 408.
    https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/49594/1000050402_ftp.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

    A study by Pearl (1934) examined the recorded brain weights of 24 White and 379 Black soldiers who died during the War of Federal Tyranny (1861-65), most of whom died of pneumonia. Note the higher than average brain weights, perhaps due to the fact that these were strong young men in their prime and/or perhaps to a side-effect of pneumonia.

             RESULTS:
             Whites: 1471 grams (1524cc)
             Blacks: 1342 grams (1390cc)

    Source: The Weight of the Negro Brain (1934), by Pearl.
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/pdf_extract/80/2080/431

    The largest autopsy study was performed by anthropologist Ralph Holloway (2004) at Columbia University Medical School on 1,391 Whites, 153 Hispanics, and 615 Blacks:

             RESULTS:
             Whites: 1285 grams (1331cc)
             Hispanics: 1253 grams (1298cc)
             Blacks: 1222 grams (1266cc)

    Measuring endocranial volume, the American anthropologist Samuel George Morton (1849) filled over 1,000 skulls with packing material and found that Blacks averaged about 5 cubic inches less cranial capacity than Whites. These results have stood the test of time (Gordon, 1934; Simmons, 1942; Todd, 1923).

    http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001071

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html

    The largest study of race differences in endocranial volume was by Beals et al. (1984) with measurements of up to 20,000 skulls from around the world:

             RESULTS:
             Asians: 1415cc
             Whites: 1362cc
             Blacks: 1268cc

    Asian brain size is greater than White brain size, yet Asian brain weight is less than White brain weight. Whites have a greater number of folds which increase the brain area. Brain folding is a natural solution to maximizing surface area within a given space.

    Variability in Frontotemporal Brain Structure
    October 26, 2010
    Nneka Isamah, Warachal Faison, Martha E. Payne, James MacFall, David C. Steffens, John L. Beyer, K. Ranga Krishnan, and Warren D. Taylor

    “After controlling for age, sex, and education level, the African-American population exhibited smaller total cerebral volume than Caucasians.”

    Group differences in brain volume measures:

             RESULTS:
             Whites: 1178cc
             Blacks: 1076cc

    “Our findings do have clear implications for neuroscience research. Racial and ethnic background accounts for some of the variability in brain structure and so this demographic needs to be consistently incorporated into neuroscience research. As one might expect from such research, genetic differences are related to brain structure and function, and these influences appear strongest for areas of the brain involved in language, attention, visual, emotional and sensorimotor processing.”

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964318/

    Weighing brains at autopsy, Broca (1873) found that Whites averaged heavier brains than Blacks and had more complex convolutions and larger frontal lobes. Subsequent studies have found an average Black–White difference of about 100 g (Bean, 1906; Mall, 1909; Pearl, 1934; Vint, 1934). Some studies have found that the more White admixture (judged independently from skin color), the greater the average brain weight in Blacks (Bean, 1906; Pearl, 1934). In a study of 1,261 American adults, Ho et al. (1980) found that 811 White Americans averaged 1,323 g and 450 Black Americans averaged 1,223). Since the Blacks and Whites were similar in body size, differences in body size cannot explain away the differences in brain weight.

    Brain size by race:

    In the commonly used Smith-Beals data set of 20,000 skulls worldwide, East Asians averaged 1415 cubic centimeters of brain volume. Ethnic Europeans averaged 1362 cubic centimeters, and sub-Saharan Africans averaged 1268 cubic centimeters.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2668913/

    Brain size and cognitive ability: Correlations with age, sex, social class, and race

    East Asians and their descendants = 1,364; Europeans and their descendants = 1,347; and Africans and their descendants = 1,267).

    A study by Rushton (1992) estimated brain sizes based on head measurments of 6,325 military personnel (1,590 White and 1,381 Black men) taken by the U.S. Army in 1988.

             Results:

             Asian: 1416 cm³
             White: 1380 cm³
             Black: 1359 cm³

             Officers: 1393 cm³
             Enlisted: 1375 cm³

    Source: Cranial capacity related to sex, rank, and race in a stratified random sample of 6325 US military personnel (1992), by Rushton.

    http://philipperushton.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/iq-brain-size-rushton-intelligence-1992.pdf

    • Thanks: mark green
    • Replies: @James Thompson
  43. “I agree with Rutherford that skin colour is part of racial differences, but hardly all or even the most important part of it. It is simply one facet of differences which together make up evident racial groupings: skull shape; body shape and size; muscle and fat distribution; bone density; early motor development; vulnerability to illnesses and others.”

    Correct.

    A basic law of biology is that longer infancy is related to greater brain growth.

    Blacks are the only race not hybridized with the large-brained Neanderthals, and also the only race without the derived form of MCPH1 microcephalin called haplogroup D which produces increased brain volume.

    The correlation between brain size and IQ across 25 primate species is 0.77 (where 1.0 indicates that monozygotic twins have no variance in IQ and 0 indicates that their IQs are completely uncorrelated).

    [MORE]

    Structural imaging of total brain gray and white matter volumes is perhaps the most obvious approach to correlate brain measures with general intelligence (Toga et al, 2005). Brain structure measured from MRI correlates with intelligence test scores as total brain volume (Gignac et al. 2003), as do the volumes of individual lobes and aggregate gray and white matter volumes (Posthuma et al. 2002).

    Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. By adulthood, East Asians average one cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average five cubic inches more than Blacks.

    In the commonly used Smith-Beals data set of 20,000 skulls worldwide, East Asians averaged 1415 cubic centimeters of brain volume. Ethnic Europeans averaged 1362 cubic centimeters, and sub-Saharan Africans averaged 1268 cubic centimeters.

    Brain Size by Race:

             •   Blacks   =   1267 cm³
             •   Whites   =   1347 cm³
             •   Asians   =   1364 cm³

    Brain Weight by Race:

             •   Blacks   =   1261 grams
             •   Whites   =   1387 grams
             •   Asians   =   1374 grams

    So, Asian brain size is greater than White brain size, yet Asian brain weight is less than White brain weight. Whites have a greater number of folds which increase the brain area. Brain folding is a natural solution to maximizing surface area within a given space.

    Whites’ brains are faster, larger, denser, and more complex than Blacks’ brains:

             •   7% larger
             •   126 grams heavier
             •   deeper fissuration in the frontal and occipital regions
             •   more complex convolutions
             •   larger frontal lobes
             •   more pyramidal neurons
             •   16% thicker supra-grandular layer
             •   one standard deviation more cerebrum
             •   react faster on mental chronometry tests
             •   600 million more neurons

    Race differences start in the womb. Blacks are born earlier and grow quicker than Whites and Asians.

    Black babies mature more quickly than White babies, while Asian babies mature more slowly. Black babies in a sitting position are more able to keep their heads up and backs straight from the start. White babies often need six to eight weeks to do these things.

    Black babies spend the least time in the womb. 51% of Black children have been born by week 39 of pregnancy compared with 33% of White children.

    Black children sit, crawl, walk, and put on their own clothes earlier than Whites or Asians. The findings are measured by such tests as Bayley’s Scales of Mental and Motor Development and the Cambridge Neonatal Scales.

    Asian children, on the other hand, mature more slowly than do White children. Asian children often do not walk until 13 months. Walking starts at 12 months for white children and 11 months for Black children.

    MILESTONE: Being drawn up into a sitting position, able to prevent the head from falling backwards:

             Black: Nine hours
             White: Six weeks

    MILESTONE: With head held firmly, looking at the face of the examiner:

             Black: Two days
             White: Eight weeks

    MILESTONE: Supporting self in a sitting position and watching own reflection in a mirror:

             Black: Seven weeks
             White: Twenty weeks

    MILESTONE: Holding self upright:

             Black: Five months
             White: Nine months

    MILESTONE: Climbing the steps alone:

             Black: 11 months
             White: 15 months

    Sources:

    “…the kinesthetic maturation rate of Black infants was two or three times that of White children.” Simpson, 2003

    Faster maturation goes along with a shorter life span. In 2002, Black Americans had 40.5% more deaths than they would have had with the White mortality rate.

    A 2005 report by former U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher: The bodies of Blacks mature faster.

    İşcan, 1987; Wilson, 1978; Levin, 1997; Freedman, 1969.

    Primitive physical traits of Blacks:

             •   more robust cranial bones, simpler cranial sutures, a higher rate of unclosed sutures, a lower cephalic index, a higher rate of saggital keel (a characteristic of erectus skulls), more post-orbital constriction, a more sloped forehead, more rectangular eye sockets, a wider nasal index, less nasal prominence, a higher rate of joined nasal bones, a higher rate of sub-nasal prognathism, a lower facial angle, the presence of the “simian shelf”, a more rectangular palate, larger and wider-apart teeth, less spinal curvature, shorter spinal length, a lower sacral index, and longer arms and legs.

             •    a narrower skull. The bones of the skull (and the rest of the body) are denser and thicker. The eye sockets are rounder and proportionately larger and the distance between them is greater. The slight bump at the top of the head suggests a “saggital keel”, a ridge along the top of the head from the forehead to the back of the skull for attaching chewing muscles and strengthening the skull from blows received in fighting. The opening for the nose is wider, the nose bones protrude less, and the teeth more massive, with the incisors meeting at an angle. The Black skull is quite different from the Asian and White skulls, indicating a much greater genetic distance between Eurasians and Blacks than between Whites and Asians.

             •    a protruding jaw known as “prognathism” (or the absence of facial flatness), a trait found in apes and in ancient human fossil skulls, even those not from Africa. The considerable gap between the cheekbones (“zygomatic arches”) and the indentation on the sides behind the eye sockets (“post-orbital constriction”) indicate that the more massive jaw was serviced by powerful chewing muscles that passed through the gap.

             •    Gestation period of 8.5 months or two weeks less than Whites. And triple the rate of fraternal twins when also compared to Whites.

    Prognathism is facial angle, the slope of the face from the forehead to the jaws. A lack of facial flatness is a primitive physical trait.

    Prognathism by race/species:

             •   Modern man = 100°
             •   Black = 70°
             •   H. habilis = 70°
             •   H. erectus = 70°
             •   Australian aborigine = 66°
             •   Khoikhoi = 60°
             •   Bushmen = 60°

             •    Vertebrae can also be used to determine race. A “simian notch,” a much narrower second sacral vertebra, that is much narrower laterally than the first or third vertebrae, is characteristic of pongids [apes] and is common in Blacks, among whom it appears to be a primary character.

             •    Their fur is black, crispy, and “woolly” in texture. It is flat and elliptical with no central canal or duct like the hair of modern man. This protects from lice infestations.

             •    Their noses are thick, broad and flat, often turned up nostrils exposing the red inner lining of the mucous membrane similar to an ape.

             •    Their arms and legs are relatively longer than in modern man. The humerus is shorter and the forearm longer thereby approximating the simian form.

             •    Their eyes are prominent, iris black and the orbits large. The eye often has a yellowish sclerotic coat over it like that of a gorilla.

             •    The ears of the Black are roundish, rather small, standing somewhat high and detached thus approaching the simian form.

             •    The jaw is larger and stronger and protrudes outward which, along with lower retreating forehead, gives a facial angle of 68 to 70 degrees as opposed to a facial angle of 80 to 82 degrees for Whites.

             •    The hands and fingers are proportionally narrower and longer. The wrist and ankles are shorter and more robust.

             •    The teeth are larger and are wider apart than in the White race and have a denser and tougher alveolar bone.

             •    The frontal and paricial bones of the cranium are less excavated and less capacious. The skull is thicker especially on the sides.

             •    The three curvatures of the spine are less pronounced in the Black than in the White and thus more characteristic of an ape.

             •    The femur of the Black is less oblique, the tibia (shin bone) more curved and bent forward, the calf of the leg high and but little developed.

             •    The heel is broad and projecting, the foot long and broad but slightly arched causing flat soles, the great toe is shorter than in the White.

             •    The two bones proper of the nose are occasionally united, as in apes.

             •    The Black is more powerfully developed from the pelvis down and the White more powerfully developed in the chest.

             •    They have a shorter, more circular trunk than modern man. The pelvis is narrower and longer as it is in an ape.

             •    Their mouths are wide with very thick, large and protruding lips.

             •    Their skin has a thick superficial layer which resists scratching and impedes the penetration of germs.

             •    They have a larger and shorter neck, akin to that of anthropoids.

             •    Their cranial sutures are more simple and close together earlier.

  44. “Researchers keep trying different numbers of clusters to look for a configuration which covers most of the data in a reasonable way, and which corresponds to some relevant factors, in the case of human groupings, their appearance linked to their continent of origin. If you are a “lumper” you might settle on two or three races, if you are a splitter you may choose 57 varieties of human.”

    There are good discussions of race here-

    Race differences in intelligence: An evolutionary analysis.
    Lynn, Richard (2006)

    [MORE]

    ABSTRACT
    It is widely accepted that race differences in intelligence exist, but no consensus has emerged on whether these have any genetic basis. The present book is the first fully comprehensive review that has ever been made of the evidence on race differences in intelligence worldwide. It reviews these for ten races rather than the three major races (Africans, Caucasians, and East Asians) analyzed by Rushton (2000). The races analyzed here are the Europeans, sub-Saharan Africans, Bushmen, South Asians and North Africans, Southeast Asians, Australian Aborigines, Pacific Islanders, East Asians, Arctic Peoples, and Native American Indians. (PsycINFO Database Record, 2016 APA)

    https://archive.org/stream/RichardLynnRaceDifferencesInIntelligence/Richard%20LynnRace%20Differences%20In%20Intelligence_djvu.txt

    THIRTY YEARS OF RESEARCH ON RACE DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY

    https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

    Whole Brain Size and General Mental Ability: A Review

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2668913

    Rushton, J. P. (1992). Cranial capacity related to sex, rank, and race in a stratified random sample of 6,325 U.S. military personnel. Intelligence, 16, 401-413.

    http://philipperushton.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/iq-brain-size-rushton-intelligence-1992.pdf

    Brain size and cognitive ability: Correlations with age, sex, social class, and race

    https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758%2FBF03210739.pdf

    RACE, EVOLUTION,AND BEHAVIOR: A Life History Perspective

    http://www.europeanamericansunited.org/school1/Eugenics/Rushton/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf

    ETHNIC GROUP DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT AND EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS: A META-ANALYSIS

    https://home.ubalt.edu/tmitch/645/articles/roth%20et%20al%20ethnic%20grp%20diff%20in%20cog%20abil%20ppsych%202001.pdf

    Performance on Raven’s Matrices by African and White University Students in South Africa

    Lynn (1997) reviewed five additional studies of African IQ scores published between 1985 and 1996. Mean IQs were in the range of 60-74. One study by the World Bank reported the results from a random sample of 1,639 adolescents in Ghana drawn from the entire country (Glewwe & Jacoby, 1992). Their mean age was 15.2 and their mean score on the CPM (the simpler version of the SPM) was 12.5, equivalent in British samples to an IQ of 60. African-White differences are also found on simple reaction time (RT) measures. In one of these (the “odd-man-out” test), 9- to 12-year-old children are asked to decide which of several lights stands out from the others, and then press the button that corresponds to that light. The test is so easy that all children can perform it in less than 1 sec. But even on this very simple test, children with higher IQ scores perform faster than do children with lower IQ scores. Lynn (1991) found that Black children from South Africa average slower RTs than do White children from Britain and Ireland. Earlier, Poortinga (1971) had also shown African-White differences in South Africa on four- and eight-choice RT tasks for both auditory and visual stimuli. The magnitude of the mean African-White differences on these RT measures ranged from 1.26 to 1.53 SD (see Jensen, 1998, p. 392, for discussion of this study).

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.503.9118&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    Variability in Frontotemporal Brain Structure: The Importance of Recruitment of African Americans in Neuroscience Research
    October 26, 2010

    This study was a secondary data analysis examining volumetric MRI data gathered from healthy control subjects participating in a study of bipolar disorder. This dataset enabled us to compare volumes of temporal regions (amygdala and hippocampus), the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), the caudate nucleus, the lateral ventricles, and total cerebral volume between Caucasian and African-American participants.

    Our primary finding is that when compared to Caucasians, an African-American cohort exhibited smaller cerebral volumes but larger absolute left OFC volumes. Additionally, the OFC and amygdala appear to occupy a significantly greater proportion of the total cerebral volume in the African-American cohort. Our findings are generally concordant with recent work that brain structure may vary significantly across populations of different racial or ethnic backgrounds.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964318/

    African Blacks Average IQ 67

    The average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans
    Intelligence 38 (2010) 21–29
    Richard Lynn and Gerhard Meisenberg
    September 25, 2009

    http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/lynn2010.pdf

  45. res says:
    @Peripatetic Commenter

    I give my take in this comment:
    https://www.unz.com/jthompson/explaining-race-and-genetics-no-need-to-despair/?showcomments#comment-3529295

    If you are interested in this I recommend taking a look at the paper I referenced there.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02842
    That page has the Supplementary information, but no free full text. For full text search for DOI 10.1038/nature02842 on Sci-Hub.

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Commenter
  46. @Astuteobservor II

    Racism – as the thing that is considered unreasonable, is extrapolation.

    Knowing a group statistic, assuming something of an individual from that group. Or knowing an individual, assuming something of his group because of their individual characteristic.

    You can compare group to group, or individual to individual, but mixing the individual and the group is extrapolation – statistics doesn’t point at one member of a group and say ‘he has a high IQ’, or ‘she runs fast’.

    Racism – as the thing that is not unreasonable, is comparison of groups using statistical data.

    • Thanks: Neuday
  47. vot tak says:

    “Germany and Russia jointly did cruel things to Poland in 1939 because they shared a common political purpose.”

    LOL, I thought maybe this article was by someone not a likudite zionazi. I should have known… 😀

    Germany invaded poland to gain access for later invasion of Russia, and to also gain poland’s resources. The Russians invaded poland to create a buffer zone and block nazi access to some of poland’s resources. No common political purpose there at all, shlomo.

    • Replies: @James Thompson
    , @utu
  48. Dr. Doom says:

    Marxist Postmodernism simply inverts reality.

    It pathologizes the normal, and tries to normalize the pathological.

    This creates discord and strife.

    Eventually they are supposed to take over.

    The dysfunctional cretins they have are not up to this however.

    This is not Russia 1917.

    This is Weimar 2.0.

    • Replies: @Neuday
  49. @res

    Again, for children, not so much. Let’s consider some environmental aspects.
    – Pre-natal environment.
    – Early childhood nutrition.
    – Childhood peers influencing activities.

    The racial IQ and brain size gap is present in infants and fetuses.

    The 1.1 SD (16 IQ points) American Black (24% White admixture)-White IQ gap is present by age three. The IQ gap between African Blacks and Whites is 2 SD.

    Race differences show up by 3 years of age, even after matching on maternal education and other variables. Therefore, they cannot be due to poor education since this has not yet begun to exert an effect.

    https://humanvarieties.org/2013/05/26/the-onset-and-development-of-b-w-ability-differences-early-infancy-to-age-3-part-1/

    Even before birth, population group differences in average brain size are found from the ninth week of intrauterine life with White fetuses averaging larger brain cases and smaller faces than Black fetuses, with the differences becoming more prominent over the course of fetal development.

    Whole Brain Size and General Mental Ability: A Review

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2668913/

    Racial differences in head size appear early in life. Head circumference of White children are greater than that of Black children in each age category by a mean of 0.36 cm³ or approximately 0.2 SD. The greater head size of White children, however, is not a function of greater body size because Black children are taller than White children at both 4 and 7 years (Broman et al., 1987). From 7 to 17 years, the White advantage in cranial capacity is 16 cm³.

    https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758%2FBF03210739.pdf

    Racial-group differences in IQ appear early. For example, the Black and the White 3 year-old children in the standardization sample of the Stanford–Binet IV show a 1 standard deviation mean difference after being matched on gender, birth order, and maternal education (Peoples, Fagan, & Drotar, 1995). Similarly, the Black and the White 2 1⁄2- to 6-year-old children in the U.S. standardization sample of the Differential Aptitude Scale have a 1 standard deviation mean difference (Lynn, 1996). The size of the average Black–White difference does not change significantly over the developmental period from 3 years of age and beyond (see Jensen, 1974, 1998b).” (Rushton & Jensen, 2005, pp. 240-241.)

    Farkas & Beron (2004) reported that blacks score 17.2 points below whites on the PPVT in this dataset at age 36 months (p. 478). More recently, Bond & Lang (2012) reported a slightly smaller, 14.6 point gap for 3-year-olds in this dataset (p. 13).

    https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/testing_for_racial_differences_in_the_mental_ability_of_young_children.pdf

    • Replies: @res
    , @mark green
  50. @res

    The book by those Italians will soon be banned. Everything will be banned. VDARE is done. They just lost their registrar Network Solutions is removing them permanently after complaints. Unz better have a back up plan because they will becoming for him soon. You are not allowed to say anyone is smarter than anyone else. You are not allowed to question anything about IQ tests.

    Amazon just purged a video about censorship. The Jews have won.

  51. So how does all this “racism or not” stuff explain the behaviors of what I consider the most civilized folks on Earth what with their complete lack of animosity toward anyone of any race–the Kalahari and Namib Bushmen (the click speaking San people)?

    On a side note: remember one of Africa’s greatest singers, Miriam Makiba (spelling?)? Well guess what–she sings a click song (Xhosa wedding song) on a video on YouTube–amazing!

    Maybe we should all learn Bushcraft and go back to being hunter-gatherers…considering the criminal psycho elites want to destroy economies and the food supply, that might be a good idea…. If that means no more internet-no more smart/stupid phones and no more tracking/invasion of privacy, then so be it. (Great Bushcraft videos also on YouTube…watch them before they are banned for being too “primitive.”) Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!

  52. Wally says:
    @James Thompson

    James Thompson, you said:

    “Germany and Russia jointly did cruel things to Poland in 1939 because they shared a common political purpose.”

    – It was Poland who “did cruel things”.

    Such as:
    – Stealing German land.
    – Inflicting massive pre-war atrocities against Germans who resided on that stolen land
    – Threatened an invasion of Lithuania.
    – Invading and annexing parts of Czechoslovakia.

    recommended:
    Why Germany Invaded Poland, by John Wear: http://inconvenienthistory.com/11/1/6391
    Polish Atrocities against Germans before 1. September 1939: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7525
    much more:
    https://www.unz.com/?s=poland&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=Wally

    • Agree: Moi
    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  53. Rutherford does not mention more recent studies, notably Rindermann (2013) who calculates that IQ 75 is a reasonable estimate for sub-Saharan Africa.

    This is that paper-

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.372.5462&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    This is Lynn’s work-

    National IQs calculated and validated for 108 nations:

    https://www.academia.edu/18754731/National_IQs_calculated_and_validated_for_108_nations

    https://mason.gmu.edu/~gjonesb/IQandNationalProductivity.pdf

    Race differences in intelligence: An evolutionary analysis.
    Lynn, Richard (2006)

    [MORE]

    ABSTRACT
    It is widely accepted that race differences in intelligence exist, but no consensus has emerged on whether these have any genetic basis. The present book is the first fully comprehensive review that has ever been made of the evidence on race differences in intelligence worldwide. It reviews these for ten races rather than the three major races (Africans, Caucasians, and East Asians) analyzed by Rushton (2000). The races analyzed here are the Europeans, sub-Saharan Africans, Bushmen, South Asians and North Africans, Southeast Asians, Australian Aborigines, Pacific Islanders, East Asians, Arctic Peoples, and Native American Indians. (PsycINFO Database Record, 2016 APA)

    https://archive.org/stream/RichardLynnRaceDifferencesInIntelligence/Richard%20LynnRace%20Differences%20In%20Intelligence_djvu.txt

    Performance on Raven’s Matrices by African and White University Students in South Africa

    Lynn (1997) reviewed five additional studies of African IQ scores published between 1985 and 1996. Mean IQs were in the range of 60-74. One study by the World Bank reported the results from a random sample of 1,639 adolescents in Ghana drawn from the entire country (Glewwe & Jacoby, 1992). Their mean age was 15.2 and their mean score on the CPM (the simpler version of the SPM) was 12.5, equivalent in British samples to an IQ of 60. African-White differences are also found on simple reaction time (RT) measures. In one of these (the “odd-man-out” test), 9- to 12-year-old children are asked to decide which of several lights stands out from the others, and then press the button that corresponds to that light. The test is so easy that all children can perform it in less than 1 sec. But even on this very simple test, children with higher IQ scores perform faster than do children with lower IQ scores. Lynn (1991) found that Black children from South Africa average slower RTs than do White children from Britain and Ireland. Earlier, Poortinga (1971) had also shown African-White differences in South Africa on four- and eight-choice RT tasks for both auditory and visual stimuli. The magnitude of the mean African-White differences on these RT measures ranged from 1.26 to 1.53 SD (see Jensen, 1998, p. 392, for discussion of this study).

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.503.9118&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    African Blacks Average IQ 67

    The average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans
    Intelligence 38 (2010) 21–29
    Richard Lynn and Gerhard Meisenberg
    September 25, 2009

    http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/lynn2010.pdf

    …and, from Ruston-

    Performance on Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices by African, East Indian, and White engineering students in South Africa

    http://philipperushton.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Performance-on-Raven%E2%80%99s-Advanced-Progressive-Matrices-by-African-East-Indian-and-White-Engineering-Students-in-South-Africa-2003-by-John-Philippe-Rushton-Mervyn-Skuy-Peter-Fridjhon.pdf

    The average IQ obtained in studies of sub-Saharan Africans is 15–30 points (1–2 S.D.) lower than elsewhere in the world. In their book, IQ and the Wealth of Nations, Lynn and Vanhanen (2002) reviewed over two-dozen studies from West, Central, East, and Southern Africa and found they yield an average IQ of around 70. For example, in Nigeria, Fahrmeier (1975) collected data on 375 6–13-year-olds in a study of the effects of schooling on cognitive development. The children’s mean score on the Colored Progressive Matrices was 12 out of 36, giving them an IQ equivalent of < 70. In Ghana, Glewwe and Jacoby (1992) reported on a World Bank study that tested a representative sample of 1736 11–20-year-olds from the entire country. All had completed primary school; half were attending middleschool.

    Their mean score on the Colored Progressive Matrices was 19 out of 36, which gives an IQ equivalent of < 70. In Zimbabwe, Zindi (1994) gave the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Revised (WISC-R) and the Standard Progressive Matrices to 204 African 12–14-year-olds, and reported mean IQ scores of 67 on the WISC-R and 72 on the Matrices. In South Africa, Owen (1992) found that 1093 African high school students solved 28 out of 60 problems on the Standard Progressive Matrices, which is around the 10th percentile, or an IQ equivalent of about 80. Studies published since Lynn and Vanhanen’s (2002) review continue to find low scores.

    In Kenya, Sternberg et al. (2001) administered the Colored Progressive Matrices to 85 12–15-year-olds who scored 23.5 out of 36, an IQ equivalent of about 70. In Tanzania, Sternberg et al. (2002) administered the Wisconsin Card Sorting Task to 358 11–13-year-olds who obtained a mean score on Perseverative Errors of 18.53. Although procedural differences may make the normative comparison problematic, as it stands, this score is equivalent to the fifth percentile on American norms for 12-year-olds (IQ = 75). After receiving training on how to sort attributes, the children’s scores went up to 16.5 (lower scores meant fewer errors), but this was still only at the ninth percentile on American norms (IQ < 80). In South Africa, Skuy, Schutte, Fridjhon, and O’Carroll (2001) found mean scores 1–2 S.D. below US norms on a wide variety of tests individually administered to 154 African high school students under optimized conditions. These tests included the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Revised (WISC-R), the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, the Stroop Color Word Test, the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, the Bender Gestalt Visual Motor Integration Test, the Rey Osterreith Complex Figure Test, the Trail Making Test, the Spatial Memory Task, and various Drawing Tasks. On the WISC-R, the African students averaged 1.81 S.D. below American norms (1.58 S.D. with the vocabulary subtest excluded).

    University students in South Africa also show low mean test scores. Sixty-three undergraduates at the all-Black Universities of Fort Hare, Zululand, the North, and the Medical University of South Africa were given the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Revised (WAIS-R) and found to have a full scale IQ of 77, 1.5 S.D. below US norms (Avenant, 1988; cited by Nell, 2000, pp. 26–28). A study at the University of Venda in South Africa’s Northern Province by Grieve and Viljoen (2000) found 30 students in fourth-year law and commerce averaged a score of 37 out of 60 on the Standard Progressive Matrices, equivalent to an IQ equivalent of 78 on US norms.

    At the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, Rushton, Skuy, and colleagues gave Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices in three separate studies under optimal testing conditions. Rushton and Skuy (2000) found 173 Black first-year psychology students averaged an IQ equivalent of 84. Skuy et al. (2002) tested another 70 Black psychology students who averaged an IQ equivalent of 83.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289609001275

    • Replies: @res
  54. Let us look at what was formerly called Zaire, now known as the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

    There are different ethnic groups, which are frequently defined by language.

    There is really no identity as a country.

    Fidel Castro sent troops to Zaire and he was surprised. Fidel said that everyone in Cuba thinks of themselves as Cuban. In Zaire people think of themselves as belonging to a tribe and not to a country.

    Note: Fidel used the word tribe and not ethnic group or linguistic group.

    I wrote for The Black Star News. It was published by Milton Allimadi, whose father was Otema Allimadi, former Prime Minister of Uganda. Milton Obote, the leader was President of Uganda.

    There were two civil wars in Uganda against Obote. One was led by Idi Amin.

    Idi Amin was overthrown. Milton Obote returned as President with Otema Allimadi as Prime Minister.

    Milton Obote then launched his version of ethnic cleansing with upwards of 500,ooo Ugandans of another ethnic group massacred. The Second Ugandan Civil War erupted.

    Museveni then took over.

    In the Congo, formerly Belgian Congo, Civil War has always been the norm. Massacres of various ethnic groups have been murdered. The latest number murdered is 4 million. Yet, it is never mentioned except when white people fear that Ebola will spread to Europe.

    The isolation of various ethno-linguistic groups has given rise to the African version of race wars.

    Edward Manfredonia

    • Replies: @trickster
  55. @res

    Thanks! – Yep, hilarious.

    Here’s a humorous satire about the author of the blurb – social-mathematician and media personality… Hannah Fry.

    https://www.bustle.com/p/is-dr-hannah-fry-related-to-stephen-fry-the-rising-star-is-the-new-face-of-magic-numbers-12585628

    Stephen Fry did give a pretty popular ted-talk based on Rutherford’s work, in which he explains, why Rutherford is right in debunking all those scientific myths of genetic differences – and that we’re all humans – except those maybe, who willfully still – even after Adam Rutherford, so to speak – darken the world by talking about genetic differences…
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MganV8ikNHc

    • Replies: @res
  56. So much mania about Floyd, so little coverage of Epstein’s mysterious death.


    https://www.bitchute.com/video/ze6q9LPLif8/

  57. Anon[383] • Disclaimer says:
    @Peripatetic Commenter

    Whilst the 100 metre race is interesting, so are the long distance races dominated by Kenyans and Ethiopians. Could this be that, genetically they come from the same source of light framed, long legged people with large chests, traits not found in West African people (whose descendants dominate short sprints) with heavy musculature and low density bones. This would also explain the success of black heavyweight boxers, where a white person weighing 240 pounds would have almost twice the skeletal weight of a black person also weighing 240 pounds.

  58. gotmituns says:

    Below is an except of a speech given by Dr. Booker T. Washington to the Harvard alumni association in 1896. As to his words, how are the Negroes doing?

    “If my life in the past has meant anything in the lifting up of my people and the bringing about of better relations between your race and mine. I assure you from this day it will mean doubly more. In the economy of God there is but one standard by which an individual can succeed–there is but one for a race. This country demands that every race measure itself by the American standard. By it a race must rise or fall, succeed or fail, and in the last analysis mere sentiment counts for little. During the next half century and more, my race must continue passing through the severe American crucible. We are to be tested in our patience, our forbearance, our perseverance, our power to endure wrong, to withstand temptations, to economize, to acquire and use skill; our ability to compete, to succeed in commerce, to disregard the superficial for the real, the appearance for the substance, to be great and yet small, learned and yet simple, high and yet the servant of all. This, this is the passport to all that is best in the life of our republic, and the Negro must possess it, or be debarred.”

  59. @anon

    Page 75

    I am well aware, having said these facts to students
    and public audiences hundreds of times, that this is a
    brain-scrambling concept, because it is so far from our
    casual assumptions and thoughts about ancestry, family
    trees and identity. It certainly doesn’t sound right, and is
    further confounded as a concept by the calculations of
    the global isopoint – the year in which the population
    of the Earth were the ancestors of everyone living today.
    This, astonishingly, comes out at around 3,400 years ago.
    Everyone alive today is descended from all of the global
    population in the fourteenth century bce.

    Before current era, I presume.

    • Replies: @dearieme
  60. dearieme says:
    @James Thompson

    Before current era, I presume.

    No, no: I always pronounce it as before the Christian era. It’s surely the least an atheist can do.

  61. @anon

    IOW “computer models” point to a global Woodstock event at about the time the XVIII. dynasty erected border steles reading “no niggers allowed beyond this point”.

    Sounds reasonable 😀

    • Agree: RobbieSmith
  62. idealogus says: • Website

    I know it’s not fair but I can’t help it.
    When Darwinists caught a Christ believer they knock him in the head with so-called scientific evidence like: “between man and ape there are only 2% differences in DNA.”
    From the above article I understood that the differences between the human races are about 6%.

    ” Only 6 per cent of differences segregated by race. ”

    So the difference between a Chinese and an African is 3 times bigger than the difference between a Chinese and a monkey?

    HAAAA, haaaa, HHaaaaa !!!!

    • Replies: @Hegar
  63. WHITE LIVES MATTER = WAYCIZUM
    BLACK LIVES MATTER = THE HEIGHT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE

    Orwell should have made Rats, not Pigs the rulers.

    Talmud-Logic msm has a new motto:

    ALL RACES ARE EQUAL
    BUT BLACKS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS

    Go Burnley!!!

  64. Hegar says:

    Regarding the deceptive, fact-avoiding, “There are no races, because of these border cases” argument, I say this:

    1) Are there no countries either? There are border cases on the borders of nations. Can you perfectly draw the border between France and Germany? Could you perfectly decide the border even if you were there, walking along the border area? No. But everyone knows that Paris is in France and Berlin is in Germany. Everyone knows Helsinki is in Finland and Moscow in Rusland. We might not know in the case of every single square meter, but we know in the case of the enormous, important groupings, such as towns and cities, or the major groups of people in a race.

    2) Are there no male and female faces? For every male nose or jaw you can find a woman with that nose or that jaw (for the latter, likely in Ireland). For every eye with a female shape you can find some man with that eye shape. But in 99.999% of cases we can tell whether a face is male or female. Because in the vast majority of cases, it is clear.

    3) Is there no male and female handwriting? For every masculinely shaped letter, you can find some woman somewhere who writes the letter like that. But like every teacher can tell you, when papers are handed in they can always tell from the handwriting whether a paper is written by a boy or a girl. And it remains that way all through college, until we start writing on computers.

  65. Hegar says:
    @idealogus

    You almost managed to have a scientific argument there. Good for you! So you claim that this “argument” proves the world is about 6,000 years old and the species were magically produced just the way they are right now? And the world will end in fire and brimstone with the good people living in the ether in perfect bliss forever, while people you don’t like will be tortured forever? I hope you don’t call yourself a nationalist, since your argument makes nationalism meaningless.

    As for the percentages you mention, they are about completely different things, and your “six percent” isn’t a certain number either. If you had actually read Thompson’s story you would see that no one can decide “the percent difference between the races”. You obviously read nothing, since that was his entire point.

    And finally, you seriously deny that the various species share much of the same DNA? Then you probably also cling to the comforting thought of the earth being flat. “Some Jhews thousands of years ago believed that, so it must be true! They WROTE it, so it has to be true!”

  66. @Wally

    For information about the the spotless innocent behavior of the noble Nazis in Poland google :

    Nazi crimes against the Polish nation.
    War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II.
    Warsaw Uprising.
    Kidnapping of children by Nazi Germany.
    Intelligentzaktion (extermination of Polish intelligentsia), see also this video : https://youtu.be/ulWxglfta2U

    • Thanks: Alden
    • Replies: @Neuday
    , @Wally
  67. @RobbieSmith

    Thank you for this list. Have you been able to find any more recent work, given that brain scans are now very commonly given?

  68. It is said that the South Sudanese are the tallest people in the world, and the fastest runners. This makes them the Master Race, doesn’t it? Even though they are content with agriculture?

    • Replies: @RobbieSmith
    , @Menes
  69. The Honorable Pastor James David Manning reminds us Africans never built anything (Egypt doesn’t count)

    • Replies: @RobbieSmith
    , @Vojkan
  70. Half Back says:
    @Dieter Kief

    Thanks for mentioning Mr E Fromm. He was a thinker I admired greatly. When I see criticisms of the frankfurt school, I can safely say Fromm played a inspirational part of my life and so have been forever challenged due to Fromm and his insistence that Love/Life is and act of YOUR will and the success or outcome is proportional to the sacrifice and energy one puts into it.

  71. Anonymous[661] • Disclaimer says:

    Interesting take on genetics being secondary to culture. Some years ago I read an interview with two researchers (Harvard profs), both avid runners, who wanted to find out why the same small group of runners from Kenya were winning all the marathons. They went to Africa and studied them, concluding that these Kenyans had a tribal genetic advantage insofar as their wrist and ankle bones were extremely thin. They calculated that the couple pound weight difference, over the course of a marathon, meant they escaped having to move an accumulated ton or so forward that other runners had to contend with and that this gave them a distinct advantage.

    They did mention that they were not publishing a paper about their research because they were quite aware there would be professional backlash including loss of jobs.

  72. @Astuteobservor II

    So, perhaps you could offer an example of what, in your view, might amount to reasoned discourse? For the sake of epistemological clarity.

  73. Sean says:

    https://thehardtimes.net/blog/i-was-brainwashed-by-the-liberal-media-then-i-saw-a-video-of-a-man-ranting-alone-in-a-truck/

    Waste of time trying to argue ‘is’ (biology and genetics) with those practicing ‘ought’ (politics), because such views are not susceptible to rational refutation being ideological close order drill. As with the singing scene of Zulu, the content of the what is being communicated is not in the words, but the evidence of group cohesion.

    No nation is static, no people are pure.
    Racial purity is a pure fantasy. For humans, there are no purebloods, only mongrels enriched by the blood of multitudes

    The author is talking about belief in racial purity being the cause of trouble, as Dawkins and Dennett do about belief in religious holiness. Yet, the canonical examples of war over race or religion simply do not stand up. Catholic France backed Protestant Sweden in the supposedly religious Thirty Years War, and Nazi Germany formed an alliance with Japan. Individuals, groups, nationalism and broad alliances of states fight over what is scarce, and what will make them secure.

    China is a lot more racially cohesive than the West, which knows it cannot oppose China on that basis, so the West is adopting anti racism because only through all subscribing to that meme and making it the official ideology can the weakness of diversity be turned into a strength. But that belief is not going to cause the coming war with China, which will be an event between political units.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  74. dearieme says:

    It’s too wearisome to bother with a book that reeks of dishonesty.

    But hats off to those who can be bothered, above all Doc T.

  75. Ahoy says:

    The ones who believe the BLM must be the new religion in America, they have exactly the opposite view for other parts of the world.

  76. trickster says:
    @gotmituns

    Bully for Booker T. He might have pointed out though, that what he wrote applies to, applied to and will apply to ALL people and ALL races in ALL eras and under ALL circumstances.

    Examples:
    -Germany reduced to rubble by 1945 is now again a power house
    -Japan got 2 nukes up their ass in 1945 and is again a power house

    They displayed and practised all the characteristics laid out by Booker.

    Unfortunately, the black man feels he is exempt from all this “Uncle Tom nonsense”. The immutable laws of success do not apply to him ! Hence after several hundred years, and after living in the US and being given every advantage he is not even bringing up a valiant last in the race. He is indeed, a lazy spectator in the stand, clamouring for the gold medal others have sweated for. I look at it this way. If we were to consider the marathon of life as a 25 mile race, the black man has been given a 20 mile handicap. However, every other race, starting from zero passed him at the 21 mile marker and lapped him at marker 22.

    Destroy a building and every other race will rebuild it. Give the building to a black man and he will reduce it to rubble. Another 2000 years of recorded history will pass and nothing will change.

    Who can figure it or them out ? Not even they themselves know why they do what they do. This is a mystery that will only be solved by some new field of neurological science. Like any troublesome individual (s) they are to be avoided and best left to their own devices. However even when placed among their own in Africa or in a black neighbourhood anywhere in the world their behaviour remains the same.

    That is their punishment and our castigation is that we must endure them for no amount of wishing, hoping, talking and counsel on the part of the white man or any other non-black race will make any difference.

    • Replies: @RobbieSmith
  77. trickster says:
    @edward manfredonia

    Great comment Edward. As I have said repeatedly on this site, blacks in western countries go on and on about the white man. Yet in Africa ( and I have lived there) every tribe hates every other tribe even if they live in the same country. This is something the black man in the west can never seem to understand. The fellows living in South Central LA, Harlem or Watts spout all this nonsense about Roots, the Afro ethnicity but a Zulu for example has no use for a member of the Xhosa tribe and even less for a black American. Name any other African country and it is the same.

    The idiots in the US who want to return to Africa just do not understand that in returning to Africa WHICH tribe will they belong to ? That, in my experience is what and how an African defines himself. The Roots Bros from the US ghetto will be the stranger, the outsider.

    And blacks in the west believe the white man is a racist murderer. These people have no idea what being on the wrong side of an African tribal conflict means. 24/7 news reports out of Africa will never convince the black American or black anyone that Africa is anything but a utopia waiting for the brothers to return after throwing off the yoke of the white man.

    When I tell people the police or the Army in Africa will gun you down and just leave you there they think I am putting them on. Yet, the examples of Rwanda or Mugabe using his North Korean trained Shona to abuse and murder the Ndebele in his very own Zimbabwe seem to have gone unnoticed, unheeded and outright ignored as if it is just make believe.

    Blacks in the US think they know all about white racism and white privilege. They should return to Africa and live among their own blacks to get a taste of what these words really mean.

    The shit people tolerate from them in the west would be violently and ruthlessly crushed by their own in Africa.

    • Agree: Commentator Mike
  78. @gotmituns

    In the economy of God there is but one standard by which an individual can succeed–there is but one for a race.

    God hates Blacks too. The Jews (Highest IQ, 115) are His chosen; the sons of Ham (Lowest IQ, 67) are His cursed.

    • Replies: @Trinity
  79. Ho-hum. Another boring article about some mongrel trying to deny what is obvious to anybody with a brain. yes, there are racial differences, in some cases important ones. Blacks are especially sensitive to this argument for reasons that do not need explaining. As for this fellow, Indians are by nature traumtized by the wehole issue. Aryans conquered India eons ago and tried, through the caste system, to maintain racial purity. They failed. This huants them and leads to pretty obvious mental instability in many of them. Don’t believe in race? Compare caste, virtually white Indians with the lower castes.
    Indians sure as hell do. As for Sub-Saharan Africans, please…….

  80. Ian Smith says:

    Video by Ed Dutton on Rutherford:

    https://www.bitchute.com/video/EaneLuNC8umu/

    • Thanks: res
    • Replies: @res
  81. @Ann Nonny Mouse

    It is said that the South Sudanese are the tallest people in the world…

    Here’s what I found online-

    The world’s 10 tallest countries:

    Netherlands – 1.838m
    Montenegro – 1.832m
    Denmark – 1.826m
    Norway – 1.824m
    Serbia – 1.82m
    Germany – 1.81m
    Croatia – 1.805m
    Czech Republic – 1.8031m
    Slovenia – 1.803m
    Luxembourg – 1.799m

    https://www.express.co.uk/travel/articles/974402/tallest-people-in-the-world-average-height-netherlands

  82. @trickster

    Examples:
    -Germany reduced to rubble by 1945 is now again a power house
    -Japan got 2 nukes up their ass in 1945 and is again a power house

    Another example is the 2010 earthquakes that struck Japan and Haiti.

    The Japanese immediately cleared the rubble and rebuilt while the Haitians stood around (if they were not looting) and waited for Whites to come and repair and rebuild for them.

    There’s a reason Blacks are the only race never to have civilized. Blacks only destroy civilizations.

  83. @vot tak

    On your comment alone, you confirm me: both wanted Poland’s resources. Beyond that, their long term aims certainly differed, but they agreed to carve up Poland.

    • Replies: @FB
  84. Emslander says:
    @gotmituns

    An individual ought to worry about fulfilling his particular destiny, given his particular gifts, before he ought to have to worry about how his race is doing. He ought to do the best he can to provide solace and assistance to the poor and the sick and might even have that as his vocation, but first carry out his role as best he knows it.

    The business of Booker T. worrying whether his race would pass the test of America is ridiculous. Many individual members of the race have done very well in very many fields of endeavor. What more should anyone care about, racially, at least?

  85. dearieme says:

    Here’s an amusing Race tale. For overseas readers: one of great heroines of British life is Florence Nightingale, who revolutionised nursing care, starting with soldiers during the Crimean War.

    In the last few decades there’s been an attempt to elevate Mary Seacole to the same rank. That good lady was black. Indeed, the elevation was because that good lady was black. (Or should I say Black?)

    As far as I know she was a thoroughly Good Thing, quite well known in her day but little known since – until the recent development of the Black Agenda in public life. Anyway, the tale is this.

    She was a racist, as was common in her day. She especially seems to have disliked the swarthy white races – Arabs, Turks, and so forth. She expressed herself freely on the subject in her autobiography. Someone called Chris McGovern wrote to The Times pointing out this racism. (Presumably he was hinting that the BLM rioters should, to be consistent, pull down or vandalise her statue.) The response of The Times was to imply that she’d not written her own autobiography.

    What? Are they suggesting that she was too dim to write a book? Wot the hell?

    Herewith his account:
    https://conservativewoman.co.uk/was-mary-seacole-racist-the-times-and-an-idiotic-attempt-to-erase-history/

  86. Trinity says:
    @RobbieSmith

    I think the whole Jewish high IQ is pure bullshit just like all other Jew LIES. Honestly I think the average White and Northeast Oriental IQ is higher than the average Jewish IQ. The whole region of the Middle East IMO are backward and primitive people, and yes, that includes many Jews not only in Israel but in the Jewish diaspora. We hear or read from other Jews all the time how smart some demented POS like Henry Kissinger was or still is, or perverts like Albert Einstein or Sigmund Freud were so smart, blah, blah, blah…. No, what these three POS happened to be where criminally insane in the case of Kissinger, and total frauds in the case of Einstein and Freud. The Jewish and very UNTALENTED Bob Dylan won a Nobel Prize for his music or song writing? My gawd, I could never even understand what that drug addled cretin was mumbling about to even know what his lyrics were in the first place and then when I read some of his lyrics, I wasn’t impressed in the least. Jews have produced no great art, no great literature, no society to speak of on their own, and are a band of criminal glorified gypsies. Jewish superior intelligence? My ass, just another LIE brought to you be Jewish authors and Jewish publishing companies.

    Regarding this article. Most of us know or at least believe the word “racist” was first coined by one Lev Bronstein better known to the world as Leon Trotsky. How or why in the hell did a Russian Jew adopt a Black first name like Leon? haha. Anyhow, it was Trotsky who saw that to conquer the world or at least conquer traditionally White nations, classical Marxism which pitted rich vs. poor wouldn’t be as effective as “cultural Marxism” which would pit nonwhite races against Whites. Bronstein/Trotsky figured that since Whites had either conquered nonwhites militarily, economically or colonized them, that he and his Jewish cohorts looking to conquer the world could use race instead of class as a more powerful weapon to divide and conquer the most powerful nations on the planet at the time which were all traditionally White nations. Preaching racial division and anti-White hatred in America and other traditionally White nations has benefited the Jews more than any other demographic and has hurt Whites far more than any other race. Whites are in serious danger of facing genocide through forced assimilation, nonwhites reproducing at a much faster rate in White nations, Whites being murdered by nonwhites, being killed off in wars for Israel, being pushed out of power by nonwhites and Jews, etc., etc., etc. IF Whites don’t start waking the fuck up they will go the same way of the American Indian, that same tribe of people that Whites almost wiped out entirely. Is this karma for Whites for what they did to the American Indian? NO. Because White genocide is being orchestrated by Jews and other nonwhites and very few IF any American Indians have a voice in the matter. WTF up White man, or find yourselves relegated to living on reservations and only being a tiny percentage of the population of America, a country where at one time Whites were nearly 90% of the population.

  87. utu says:
    @vot tak

    “The Russians invaded…” – Russia never invades unlike Germany. Russia enters. Russia entered Poland, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Russia also entered Finland but Fins being rather dense misunderstood and started shooting at the entering Russian. BTW, all the territorial gains under the umbrella of the Secret Protocol to Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact Russia retained after WWII. Comrade Stalin himself established how to talk about history and what language to use:

    Falsifiers of History
    Falsifiers of History was a book published by the Soviet Information Bureau, edited and partially re-written by Joseph Stalin, in response to documents made public in January 1948 regarding German–Soviet relations before and after the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiers_of_History

    Colonel Putin closely follows Stalin’s method in his political history offensive of recent years:

    No to ‘Re-Writing History’: UK Foreign Office Comments on Vladimir Putin’s WW2 Article
    https://sputniknews.com/world/202006201079670503-no-to-re-writing-history-uk-foreign-office-comments-on-vladimir-putins-ww2-article/

  88. @Jim Bob Lassiter

    I don’t have any expectations when it comes to emo anons.

  89. @res

    There are still some unadmixed aboriginal Australians and Papuans alive in the world today.

    The claim is false on its face!

    • Replies: @res
  90. Neuday says:
    @Dr. Doom

    This is not Russia 1917.

    This is Weimar 2.0.

    Hmm, a jew-contrived Communist revolution after years of worthless war, or a jew-controlled debt explosion and hyperinflation, with the normalization of degeneracy. Why not both?

  91. dearieme says:

    Here’s another Race story – there’s no end to the fun today.

    https://nypost.com/2015/08/21/black-lives-matter-leader-insists-hes-black/

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  92. Neuday says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Ooo, thanks; information on Nazi naughtiness is so hard to find.

  93. @Trinity

    I think the whole Jewish high IQ is pure bullshit just like all other Jew LIES. Honestly I think the average White and Northeast Oriental IQ is higher than the average Jewish IQ.

    I understand you think that, but do you have science to support it?

    Here’s what I have-

    IQ by race:

    [MORE]

             •   Ashkenazi Jews = 115
             •   East Asians = 106
             •   Whites = 102
             •   Inuits and Eskimos = 91
             •   South-East Asians = 87
             •   American Indians = 87
             •   Non-White Hispanics = 86
             •   Koko (a western lowland gorilla) = 85
             •   American Blacks = 85 (average 24% White admixture)
             •   Middle East and North Africans = 84
             •   African Blacks = 67 (only 2% of Whites score this low)
             •   Australian Aborigines = 62
             •   Kalahari Bushman = 54
             •   Congo Pygmies = 54

    Race differences in intelligence: An evolutionary analysis.
    Lynn, Richard (2006)

    ABSTRACT
    It is widely accepted that race differences in intelligence exist, but no consensus has emerged on whether these have any genetic basis. The present book is the first fully comprehensive review that has ever been made of the evidence on race differences in intelligence worldwide. It reviews these for ten races rather than the three major races (Africans, Caucasians, and East Asians) analyzed by Rushton (2000). The races analyzed here are the Europeans, sub-Saharan Africans, Bushmen, South Asians and North Africans, Southeast Asians, Australian Aborigines, Pacific Islanders, East Asians, Arctic Peoples, and Native American Indians. (PsycINFO Database Record, 2016 APA)

    https://archive.org/stream/RichardLynnRaceDifferencesInIntelligence/Richard%20LynnRace%20Differences%20In%20Intelligence_djvu.txt

    THIRTY YEARS OF RESEARCH ON RACE DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY

    https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

    “Ashkenazi Jews have the highest IQ for any ethnic group for which there are reliable data,” the study says.

    “During the 20th century, they made up about 3 percent of the U.S. population but won 27 percent of the U.S. Nobel science prizes and 25 percent of the ACM Turing awards. They account for more than half of world chess champions.”

    Harpending said the study should have made more distinctions concerning Sephardi Jews, but said that wouldn’t have made a major difference in the figures.

    Greater brain power came with a biological price. The idea Harpending and colleagues want to explore is that certain genetic diseases, called sphingolipid mutations, boost intelligence. They seem to increase axonal growth and branching in the brain, which could improve brain power.

    The downside is that the mutations also cause a number of debilitating, and sometimes fatal, diseases such as Tay-Sachs, Gaucher and Niemann-Pick diseases.

    “We do have strong but indirect evidence that one of these, Gaucher disease, does indeed increase IQ,” says the paper. Ari Zimran, who heads the Gaucher Clinic in Jerusalem, furnished the authors a list of the occupation of 302 of the patients, essentially all the Gaucher patients in Israel.

    “Of the 255 patients who are not retired and not students, 81 are in occupations that ordinarily average IQ’s greater than 120,” it says. An IQ of 100 is considered normal.

    “There are 13 academics, 23 engineers, 14 scientists, and 31 in other high IQ occupations like accountants, physicians or lawyers.”

    https://www.deseret.com/2005/11/14/19922721/researcher-focuses-on-the-jewish-brain

    IQ test scores are highly heritable, almost always greater than 0.5 when adult scores are studied. Lower heritability estimates are found for children’s IQ: the IQ of children does seem to reflect in part environmental influences like the social class of the home in which the child is reared, but these influences disappear as the child matures and are essentially gone in adulthood. In the same way enrichment programs like Head Start cause a transient elevation in IQ scores of children but these effects disappear as the child matures. The phenomenon of heritability increasing with age is characteristic of many quantitative traits in mammals (Falconer, 1981).

    Quantitative traits like height or IQ are influenced by many genes. The response of quantitative traits to selection is described by the fundamental relationship R = h²S where R is the response to selection, S is the selection differential, the difference between the mean value in the population and the mean value in parents, and h² is the narrow sense heritability of the trait. This simple robust formulation is applicable to animal breeding, laboratory experiments, and evolution in natural populations (Falconer, 1981; Lande, 1976). Estimates of the narrow-sense heritability of IQ vary, but generally range between 0.3 and 0.5 in children (Devlin et al., 1997) up to 0.7 or higher when measured
    in adults (Jensen, 1998).

    https://web.mit.edu/fustflum/documents/papers/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf

    Ashkenazi Jews are 0.2% of the world’s population and 22% of the Nobel science laureates. There has never been a Black Nobel science laureate (or a Fields Medal winner, which is like the Nobel Prize for mathematics).

             •   Ashkenazi IQ = 115
             •   African Black IQ = 67

    https://web.mit.edu/fustflum/documents/papers/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf

    In their 1995 book, “Jews and the New American Scene,” the prominent social scientist Seymour Martin Lipset, a Senior Scholar of the Wilstein Institute for Jewish Policy Studies, and Earl Raab, Director of the Perlmutter Institute for Jewish Advocacy at Brandeis University, found of American Jews, who made up about 3% of the population at the time:

    “During the last three decades, Jews have made up 50% of the top two hundred intellectuals, 40 percent of American Nobel Prize Winners in science and economics, 20 percent of professors at the leading universities, 21 percent of high level civil servants, 40 percent of partners in the leading law firms in New York and Washington, 26% of the reporters, editors, and executives of the major print and broadcast media, 59 percent of the directors, writers, and producers of the fifty top-grossing motion pictures from 1965 to 1982, and 58 percent of directors, writers, and producers in two or more primetime television series.”

    • LOL: Trinity
    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Truth
    , @botazefa
    , @Menes
  94. JackOH says:

    I’m probably simple-minded here, but I’d like to think in a competitive publishing world, a provocative How to Argue with a Racist would bring forth a reply title, How to Argue with a Race Denier.

    Take the cues from Rutherford himself, draw from these pages and the relevant scientific literature, keep it calm, and let the chips fall where they may.

    If I were a young, hungry publisher, I’d certainly consider such a book for the sole purpose of gaining good attention for my publishing house.

    • Replies: @RobbieSmith
  95. Wally says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Hilarious.

    – Leave it to a Zionist propagandist to suggest a search of Zionist dominated Google
    for Zionist manufactured propaganda. LOL

    – One could just as easily do a search for proof of witchcraft and get results like this:
    Witchcraft Documents, Testimony, Eyewitnesses: http://salem.lib.virginia.edu/home.html

    – And notice his dodging of the information I posted.

    – Franklin Ryckaert has been challenged repeatedly to produce proof for his laughable claims. The results, utter failure, see:
    https://www.unz.com/?s=Franklin+Ryckaert&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=Wally

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  96. @JackOH

    I’m probably simple-minded here, but I’d like to think in a competitive publishing world, a provocative How to Argue with a Racist would bring forth a reply title, How to Argue with a Race Denier.

    Correct.

    There comes a point when we all look around and notice patterns associated with the various racial groups.

    But, for now, we’re all required to ignore the obvious.

    • Agree: Trinity
  97. @Sick of Orcs

    Africans never built anything (Egypt doesn’t count)

    Correct. Egyptians are White. So, it’s correct to state, sub-Saharan Africans never built anything.

    https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html

    “The researchers say that there was probably a pulse of sub-Saharan African DNA into Egypt roughly 700 years ago. The mixing of ancient Egyptians and Africans from further south means that modern Egyptians can trace 8% more of their ancestry to sub-Saharan Africans than can the mummies from Abusir el-Meleq.”

    https://www.nature.com/news/mummy-dna-unravels-ancient-egyptians-ancestry-1.22069

    http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694

  98. Wally says:
    @RobbieSmith

    Nonsense.
    – As if the Nobel Prize is an objective measurement. They’re pure politics.
    – Most Jews who received those fake ‘awards’ did so after the WWII fake “holocaust” was shoved down everyone’s throat.

    [MORE]

    – Jew IQ is largely a myth established by marketing and media control, starting with the Einstein brand. The myth is necessary to justify and conceal Jewish tribal nepotism as the main factor establishing dominance of a hostile elite in host nations.

    – Comparing Ashkenazi IQ to a country’s or region’s IQ is an absurd, underhanded, and self serving Jewish supremacist tactic.
    Factor out the lower IQs of immigrants in let’s say, Germany or Denmark. Those lower IQs drag the total down significantly. It then becomes a different ball game when one compares IQs of indigenous, true Germans, Danes vs. a selected subset of Jews, the Ashkenazis.

    – In fact, looking at the IQ of Israeli Jews in general reveals a much lower IQ than that of a selected Ashkenazi subset.

    recommended:
    Jewish Brilliance: Synthetic Like Zirconia, by Eric Striker:
    https://www.unz.com/estriker/jewish-brilliance-synthetic-like-zirconia/
    Albert Einstein: Time Magazine’s Undeserving Person of the Century, By John Wear
    https://codoh.com/library/document/6743/?lang=en
    excerpt:
    “It appears that the physics community and the media invented a comic book figure, “Einstein”, with “E=mc²” stenciled across his chest. The media and educational institutions portray this surreal and farcical image as a benevolent god to watch over us…

    To question “Einstein”, the god, either “his” theories, or the priority of the thoughts he repeated, has become the sin of heresy. “His” writings are synonymous with truth, the undecipherable truth of a god hung on the wall as a symbol of ultimate truth, which truth is elusive to mortal man—no one is to understand or to question the arcana of “Einstein”, but must let the shepherd lead his flock, without objection. Do not bother the believers with the facts!”
    – Bjerknes, Christopher Jon, Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist, Downers Grove, Ill.: XTX Inc., 2002, pp. 161-162.

    • Agree: Trinity
    • Replies: @RobbieSmith
  99. Truth says:
    @RobbieSmith

    Sorry Unholy Trinity, I have to go with Robbie Shith on this one. You can’t accept half of a line of study, accept all or none.*

    (*And I personally accept none).

    • Troll: Trinity
  100. res says:
    @RobbieSmith

    Your first link is an interesting and comprehensive look at the trajectory of the B/W IQ gap with age. Thanks for providing it, I tend to take Jensen’s statements about that in The g Factor as definitive, but your link convinces me that is questionable.

    That post is labeled as part 1 of 3. Yet I am unable to find parts 2 and 3. Do they exist?

    FWIW, two thoughts.

    1. I think your estimates of the US B/W and African gaps are likely to be high for the present. Good data is scarce though, so it is hard to be confident.

    2. Just because I argue for environmental effects existing does not mean I discount the importance of genetic effects (multiple people seem to be missing this). Note in particular that my argument was referring to sports and I noted it was more applicable in some sports relative to others.

    • Replies: @RobbieSmith
  101. FB says: • Website
    @James Thompson

    No it wasn’t about wanting Poland’s resources…

    Russia was acting defensively by incorporating Poland as a buffer zone against the Nazi invasion that came two years later and ended up carrying away 27 million Russian lives…

    To equate the Russian and German aims in Poland as morally equivalent is quite a dishonest reading of history, and a big problem for Russians…President Putin’s recent article focuses on this twisting of history now going on…

    The commenter was pointing out your alignment with this mainstream view, and your response shows he was right…

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  102. res says:
    @RobbieSmith

    For completeness, when talking about world IQs we should mention David Becker’s work (which includes estimates from both Lynn and Rindermann).
    https://www.researchgate.net/project/Worlds-IQ

    I think if we want to talk about the balance of evidence for any given country (rather than just cherry picking studies) it is good to look at all of the references Becker gives in his REC sheet.

    Dr. Thompson, is it correct to assume that Becker’s spreadsheet includes the data from Rindermann’s 2013 Africa paper? Both in the country estimates and in the list of research papers? I only see Rindermann (2013) referenced under Tanzania, not South Africa.

    • Replies: @RobbieSmith
  103. res says:
    @Dieter Kief

    LOL!

    The equation put forward by Dr. Fry is pretty straight forward; proud + proactive + provokable = love. So, basically, IMHO, this means be proud of yourself, go for what you want, and make sure if you argue that it is constructive.

    Now that is some hardcore math! I am filled with awe.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  104. @Wally

    Jew IQ is largely a myth…

    Look, I’m seeking facts.

    If you have facts about racial IQ, especially Jewish IQ, I’m very interested in learning.

    But everything I have found shows that Ashkenazi IQ is the highest of all racial groups, that that has long been known and they’ve been studied for it, and that they suffer from intelligence-related maladies.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  105. @dearieme

    Unlike Rachel Dolezal, this man really looks somewhat non-White. I would classify him as a mestizo, but he could equally well be a very light mulatto. According to the American “one-drop-rule” that would be “Black”.

    • Replies: @dearieme
  106. sally says:
    @Jim Bob Lassiter

    Is it rational to understand difference between emotion and belief..to be that emotion is a response programmed to set the environment variable values in accord to sensory inputs while belief is an irrational mind set used to block further consideration of the matter? the belief stands no matter the facts.
    the choice to adopt and outcome (or an answer) is coded by rule into belief.
    Believe will survive and remain no matter the evidence based proof of its false ness directed at it.

    so belief is irrational resolution maintained by denying any challenge.
    While emotion is a programmed response to sensory input.

  107. annoymous says:
    @dearieme

    This is an interesting observation. Once i watched a 8 year old stand 60′ or more from a broken basement window.. together with several of his friends. They each took several turns throwing a baseball at the hole in the window, one child hit the hole every time, the same way, none of the others even after 7 or 8 tries hit the window at all.

    Several months later this same young person was pitching for a team playing in an all star baseball game( the average age of the team was four years senior to this persons age), and his throws to the plate were nearly perfect.. He pitched a no hitter game. He pitched to 86 batters, 81 is a perfect game.

    After this young lad graduated from High School I learned he had an academic scholarship to a major school and he opted out of sports. Today he is a teacher of molecular biology at a medical school..

    What bothers me about this is if intelligence is a predictor of sport talent, why are not all of the top sport stars Jews? After all the story goes intelligence of Jews is far superior to all others. ?

    Has anyone profiled the iq and genetic composition vs of major sporting team members?

  108. @res

    Your first link is an interesting and comprehensive look at the trajectory of the B/W IQ gap with age.

    Yes, Blacks mature faster than modern man. This is a primitive trait.

    A basic law of biology is that longer infancy is related to greater brain growth.

    Blacks are the only race not hybridized with the large-brained Neanderthals, and also the only race without the derived form of MCPH1 microcephalin called haplogroup D which produces increased brain volume.

    The correlation between brain size and IQ across 25 primate species is 0.77 (where 1.0 indicates that monozygotic twins have no variance in IQ and 0 indicates that their IQs are completely uncorrelated).

    Structural imaging of total brain gray and white matter volumes is perhaps the most obvious approach to correlate brain measures with general intelligence (Toga et al, 2005). Brain structure measured from MRI correlates with intelligence test scores as total brain volume (Gignac et al. 2003), as do the volumes of individual lobes and aggregate gray and white matter volumes (Posthuma et al. 2002).

    Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. By adulthood, East Asians average one cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average five cubic inches more than Blacks.

    In the commonly used Smith-Beals data set of 20,000 skulls worldwide, East Asians averaged 1415 cubic centimeters of brain volume. Ethnic Europeans averaged 1362 cubic centimeters, and sub-Saharan Africans averaged 1268 cubic centimeters.

    Brain Size by Race:

             •   Blacks   =   1267 cm³
             •   Whites   =   1347 cm³
             •   Asians   =   1364 cm³

    Brain Weight by Race:

             •   Blacks   =   1261 grams
             •   Whites   =   1387 grams
             •   Asians   =   1374 grams

    So, Asian brain size is greater than White brain size, yet Asian brain weight is less than White brain weight. Whites have a greater number of folds which increase the brain area. Brain folding is a natural solution to maximizing surface area within a given space.

    Whites’ brains are faster, larger, denser, and more complex than Blacks’ brains:

             •   7% larger
             •   126 grams heavier
             •   deeper fissuration in the frontal and occipital regions
             •   more complex convolutions
             •   larger frontal lobes
             •   more pyramidal neurons
             •   16% thicker supra-grandular layer
             •   one standard deviation more cerebrum
             •   react faster on mental chronometry tests
             •   600 million more neurons

    Race differences start in the womb. Blacks are born earlier and grow quicker than Whites and Asians.

    Black babies mature more quickly than White babies, while Asian babies mature more slowly. Black babies in a sitting position are more able to keep their heads up and backs straight from the start. White babies often need six to eight weeks to do these things.

    Black babies spend the least time in the womb. 51% of Black children have been born by week 39 of pregnancy compared with 33% of White children.

    Black children sit, crawl, walk, and put on their own clothes earlier than Whites or Asians. The findings are measured by such tests as Bayley’s Scales of Mental and Motor Development and the Cambridge Neonatal Scales.

    Asian children, on the other hand, mature more slowly than do White children. Asian children often do not walk until 13 months. Walking starts at 12 months for white children and 11 months for Black children.

    MILESTONE: Being drawn up into a sitting position, able to prevent the head from falling backwards:

             Black: Nine hours
             White: Six weeks

    MILESTONE: With head held firmly, looking at the face of the examiner:

             Black: Two days
             White: Eight weeks

    MILESTONE: Supporting self in a sitting position and watching own reflection in a mirror:

             Black: Seven weeks
             White: Twenty weeks

    MILESTONE: Holding self upright:

             Black: Five months
             White: Nine months

    MILESTONE: Climbing the steps alone:

             Black: 11 months
             White: 15 months

    Sources:

    “…the kinesthetic maturation rate of Black infants was two or three times that of White children.” Simpson, 2003

    Faster maturation goes along with a shorter life span. In 2002, Black Americans had 40.5% more deaths than they would have had with the White mortality rate.

    A 2005 report by former U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher: The bodies of Blacks mature faster.

    İşcan, 1987; Wilson, 1978; Levin, 1997; Freedman, 1969.

  109. @res

    For completeness, when talking about world IQs we should mention David Becker’s work (which includes estimates from both Lynn and Rindermann).

    Here’s another validating study-

    https://mason.gmu.edu/~gjonesb/IQandNationalProductivity.pdf

    The original-

    https://www.academia.edu/18754731/National_IQs_calculated_and_validated_for_108_nations

    • Replies: @Emil O. W. Kirkegaard
  110. @Wally

    Your own “revisionism” is a kind of historical witchcraft which nobody believes. Certainly not the millions of East Europeans who had the misfortune to be on the receiving end of German prejudices.

    Here is a picture of your noble Nazis mudering Polish intellectuals :

    And here Polish priests have the honor to be their victims :

    But of course you will now say that all those pictures are falsifications, all those allegations are invented etc., etc.

    If I would use your “method” I could equally deny the Allied bombing of German cities (including Dresden), the murder by exposure of 1,5 million German prisoners of war in Eisenhower’s Rhine meadow camps or the rape of 2 million German women by Russian soldiers. None of these events have proofs that cannot also be denied by your own “method” of denial.

    • Replies: @Wally
  111. You write:

    “Europeans Jews have even higher culture and prosperity.”

    I do not doubt that they had a higher level of prosperity given the sacrifice of hundreds of millions, who toiled night and day to death for them. But what higher culture? Was it in music, arts, literature? Please don’t conflate selfish mode with the ability to create that which is lovely and wonderful!

  112. botazefa says:
    @RobbieSmith

    Robby, may I make a suggestion? Tone it down, man. This is an IQ researcher’s blog. The commenters can be very scary clever and occasionally bona fide domain experts. Know your audience.

    Maybe wade into it by reading some of Doctor Thompson’s older stuff. My personal favorite is the 7 Tribes of Intellect:

    https://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-7-tribes-of-intellect/

    Probably stuff you already know.

    And bless you for your thoughtful interaction with Trinity.

  113. anon[427] • Disclaimer says:

    The only people who have to read and quote books and science to say “I don’t like you or your culture I prefer my own” are white people.

  114. @annoymous

    Has anyone profiled the iq and genetic composition vs of major sporting team members?

    Some occupations seek candidates within specific IQ ranges. There was a recent case where a police officer candidate was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test.

    He took the Wonderlic exam and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But the police department interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.

    The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22 (the equivalent of an IQ of 104), or just a little above the White average.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836

    The NFL famously uses the Wonderlic test in their scouting combines and the racial disparity is evident. Out of a perfect score of 50; offensive tackles=26, centers=25, quarterback=24; versus safeties=19, cornerbacks=18 and receivers=17.

    NFL Wonderlic Score Database:

    https://americanfootballdatabase.fandom.com/wiki/Wonderlic_Test

    https://iqtestprep.com/nfl-wonderlic-scores/

    For comparison, Wonderlic scores by profession:

                     Systems Analyst = 32
                     Chemist = 31
                     Electrical Engineer = 30
                     Engineer = 29
                     Programmer = 29
                     Accountant = 28
                     Executive = 28

    ……..versus:

                     Security Guard = 17
                     Welder = 17
                     Warehouseman = 15
                     Janitor = 14

    • Replies: @res
  115. res says:
    @Peripatetic Commenter

    There are still some unadmixed aboriginal Australians and Papuans alive in the world today.

    How certain of that are you? Any evidence? Those are sincere questions, I would like to know more for my own knowledge.

    Looking at this paper:
    A genomic history of Aboriginal Australia
    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature18299

    Full text is on Sci-Hub, but that link has 172 pages of Supplementary Information.

    In the paper text we see “quantifying genetic drift shared between the putatively unadmixed individual WCD02 chosen to represent the Aboriginal Australian population, and various populations throughout the broader region” which makes me think the researchers are skeptical. Or perhaps just cautious.

    This section of the SI looks relevant:
    S14 ABC analysis to characterize recent European, East Asian and Papuan gene flow

    But I haven’t been able to understand the analysis well enough to see if it allows drawing conclusions about the presence of unadmixed Australians.

    In S10 they mention “unadmixed Australians and Papuans.” But in the paper text it turns into: “putatively unadmixed Aboriginal Australians and Papuans.”

    The claim is false on its face!

    Yes. Even with no remaining unadmixed populations. That was my Tasmania point. If they were isolated past the claimed date for the isopoint (even the correct date, not Rutherford’s MRCA mistake) than the isopoint date claim is false.

    If there are remaining unadmixed individuals then the MRCA claim is false as well.

    How important these limited exceptions are to the intent of the isopoint and MRCA claims is a more interesting question.

  116. res says:
    @RobbieSmith

    More detail on IQ and occupations in Linda Gottfredson’s “Why g Matters: The Complexity of Everyday Life” (1997) paper discussed here:
    https://www.unz.com/jthompson/st-petersburg-calling-gottfredson-bell/

    • Thanks: RobbieSmith
  117. res says:
    @Ian Smith

    More from Ed Dutton. Any idea where he gets his “3 Bs” (also in video) information from?

  118. @Trinity

    The definitive reply to all the “Jews are smart” bullshit. BTW, “Lechter” is a Jew; Michael Mann changed the name to “Lecktor” for crypsis. Anyway:

    Will Graham: I need your help, Dr. Lecktor.
    Hannibal Lecktor: Why should I?
    Will Graham: There are things you don’t have — library privileges, computer access. I’d speak to the chief of staff. And there’s another reason.
    Hannibal Lecktor: Pray tell.
    Will Graham: I thought you might enjoy the challenge — find out if you’re smarter than the person I’m looking for.
    Hannibal Lecktor: Then, by implication, you think you’re smarter than I am, since you caught me.
    Will Graham: I know that I’m not smarter than you.
    Hannibal Lecktor: Then how did you catch me?
    Will Graham: You had disadvantages.
    Hannibal Lecktor: What disadvantages?
    Will Graham: You’re insane.

  119. Anonymous[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @RobbieSmith

    The average IQ in Israel is something like 95. Surely the genius Russian Polish Zionists should compensate for the Arab and Mizrahi IQ and raise the average IQ. But that didn’t happen.

    I believe the high Jewish IQ myth comes from just one study in a 1920s study of kids in a New York public school for the gifted. There were a lot of Slavic jewish immigrants in that school. That one study has been endlessly repeated for almost a century.

    For whatever reason, even the wealthiest Jews prefer to send their children to public schools. Perhaps to help pay for the multimillion dollar Bar Mitzvahs.

    But the wealthy Christian goyim prefer to send their children to private schools. Which means that the most intelligent White goyim in America attend private schools with strict testing entrance requirements that pretty much keep out kids with IQs less than 115.

    I’ve followed Steve Sailer around the Internet for years. But I don’t like his endless articles about IQ based solely on public schools. There’s a huge high IQ private school world out there that’s primarily White goyim, not Jews.

    Instead of endless repetition of the 100 year old study from a NYC school for the gifted, I’d like to see some actual studies that include the private and religious schools that educate the more intelligent White goyim.

    Don’t mean to be a snob, but this is such a striving petty bourgeois site.

    • Replies: @RobbieSmith
    , @Menes
  120. @Anonymous

    The average IQ in Israel is something like 95.

    It is what it is. I’m seeking facts here.

    I’ve posted links and sourced excerpts from scientific studies showing IQ 115 for the Ashkenazi.

    If you have anything different, post it.

    I really don’t understand why so many people go crazy when I post Jewish IQ facts…

  121. @res

    IQ-science Spoiled by Mathematical Racism!

    Ehh, ready for a second laugh? Take a deep breath, you’ll need it! Anne DeLessio-Parson, Professor of sociology at the Portland State University explains the founding problem of IQ-science: She says, what makes IQ-science really racist is – the wrong kind of mathematics – she might join Hannah Fry and together they could revolutionize the way mankind makes use of mathematics – and science too:

    We’re in dire need of a new kind of mathematical science that is free of its inherent racism! Only problem: This systematic white racism is so deeply connected with our worldviews and our bodies and our souls even, that it usually takes years of study to even be able to recognize it…Just think of the fact, that micro-aggressions can be very small… – and still be very aggressive at the same time. So – you need skills – and a different type of mathematics and – – – – – – –

    (And no – I’m not making this up!)

  122. dearieme says:
    @annoymous

    if intelligence is a predictor of sport talent

    I didn’t suggest it is; I was suggesting it’s an indicator of being able to learn a new sport quickly, especially if it has intricate rules.

    Mind you, at the sub-superstar level maybe intelligence would be a decent predictor. Certainly in my cricketing days I found that medical schools could always field a decent side: university departments in the Arts tended to be much weaker. But then a med school would have more male players to choose from than, say, Eng Lit. Or so I assume. It’s only a guess but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if a med school could field a better orchestra than Eng Lit too.

    Years after my school days someone told me that the quickest learners he’d ever had for a particular craft skill were Japanese. That too points at intelligence being a help at learning intricate stuff quickly.

  123. Anonymous[437] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean

    China is a lot more racially cohesive than the West, which knows it cannot oppose China on that basis, so the West is adopting anti racism because only through all subscribing to that meme and making it the official ideology can the weakness of diversity be turned into a strength. But that belief is not going to cause the coming war with China, which will be an event between political units.

    The contemporary Western geopolitical anti-racism ideology is just a typical universalizing, homogenizing imperial ideology that tries to equalize all imperial subjects and potential subjects and allies in order to make ruling easier, more effective, and to increase cohesion and strength.

    In the West it accelerated during the World Wars when the Allies needed to call upon foreign subject peoples to fight and support their wars. The Nazis and Imperial Japan promoted national liberation among subject peoples of the West and Soviets, and in turn the Allies promoted greater egalitarianism to counter the Axis. During the Cold War, this accelerated even further with the US promoting egalitarian and anti-racism to gain support around the world in its contest with the Soviets and to counter leftist national liberation struggles.

    But while the original development and promotion of this ideology may have been for geopolitical expediency, it’s not accurate to say that it has no causal or power of its own. This ideology has clearly taken on a life of its own and is having effects far exceeding its original intentions. It is having major effects domestically, and it’s certainly possible that it could cause conflicts with political units like China on the basis that they don’t subscribe to it and are thus evil heathens.

    • Replies: @Sean
  124. @Dieter Kief

    This systematic white racism is so deeply connected with our worldviews and our bodies and our souls even, that it usually takes years of study to even be able to recognize it…

    The liberal worldview on race is that the races have an exactly, perfectly equal, intellectual ability.

    Therefore, any unequal outcome among the races is logically evidence of racism.

    Oh, and that can only be fixed by throwing money at it and making Whites grovel to, and seek forgiveness from, Blacks.

  125. @Dieter Kief

    Maybe she needs to test that racist gravitational math stuff and try jumping from a tall building.

  126. res says:
    @Dieter Kief

    The best laugh for me was the Anne/Doctor exchange.

    At least Doctor Anne has the excuse of being a sociologist. Isn’t Hannah Fry a math professor?

  127. Agent76 says:

    Jun 23, 2020 The True Oppressor That The Media Will Never Tell You To Protest

    In this interview we discuss how the Federal Reserve and central banks are the true oppressors and what you must know about what they are doing right now.

  128. dearieme says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Could be. But he looked white when he was a boy: see the second photo here.
    http://www.re-newsit.com/2015/06/is-shaun-king-next-rachel-dolezal.html

    And his purportedly mixed race father looked white here
    http://www.re-newsit.com/2015/07/shaun-king-is-white-heres-proof.html

    When we lived in Queensland a prominent Aboriginal activist turned out to be 0% Aboriginal. He was white plus African. When we lived in NZ a leading Maori activist turned out to be 0% Polynesian. He was Irish. I suspect this sort of con isn’t especially rare.

    But wot the hell: race is a social construct, eh?

  129. Why are we discussing a book that will, unless it’s accepted as a text book, sell about 2000 copies. People of every race know who and what they are.

  130. Wally says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    – More laughs

    – A legal execution photo.
    But according to you an alleged ‘war crime’ by the Germans that was photographed by the Germans and made public. LOL

    – Another photo which includes a few ‘priests’ in a sea of civilians which anyone could have been staged to mean whatever they hoped the suckers would believe or s simply a legit criminal ‘hands up’ / roundup of war time criminals. There is no indication that they were killed. That’s your best shot?

    – Still waiting for you to show us the millions of Jew remains that Jews like you claim exist in known locations

    – Sure you deny Dresden & Eisenhower’s real death camps, but then you would simply be continuing to make a fool of yourself.

    – Here is another “photo”. LOL
    caption: Photo taken from the body of a dead German officer killed in Russia, showing a Nazi firing squad shooting Jews in the back as they sit beside their own mass grave, in Babi Yar, Kiev, 1942.

    • Thanks: mikemikev
  131. mikemikev says:
    @Wally

    Is this really relevant here?

    • Replies: @Wally
  132. MarkinLA says:
    @annoymous

    He pitched a no hitter game. He pitched to 86 batters, 81 is a perfect game.

    Just a quibble. You did say baseball didn’t you? A perfect game technically is facing the minimum of 27 (9 innings X 3 batters) batters where nobody ever makes it safely to base. There have been a few instances where a batter was walked or an error was committed and reached base but was cut down in a double play later so only 27 batters came to the plate. However, that is still not considered a perfect game.

  133. Wally says:
    @mikemikev

    asked:
    “Is this really relevant here?”

    – Ask James Thompson and Franklin Ryckaert.
    – It is THEY who have made statements that I have simply replied to and debunked.
    – I agree that it does get tiresome to see fake ‘history’ concerning WWII & NS Germany invoked 2/7/365.

    – You’re blaming the messenger.

    Please review, start with comment #53.

  134. @RobbieSmith

    Thank you for that hard data. Quite revealing. But besides standardized testing, there are other ways to glean insight into African thinking (and behavior). In numerous ways, abstract thinking among blacks seems also to have persistent and enduring limitations. For reasons not entirely known, sub-Saharan Africans are not cognizant of time and space the way Caucasians are.

    Read this insightful account and analysis by a man who spent decades living among blacks in Africa.

    https://menghublog.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/morality-and-abstract-thinking-how-africans-may-differ-from-westerners-gedaliah-braun/

    • Replies: @RobbieSmith
  135. How to argue with a ‘racist’?

    How about telling him, “Stop with the ‘genocide’ of Palestinians and stop with the supremacism of Jewish Imperialism in the Middle East.”

    • Replies: @RobbieSmith
  136. @mark green

    Thanks for that link to a really interesting read.

    I’ve also wondered about about how inventiveness of the races may differ.

    For example, I’ve spent time on YouTube viewing remarkable and sometimes humorous creations from individuals.

    Many of these were created by what we’d refer to as “rednecks”. And, some of the inventions are really very funny. Yet they are also useful. And, most importantly, they made them!

    There are so many people using tools and building creative and sophisticated machines and devices in their backyards.

    But, I’ve never seen a Black build anything.

    And, what about all those crazy people climbing tall mountains, para-sailing, wing-gliding…. why are they all Whites?

    I’ve wondered if this accounts for the disparity-

    The DRD4 7R gene is associated with risk-taking, sensation-seeking, novelty-seeking, and extraverted behavior, and is correlated with openness to new experiences, intolerance to monotony, and exploratory behavior. It is highly variant among races and can be traced to Neanderthal hybridization, which is why it is not present in sub-Saharan Africans. This “wanderlust gene” may explain Whites’ disproportionate amount of innovations, discoveries, and achievements.

    So, it may be more than IQ. For example, if you have two cohorts of Blacks and Whites of equal number and measured IQ and left them alone for decades or generations, would they each create the same number of machines and devices? I suspect not.

    So, this addresses the observations from that link you provided. Some of the differences between the races may go beyond what can be measured scientifically (at least for now).

    I hear all the time as a retort to my statement that Blacks never civilized, that it is because they didn’t want to. Yes, that’s laughable. Why do Whites continue to push the envelope in all ways?

  137. @Priss Factor

    Stop with the ‘genocide’ of Palestinians…

    May I suggest you read Rabbi Jonathan Cahn’s books, The Oracle, The Paradigm, and The Harbinger?

  138. MEH 0910 says:

    • Replies: @RobbieSmith
  139. @MEH 0910

    Science is no ally to racists. Science can and should be deployed as an anti-racist tool.

    But science shows Blacks are vastly intellectually inferior relative to modern man.

    So, now what?

  140. Menes says:
    @RobbieSmith

    IQ by race:
    • East Asians = 106
    • Whites = 102

    Bullshit. The average IQ of whites is about 90. Where the hell did you get the 102 from? Not even a single white nation has an IQ of 102. The National IQ (NIQ) of white nations ranges from a low of 67 for Morocco to a high of 101.6 for Belarus.

    Here is the latest IQ table, backed by Lynn:

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/iq-2019/

    • Replies: @RobbieSmith
  141. Menes says:
    @Anonymous

    The average IQ in Israel is something like 95.

    It is 92.5 according to the latest IQ table, therefore highest in the MENA region whose average is in the high 70s:

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/iq-2019/

    • Replies: @mark green
    , @RobbieSmith
  142. Menes says:
    @Ann Nonny Mouse

    It is said that the South Sudanese are the tallest people in the world

    Well, 2500 years ago that’s what was reported by Herodotus (note that what’s now Sudan was called Ethiopia by the ancient Greeks):

    20. Then as soon as the Ichthyophagoi came to Cambyses from Elephantine, he sent them to the Ethiopians, enjoining them what they should say and giving them gifts to bear with them, that is to say a purple garment, and a collar of twisted gold with bracelets, and an alabaster box of perfumed ointment, and a jar of palm-wine. Now these Ethiopians to whom Cambyses was sending are said to be the tallest and the most beautiful of all men; and besides other customs which they are reported to have different from other men, there is especially this, it is said, with regard to their regal power,–whomsoever of the men of their nation they judge to be the tallest and to have strength in proportion to his stature, this man they appoint to reign over them.

    Herodotus, The Histories 3:20

    • Thanks: Ann Nonny Mouse
  143. @Menes

    These IQ compendiums compiled by Lynn are national averages. For instance, America’s measured, sub-100, average IQ includes a population of 40,000,000 African Americans and as many Hispanics. Europe, too, has been invaded and mongrelized in recent decades by ‘non-Western’ peoples.

    The IQ test began in Great Britain when that nation was entirely white. The national average there became a standard. It was 100.

    The collective IQ of the West is dropping as the numbers of Third World peoples in the West increase. These downward trends represent our demographic trajectory.

  144. @RobbieSmith

    I’d need to see if those are genuine average heights.

    The South Sudanese I meant are the Dinka. Look them up. Wikipedia:

    Roberts and Bainbridge reported an average height of 182.6 cm (5 ft 11.9 in) in a sample of 52 Dinka Agaar and 181.3 cm (5 ft 11.4 in) in 227 Dinka Ruweng.

    Other studies of comparative historical height data and nutrition place the Dinka as the tallest people in the world.

  145. @RobbieSmith

    Ha! Ha! Your link has a picture of two Blacks in the Netherlands!!

  146. @Menes

    Bullshit. The average IQ of whites is about 90. Where the hell did you get the 102 from?

    You know, I’ve provided these to you multiple times before. Blacks always want Whites to perform the world for them.

    You could have also simply searched for “racial IQ bell curve”.

    By age 7, the Asian American children averaged an IQ of 110; the White children, 102; and the Black children 90.

    And, Table 3

    https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

    ~~~~~

    In these standardization samples the mean IQ of the total population is set at 100; the mean IQ of Europeans is approximately 102, while that of blacks is 87…

    https://archive.org/stream/RichardLynnRaceDifferencesInIntelligence/Richard%20LynnRace%20Differences%20In%20Intelligence_djvu.txt

    ~~~~~~

    http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a104444.pdf

    ~~~~~~

    Where did you get the White IQ of 90?!? I think you just made it up.

    • Replies: @RobbieSmith
  147. @Menes

    You are confusing National IQs with racial group IQs.

    The United States’ National IQ is 99 and White IQ is 102.

    Therefore, Blacks and non-White Hispanics are bringing down the average.

  148. @RobbieSmith

    Oh, and somewhere upthread, and on multiple other threads, it seems every time I post Ashkenazi IQ I receive unsupported assertions that their IQ is much lower than the data I post.

    So, anyone reading this, here are sources:

    [MORE]

    The study also found that the average IQ for African Americans was lower than those for Latino, White, Asian, and Jewish Americans (85, 89, 103, 106, and 113, respectively; Herrnstein & Murray, 1994, pp. 273–278).

    https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

    Thus, the IQs of Jews in the United States and Britain average between around 107 to 115…

    https://archive.org/stream/RichardLynnRaceDifferencesInIntelligence/Richard%20LynnRace%20Differences%20In%20Intelligence_djvu.txt

    Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQ of any ethnic group for which there are reliable data. They score 0.75 to 1.0 standard deviations above the general European average, corresponding to an IQ 112-115.

    https://web.mit.edu/fustflum/documents/papers/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf

    Again, if anyone has contrary data, I’m eager to review it.

    I really fail to understand the animosity towards Jews. They are safe and productive.

    Blacks, on the other hand, are not.

    This is why God hates Blacks too. The Jews (Highest IQ, 115) are His chosen; the sons of Ham (Lowest IQ, 67) are His cursed.

  149. @Wally

    “…Sure you deny Dresden & Eisenhower’s real death camps, but then you would simply be continuing to make a fool of yourself…”

    Read my comment again and make sure you understand the meaning of “IF”.

    “…Still waiting for you to show us the millions of Jew remains that Jews like you claim exist in known locations…”

    And I am waiting for you to show us the remains of the 1,5 million German POWs killed by starvation in general Eisenhower’s Rhine meadow camps.

  150. Sean says:
    @Anonymous

    Japan was never colonised. I would say Japan succeeding in colonising Korea and defeat of Russia–first of a European power by nonwhites–were the key moments in world history. Losing to Japan and suffering revolution in 1905 knocked Russia out of the balance of power and made Germany suddenly far more threatening,l thereby leading to the firm alliances that fought WW1, and the second round. Korea is an area to watch.

    Immigration exclusion acts, internment, and quotas at Harvard: Asians have always been the problem, which is why whites only want to talk about how they honestly believe blacks are equal to whites: that is virtue signalling. China may be full of highly industrious people, but whites can always use their egalitarianism in relation to blacks for claiming a moral superiority.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Anonymous
  151. Vojkan says:

    It looks like Rutherford’s book is just another liberal effort on high heels regarding virtue signaling but short on science. Even when it’s about something you’d agree with them on principle or on the rare occasions when they tell the truth, they’re such obnoxious douches that they end up killing their own argument and make you believe the opposite of what they’re saying. If only they could stfu sometimes.

  152. @RobbieSmith

    “…I really fail to understand the animosity towards Jews. They are safe and productive…”

    How long have you been reading Unz? Or should I refer you to Kevin MacDonald’s blog The Occidental Observer and his eye opening book The Culture of Critique?

    “…This is why God hates Blacks too. The Jews (Highest IQ, 115) are His chosen; the sons of Ham (Lowest IQ, 67) are His cursed…”

    I don’t know whether you mean this seriously or not, but still believing in the Jewish tribal god Yahweh and his favours and disfavours is not a sign of high intelligence.

    For the rest, I have no problem with acknowledging that Ashkenazi Jews are highly intelligent, whether we like their mentality and behavior or not.

  153. Ron Unz says:
    @RobbieSmith

    Oh, and somewhere upthread, and on multiple other threads, it seems every time I post Ashkenazi IQ I receive unsupported assertions that their IQ is much lower than the data I post.

    Apparently, you’ve been enthusiastically spamming various comment-threads with all sorts of rather unsophisticated IQ/HBD information that you apparently found somewhere on the Internet. Your enthusiasm on a controversial topic is fine on this website, but your spamming is not, and may get your future comments trashed if it continues. Most importantly, you really should study the topic in greater detail before you continue making yourself look totally ridiculous.

    I’ve actually written quite widely in exactly this topic-area, and since it appears that you have a great deal of time on your hands, you might want to read some of my articles and enlighten yourself instead of merely trying to misinform others. Here are a few of the most relevant pieces:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/race-iq-and-wealth/

    https://www.unz.com/runz/raceiq-super-flynn-effects-in-germans-jews-and-hispanics/

    https://www.unz.com/runz/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/

    • Thanks: bruce county
    • LOL: FB
    • Replies: @RobbieSmith
  154. @Vojkan

    Well they surely “built something”, but in a rather crude and primitive style, inspired by religions imported from abroad (Islam and Christianity).

    Left to their own devices, they could only produce a Zimbabwe:

  155. @Ron Unz

    Apparently, you’ve been enthusiastically spamming various comment-threads with all sorts of rather unsophisticated IQ/HBD information that you apparently found somewhere on the Internet.

    ???

    I have been posting sourced excerpts from scientific journals on maybe five threads. Your characterization of my posts and reference sources is insulting and incorrect. Certainly, they hadn’t been seriously challenged and I’ve been able to provide scientific support for each of them when called to.

    I made the challenge because, as I posted, I see this assertion repeatedly and no one has provided science that supports it. A curious person would naturally want to know the basis for it. Even your reply to it are links to three articles written by you that, although thoughtfully reasoned, are not rooted in science. I provided multiple studies supporting my assertion, which you then accuse me of “merely trying to misinform others”.

    Another reply to this same comment of mine asked how long I’ve been reading publications from your website because apparently it is widely tacitly understood that this query is ridiculous to even ask here. The answer is, since Tuesday. LOL

    And yet another earlier reply on this thread offered me this advice for posting here, “know your audience”. Well, the masthead has your name on it and it is you chasing me away.

    I emailed you a couple of days ago offering a website feature suggestion and inquiring about paid subscription options.

    But, my experience here has not been enjoyable and I’m moving on to friendlier pastures…

    • LOL: Truth
  156. Anonymous[126] • Disclaimer says:
    @FB

    27M? I thought you usually say it’s 30M. Anyway, funny that Rachel Dolezal has been mentioned here, because you need to be reminded again: you’re not Russian, get over yourself.

  157. Nodwink says:
    @Peripatetic Commenter

    If you are going a long way back, then pretty much every person is your relative, and not many of your ancestors bequeathed you with any DNA at all.

    • Replies: @res
  158. res says:
    @Nodwink

    It’s a provocative point. He backed it up a bit better than I expected, but in the end failed badly. Not sure if it was intentional or not. He gives three sources in a comment on your video.

    The problem is he relies on his third source for the 120 number and uses a 2012 archive page to reference it.
    http://web.archive.org/web/20120401070048/http://www.genetic-inference.co.uk/blog/2009/11/how-many-ancestors-share-our-dna/

    However, if you read his second source from 2013 to the end you find an interesting comment (the post mentioned is the reference above).
    https://gcbias.org/2013/11/11/how-does-your-number-of-genetic-ancestors-grow-back-over-time/

    This post was inspired in part by an nice post by Luke Jostins (back in 2009). I think there were some errors in Luke’s code. I’ve talked this over with Luke, and he’s attached a note to the old post pointing folks here.

    And if we go look at a post-2013 archive page for the third source we find another interesting comment (just as Coop said).
    https://web.archive.org/web/20160101010117/http://www.genetic-inference.co.uk/blog/2009/11/how-many-ancestors-share-our-dna/

    This post was written four years ago, using a quick-and-dirty model of recombination to answer the question in the title. Since then a more detailed and rigorously tested model has been developed by Graham Coop and colleagues to answer this same question. You can read more about the results of this model on the Coop Lab blog here and here. Graham’s model is based on more accurate data, more careful tracking of multiple ancestors and a more realistic model of per-chromosome recombination, and thus his results should be considered to have superseded mine.

    So either he failed to read his second reference to the end or he is being intentionally misleading. In either case he just lost much credibility with me. For reference, the presenter is Andy Lee of https://www.familyhistoryfanatics.com/

    For completeness, the first reference was written after Coop’s piece. The author says he got similar results to Coop, but includes enough additional information (back 100 generations and some additional analysis) to be worth a look. A key point:

    One practical upshot of this is that those ancestors you do inherit something from, you inherit a lot from. And large stretches of DNA are passed down from generation to generation, those stretches usually aren’t finely divided.

    The included C++ code might make a good starting point for anyone interested in further analysis.

    Since the number of genetic ancestors is an interesting question, let’s show Coop’s estimates.

    Now where things become more interesting is observing that Coop’s analysis ignores two factors.
    1. Pedigree collapse is mentioned in an aside at the end, but not incorporated in his analysis.
    2.Inheritance of non-varying sites is not discussed.

    Coop covers 1. in two later posts. The first bears more on this question. The second is quite relevant to the isopoint discussion above.
    https://gcbias.org/2017/11/20/our-vast-shared-family-tree/
    https://gcbias.org/2017/11/28/your-ancestors-lived-all-over-the-world/

    I think Coop’s estimates understate real world pedigree collapse significantly. His simulation is based on random mating in a population of 100,000 and shows 256 unique ancestors 8 generations back.

    Steve Sailer wrote about pedigree collapse in 2006:
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/pedigree-collapse-due-to-inbreeding/
    and gave an estimate of 900-~2000 unique ancestors for England. Based on the idea that most people in the past married at about second or third cousin level. I’m not sure about that given tendencies in some cultures to try to find mates from surrounding communities, but it seems clear there is much more inbreeding than Coop’s simulation implies.

    My guess is pedigree collapse would reduce the number of genetic ancestors by a small factor (maybe ~2?) because the missing ancestors reappear as additional weight on those remaining. It would be interesting to simulate this, but probably hard to get realistic consensus estimates on inbreeding. Whether or not that matters depends on how much the effect of pedigree collapse on the number of genetic ancestors varies with inbreeding.

    As far as I see Coop does not talk about 2. at all. Andy Lee talks about this in the video I linked, and I think it is the best point he makes. I disagree with his focus on 25,000 genes as the appropriate level of granularity, but think that looking at 10 million SNPs as he suggests (100 million might be better to be conservative https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/genomicresearch/snp ) is a great idea.

    With ~100 million SNPs vs. ~3 billion base pairs that would seem like a factor of 30 reduction, but I don’t think it works that way. If there is reasonable randomness and we have ~1-10,000 unique ancestors then on average those ancestors would be passing 10-100,000 SNPs along each. The key question then becomes what is the distribution of genetic ancestry weights among the genetic ancestors. Made even more complex by the pedigree collapse issue. I suspect the tendency to pass big blocks will tend to minimize the effect of this, but am unsure how much ancient big blocks get chopped up over time.

    Not sure how to come up with a bottom line estimate from all of that. Any thoughts? Maybe derate the first reference estimates by a factor of 2 for pedigree collapse?

    Worth noting that I would expect more pedigree collapse among males than females given the different distributions of reproduction rates. I don’t think any of the analyses I mentioned account for this effect.

    P.S. What I find most interesting about the video I linked is AFAICT none of the comments on the video noticed the problem.

    P.P.S. I would appreciate it if someone who understands and agrees with my argument would leave a comment on his video(s). I am averse to making comments elsewhere which could allow doxxing this account.

    • Replies: @Nodwink
  159. @Vojkan

    Pastor Manning 99% right instead of 100.

    Drive through the American ghetto of any 21st century city. Nothing built, nothing maintained.

  160. Anonymous[121] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean

    Japan was never colonized, but it did regard itself as one of the few non-colonized countries facing aggressive, expansionist European empires that were racially hostile to them.

    During WW2, Japan marketed itself as liberators of the various Asian subject peoples of the European empires. The Nazis also promoted national liberation, mostly in Europe, but also in areas like British India and Asia. It was in this context of increasing national consciousness and national liberation movements that forced the Western powers’ hands and caused them to reluctantly make greater concessions and increasingly recognize national self-determination. The US ran with this in the postwar Cold War era to counter Soviet backed leftist national liberation movements.

    Blacks and other non-whites in the US don’t care about China. Liberal whites do, because the rise of China means the relative power, status, and prestige of liberal whites declines and the Chinese compete economically and for professions and spots at elite universities and the like. Right wing whites care about China because they’re an alien race and thus oppose them on an instinctual, visceral level.

    Liberal whites are wedded to anti-racist ideology and thus can’t explicitly oppose China and the Chinese as a group on a racial level and have to use indirect means to do so. But BLM and egalitarianism with blacks can’t work as a means to oppose China because blacks and other non-whites in the US and the West don’t care about China. The only people who care about China besides liberal whites are conservative and right wing whites who oppose China for being an alien race. And conservative, right wing whites aren’t going to be motivated by BLM and an ideology of egalitarianism with blacks. That’s why General Spalding and other China hawks try to insinuate that China is behind BLM and the black riots:

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @dearieme
  161. @Astuteobservor II

    I think your use of the word ‘unreasonable’ is incorrect; maybe you mean it like that, or maybe you just chose the wrong word. The proper word would be ‘irrational’.

    Emotions are irrational, in the sense that they do not stem from reason, yet their existence stems from natural evolution, which, though obviously not a rational process in the sense of being devised by a personal rational mind, has a definite rationale to it, in the sense that it purges the unfit, and thus, as a general rule, is good for the group’s survival.

    So, if ‘racism’, in certain or all forms, is an emotion, and if natural evolution has programmed that emotion into a given population, it must have played a part in that population’s survival probability.

    The question remains whether anti-racism is an emotion too, or rather a rational concoction aimed at steering a certain population, or the entirety of the human race, to behaviors believed to be more suited to present social conditions.

  162. Anonymous[126] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Don’t forget how liberals have also painted themselves in a corner with their support for Israel, they’re every bit as obsequiously disgusting as the cuck right. The “rainbow coalition” either doesn’t care about Israel or is outright hostile towards it. It’s going to be quite entertaining watching all of this backfire on liberals.

    BtM

  163. anon[283] • Disclaimer says:
    @res

    FWIW at his stated isopoint of 14,000 BC we are looking at about 640 generations (assuming 25 years each). This implies 2 ^ 640 ancestor slots (4.56e192) with an estimate of 1-10 million humans around 10,000 BC.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates_of_historical_world_population
    Now THAT is pedigree collapse!

    Also consider how 640 generations compares to the numbers discussed in Coop’s post! Consider that the human genome consists of about 3e9 base pairs and what that implies for how many of those ancestor slots actually made an IBD contribution to a present day genome.

    True that the slots mostly have zero contribution, but each ancestor can still make a meaningful contribution – you’ve constructed an example with less than 1e7 ancestors providing 3e9 base pairs; there’s room for everyone. (In fact, many will end up with zero contribution, but that result is not a theoretical guarantee.)

  164. @RobbieSmith

    That’s not the original. The original is from 2002 (IQ and the Wealth of Nations). Actually, that’s not the original either, it’s the first popular book. Lynn’s compilation began in the 1970s. See my review

    https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=7980

    • Replies: @James Thompson
  165. @Emil O. W. Kirkegaard

    Thanks, Emil.

    As you can see, I’m no longer posting here but I appreciate this post.

    I’m not Jew, but it seems obvious to me that they are an exceptional race and their achievements seem undeniable.

    As I posted upthread, I’m just seeking the facts on the matter and all the scientific evidence show they have the highest IQ. Ron’s attempt at rationalizing it away is not science.

    And again, it’s common when I post the racial IQ hierarchy that I get immediately slammed by posters asserting that their IQ is all lies and that it shows Jewish power, not intellect.

    I think also up this thread is another poster making the spurious claim that Jews are beating “Palestinians” and are on their homeland, etc… I’ve just read Rabbi Jonathan Cahn’s books, The Oracle, The Paradigm, and The Harbinger and they are really mind-boggling.

    I hope I’m not too forward, but I’d like to suggest them to you (read in that order, if you chose to). The reviews on Amazon also might be enlightening.

    Best regards.

    🙂

  166. “… a Chinese woman or man will have far fewer southern African ancestors than East Asian, and vice versa. But they will have some,…”

    That’s a lie. Not every Chinese has southern African ancestors, and not every southern African has East Asian ancestors. That’s Rutherford spouting his fact-free, neo-Marxist assumptions.

  167. Ron Unz says:
    @RobbieSmith

    Your characterization of my posts and reference sources is insulting and incorrect…But, my experience here has not been enjoyable and I’m moving on to friendlier pastures…

    Sounds fine. Perhaps I’m mistaken, but you strike me as a young fellow who just recently discovered “forbidden knowledge” and have boldly decided to promote it to the entire world, especially on this website, which is relatively uncensored.

    But since you’re such a novice in the topic, you don’t realize that what you’re promoted is actually a mixture of the correct, the incorrect, and the uncertain, and that many of your readers have already been aware of this material for decades.

    As an example of your extreme ignorance, you have repeatedly claimed that the Jewish IQ is 115, a totally incorrect Internet “canard” that no knowledgeable individual could possibly claim. Since you have been quoting Richard Lynn as an authoritative source, here’s a link to his exhaustive table of tested Jewish IQ results in the US, which clearly shows that the reality is entirely different than what you seem to believe:

    https://www.unz.com/book/richard_lynn__the-chosen-people/#t_141

    The table comes from his book of several years ago dealing with Jewish intelligence that he authorized me to republish here.

    Once again, I suggest that you read several of my own articles that I linked above, and once you’ve digested them, you may have a more solid understanding of these topics that seem to so greatly interest you.

    • Replies: @RobbieSmith
  168. @Ron Unz

    Perhaps I’m mistaken, but you strike me as a young fellow who just recently discovered “forbidden knowledge” and have boldly decided to promote it to the entire world…

    Nope. I’m well past retirement age and have been doing this since well before the general public even knew what the internet was. Geez, I remember finding BBS forums from The Recycler and posting like this then.

    I suspect you can search my pseudonym “Robbie Smith” and easily find a decade of such posts.

    I often find others, inspired by my thoughts, posting my own material. I encourage that because I consider the “Black problem” to be the biggest threat to western civilization.

    …especially on this website, which is relatively uncensored.

    LOL

    This is the only forum I’ve ever used where I was getting personal feedback from the moderator on practically every post I attempted to publish, threatening me with “trashing” my posts. I even got visit from the owner of the website who also threatened me.

    My alleged crimes were the length of some of my posts and spamming.

    When I attempted to reason with the moderator, that post was “trashed”.

    I’m at a loss at understanding why the post length is a concern of the moderator. As I explained to him/her in my trashed post, the character length can be easily controlled on your end and is a tactic widely implemented in forum software and is expected by users. Further, it is solely the reader’s discretion whether or not to expand the accordion, and therefore doesn’t present an annoying wall of text.

    What was perceived by the moderator as spamming was simply a result of my long history of doing this.

    I like to post a seemingly naïve assertion such as, “Blacks never civilized (or even created a written language).”

    This elicits howls from the masses about my supposed ignorance and “euro-centricism”, etc.

    Then I reply with my ready-made retorts and supporting references.

    I have literally heard it all; assertions that the Dogon tribe discovered the Sirius star system hundreds of years before Europeans, that Blacks created the pyramids in South America, that the Moors taught Whites how to bathe…

    When I get a reply, I then respond with one of my pre-made responses. Why wouldn’t I? I have tailored these over the years and continually improve them and I see it as doing the work of God. Your moderator sees it a spamming.

    Also, new visitors to threads often start reading near the end of a thread hundreds of posts long and post a challenge to me that was already responded to upthread. Therefore, I give the same reply. What you previously characterized as my “enthusiastic spamming” was actually others responding to my posts enthusiastically and me merely responding.

    But since you’re such a novice in the topic…

    Geez.

    I don’t don’t why you feel the need to continually weave in insults in your replies to me…

    …you don’t realize that what you’re promoted is actually a mixture of the correct, the incorrect, and the uncertain…

    Therefore, what?

    Do you now only allow posts with information you consider to be “correct”? Remember, I posted three scientific studies supporting my assertion. You responded with articles written by yourself.

    …and that many of your readers have already been aware of this material for decades.

    Oh. Time to close down the comments section then.

    Believe me, plenty of your readers are also unaware of this material. Did you see some of the replies I got?

    Once again, I suggest that you read several of my own articles that I linked above, and once you’ve digested them, you may have a more solid understanding of these topics that seem to so greatly interest you.

    Actually, the topic of Jewish intelligence is not a topic of great interest to me. I simply observed that whenever I post a chart of the racial IQ hierarchy I immediately get slammed by people telling me it is is all fake. Like you. I don’t understand it, but again, my interest and concern is the “Black problem”.

    I’m moving on. It’s not just the unfriendly reception, but my posting style is apparently not compatible with the culture here.

    • Replies: @res
    , @botazefa
  169. dearieme says:
    @Anonymous

    Japan was never colonized

    Come now, it was colonised by the ancestors of the Japanese, driving the indigenous people, known in my schooldays as the Hairy Ainu, into the cold north.

  170. Truth says:
    @RobbieSmith

    But, my experience here has not been enjoyable and I’m moving on to friendlier pastures…

    As they say in Ol’ Dixie; “don’t let the door hitya where the Good Lord splitya

    “I’m moving on. It’s not just the unfriendly reception, but my posting style is apparently not compatible with the culture here.”

    Or anywhere where the readership has opposable thumbs.

  171. res says:
    @RobbieSmith

    700 words and you don’t even address Ron’s well referenced rebuttal of your claim of 115 for Jewish IQ (well, except by claiming it is “not a topic of great interest to me”, sure could have fooled me). I think that says it all.

    If you were as interested in discussing these topics in a thoughtful fashion as you are interested in posting thousands of words of “a mixture of the correct, the incorrect, and the uncertain” (nice summation, Ron) you would be a fine addition to this site IMHO. As it is, not so much.

    Let’s return to your comment 105:

    Look, I’m seeking facts.

    If you have facts about racial IQ, especially Jewish IQ, I’m very interested in learning.

    I see no sign of that in your response to Ron. And he presented you with full text of probably the best single reference there is on the topic of Jewish IQ. Being a liar is not a good look.

    Believe me, plenty of your readers are also unaware of this material. Did you see some of the replies I got?

    It looks like this was primarily with respect to your Jewish IQ assertion. I think that is less about being unaware of the material than some people simply not believing it. Especially when stated in the overly strong “Jewish IQ is 115” form.

    One of the “features” of this website is some very vocal people completely locked into their own opinions (of all sorts, that assessment resembles you more than a little, me too though I am less locked in than it might seem at first) writing in substantial volume and/or frequency. Once you have been here a while you will learn who does and does not want to have a real conversation on various topics. You will also learn which blogs have lower and higher standards of discourse in the comment sections. Dr. Thompson’s blog tends to be one of the best for that. Except for his articles which are publicized on the front page (it is amazing to me how dramatic that effect is). Hence the response.

    Further, it is solely the reader’s discretion whether or not to expand the accordion, and therefore doesn’t present an annoying wall of text.

    My recollection is that at least some of the MORE tags were added later (by the moderators?). Am I misremembering?

    I’m moving on. It’s not just the unfriendly reception, but my posting style is apparently not compatible with the culture here.

    That might be for the best. Though before doing so perhaps ponder at least a little bit why that is so. It is unfortunate since I think you add some value here. If only you would listen as much as talk. And make more use of the MORE tag.

    I think botazefa’s comment 113 was an excellent response to you and things would have gone much better if you had taken it to heart. Since you are new here you might not know that the gold box implies the moderator’s endorsement of a comment.

    • Thanks: botazefa
  172. Anonymous[420] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean

    I seem to remember the Turks reaching the gates of Vienna.

  173. dearieme says:

    O/T.

    Dear blogger, there’s an “update” in italics appended to this blog post that sounds as if it might interest you.

    https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2020/06/25/culture-and-the-norm-of-reaction/#comments

  174. Anti-HBD2 says:

    It’s been a while since I have commented on this site, but I can bring 2 main objections that any geneticist would also bring if they were to comment here.

    1. Admixture, as Dr Rutherford writes, we all have extensively and repeatedly mixed with each other starting just after the OOA event:
    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.01.127555v1

    Also, see this major paper on not only admixture but lack of private variants between continents that could be interpreted as possible explanations for group differences
    https://science.sciencemag.org/content/367/6484/eaay5012

    “Genome sequences from diverse human groups are needed to understand the structure of genetic variation in our species and the history of, and relationships between, different populations. We present 929 high-coverage genome sequences from 54 diverse human populations, 26 of which are physically phased using linked-read sequencing. Analyses of these genomes reveal an excess of previously undocumented common genetic variation private to southern Africa, central Africa, Oceania, and the Americas, but an absence of such variants fixed between major geographical regions. We also find deep and gradual population separations within Africa, contrasting population size histories between hunter-gatherer and agriculturalist groups in the past 10,000 years, and a contrast between single Neanderthal but multiple Denisovan source populations contributing to present-day human populations.”

    3. There is no objective way (or even just that) to demarcate different populations and use them in research on group differences. Programs like STRUCTURE and ADMIXTURE will always find clusters but these clusters are mostly artifacts of the sampling process and analysis. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1755-0998.13171?af=R

    PS. Using a slightly different username as I no longer have access or even remember the email I used here with my old account.

    • Replies: @res
    , @mikemikev
  175. dearieme says:

    A commenter on Steve Sailer’s blog has introduced me to the p-factor, which does for madness what the g-factor does for intelligence. Purportedly.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathology#The_p_factor

    In a population (homogeneous in age, race, and sex) is p-factor independent of g-factor?

    Do different races differ in mean p-factor?

    • Replies: @res
    , @FB
  176. res says:
    @Anti-HBD2

    And my comment 39 speculation comes to pass ; )

    Thanks for linking some interesting references.

    Your first paper focuses on admixture from Eurasia back into Africa. The title makes this clear:
    Ancient Admixture into Africa from the ancestors of non-Africans

    This is an interesting assertion: “Our analysis suggests that a population ancestral to present-day Eurasians contributed as much as a third of the genetic material in many modern African populations.”

    Another interesting point: “It has previously been suggested that Eurasian back-migration may be responsible for Neanderthal material in Africans [57]; however, we find no evidence for enrichment of Neanderthal-like material in putatively Eurasian-derived genomic segments in Africans, indicating that Neaderthal introgression into Eurasians occurred after the African introgression event we study here, or that further population structure in the Eurasian ancestral population precluded substantial transmission of Neanderthal material into Africa.”
    (BTW, this observation seems to disagree a bit with your second reference)

    An important point: “consistent with migration occurring before the European-East Asian split approximately 40kya”
    I wonder how much of the European and Asian genetic drift/selection occurred before/after that point. I find it intriguing they are not finding as much recent migration. Figure 1 gives migration rate over time estimates.

    Figure 5 gives a “Proposed model for the diversification of modern human lineages.” Any thoughts on that? The notable point to me is the lack of gene flow between Eurasia and Africa since Neanderthal admixture.

    I am curious how such large Fst differences have been maintained in the face of that much gene flow. Are selection pressures that much different in Africa than elsewhere? Are the Africa/other differences more selection driven (relative to drift) than is generally thought?

    Your second paper looks like a better (in some ways at least) version of 1,000 genomes. Title:
    Insights into human genetic variation and population history from 929 diverse genomes
    If I understand correctly, they used the HGDP-CEPH panel which has greater diversity of human ancestries than 1000 Genomes.

    An interesting point (shorter version in abstract in your comment): “The low diversity among the Neanderthal haplotypes segregating in present-day populations indicates that, while more than one Neanderthal individual must have contributed genetic material to modern humans, there was likely only one major episode of admixture. By contrast, Denisovan haplotype diversity reflects a more complex history involving more than one episode of admixture.”

    This gives an idea of the magnitude of variation: “We identified 67.3 million singlenucleotide
    polymorphisms, 8.8 million small insertions or deletions (indels), and 40,736 copy number variants. This includes hundreds of thousands of variants that had not been discovered by previous sequencing efforts, but which are common in one or more population.”

    Their analysis of private variants is interesting. The way they define it is variants private to a region where regions are: Africa, the Americas, Oceania, Europe, East Asia, the Middle East, Central, and South Asia. But what I would like to see is an analysis of missing variants. Which regions are missing variants (0 frequency) which are common in other regions? I think this would be much more interesting since the ancestral alleles came from Africa and in the absence of complete fixation of non-ancestral alleles you would not expect many fixed private variants. What you might expect though is high frequency non-ancestral alleles outside of Africa which are at zero or very low frequency within Africa. I wonder what that analysis would look like?

    As an example, for regions A, B, and C a private variant might be one present only in A. My point concerns variants which (for example) are present in B and C, but not A. I think that is at least as useful a concept. Especially given this point they make: “This likely reflects greater genetic connectivity within Eurasia owing to culturally driven migrations and admixture in the past 10,000 years, events that did not involve the more isolated populations of the Americas and Oceania (1), allowing variation accumulating in the latter to remain private.”

    Another way of looking at this might be variants private to a subtree of human lineages (e.g. Figure 5 of your first reference). I think this is at least as interesting an idea as variants private to a single region.

    3. There is no objective way (or even just that) to demarcate different populations and use them in research on group differences. Programs like STRUCTURE and ADMIXTURE will always find clusters but these clusters are mostly artifacts of the sampling process and analysis. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1755-0998.13171?af=R

    Just keep telling yourself that those clusters are only (or even mostly, as you wisely qualified) statistical artifacts. LOL!

    This paper is an interesting look at an approach to resolving some situations which can cause STRUCTURE and ADMIXTURE to give ambiguous results.
    A tutorial on how not to over-interpret STRUCTURE and ADMIXTURE bar plots
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05257-7
    Your paper seems to be a more recent (better?) method.

    At least the references in your first objection were interesting. Though I am still unclear on exactly which proposition you are objecting to and how your references support that. Perhaps you could clarify?

    P.S. What is up with “3.”? Missed edit after changing the number of objections?

  177. res says:
    @dearieme

    Interesting. And good questions. Any idea how this relates to Eysenck’s psychoticism?

    It looks like this is the most relevant paper:
    The p Factor: One General Psychopathology Factor in the Structure of Psychiatric Disorders?
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4209412/

    This comment about previous work sets the stage.

    Our data confirmed that a two-factor model accounted for the comorbidity of different young-adult disorders, and it bore a striking similarity to the model of childhood psychopathologies.

    On the basis of this initial finding, we put forth the hypothesis that common DSM psychiatric disorders in adulthood may be characterized by two underlying core psychopathological processes: an Internalizing dimension indicating liability to experience mood and anxiety disorders, such as major depression (MDE), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), panic disorder, and social phobia; and an Externalizing dimension indicating liability to experience substance disorders and antisocial disorders.

    I’m not sure what to make of their p factor. I don’t like that it seems to mostly be based on subjective symptom diagnoses, but would be interested in what others think.

    I find their “Age 3 Brain integrity Factor” at least as interesting as p. Figure 2 shows the relationship between those.

    They give details in the Supplemental Material. Unfortunately, I don’t think it is OCRed. See page 9. I wonder what kind of predictive value the Age 3 Brain integrity Factor has relative to its components (neurological abnormalities, lack of control, receptive language, PPV, and motor development).

    They have a great deal of data on their 1,037 subjects from the Dunedin study. This includes IQ tests at ages 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 38.

    The study demographics don’t permit meaningful racial analysis: “Cohort members were primarily white: 7.5 % self-identify as being Māori which matches the ethnic distribution of the South Island of New Zealand.”
    Source is this retrospective:
    The Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study: overview of the first 40 years, with an eye to the future
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4412685/

    It should be possible to answer your other questions from the data though.

    P.S. I thought this paper was interesting.
    A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety
    https://www.pnas.org/content/108/7/2693

    • Replies: @dearieme
    , @Dieter Kief
  178. mikemikev says:
    @Anti-HBD2

    Unsurprising to see your typical “continuum” trolling, but the “single gene” thing is especially lame, even for you.

  179. dearieme says:
    @res

    7.5 % self-identify as being Māori which matches the ethnic distribution of the South Island of New Zealand.

    Things change with time. We had a friend who’d grown up in Dunedin. She’d never met a Maori until she went to North Island for her nursing training.

    As for Eysenck I must see if I can find my copies of his 60s paperbacks.

  180. FB says: • Website
    @dearieme

    …introduced me to the p-factor, which does for madness what the g-factor does for intelligence.

    THANKS…!

    Very interesting and would certainly explain a lot about the commentariat here, as well as the ‘authors’…😂😂😂

  181. Nodwink says:
    @res

    To be honest, this video was not my first port of call for evidence on this subject. It seemed like a fairly straightforward video, which I thought would be easier for commenters here to digest, rather than lengthy scholarly articles.

    My original source was David Reich’s ‘Who we are and how we got here’. This quote is from page 11:

    Twenty generations in the past, the number of ancestors is almost a thousand times greater than the number of ancestral stretches of DNA in a person’s genome, so it is a certainty that each person has not inherited any DNA from the great majority of his or her actual ancestors.

    • Replies: @res
  182. @res

    A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety

    That reminds me of Walter Mischel’s Marshmallow-experiment – and the fact, that “The Atlantic” said, it could not have been replicated – with bay and large the same arguments as Anti-HBD2 above – – – whereas others said, it did replicate just fine.

    https://ifstudies.org/blog/did-the-marshmallow-test-fail-to-replicate#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20sociologist%20Jessica,kids’%20wealth%20and%20home%20environments.&text=In%20general%2C%20kids%20with%20better,better%20academically%20at%20age%2015.

    PS

    The basic idea of Walter Mischelss experiment is so clear and strong (and so strongly backed up by (western & eastern) tradition, that it would be quite surprising if it didn’t replicate.

    • Thanks: res
  183. res says:
    @Nodwink

    Your original point is a very different claim from that in the video. I agree with your original point as I think should be clear from my earlier comment. I should have been explicit about that agreement.

    If you are going a long way back, then pretty much every person is your relative, and not many of your ancestors bequeathed you with any DNA at all.

    The Reich claim is interesting since it uses a somewhat different methodology than the sources from the video (e.g. is calculation rather than simulation based). On page 11 just before your quote:

    Females create an average of about forty-five new splices when producing eggs, while males create about twenty-six splices when producing sperm, for a total of about seventy-one new splices per generation.20 So it is that as we trace each generation back further into the past, a person’s genome is derived from an ever-increasing number of spliced together ancestral fragments.
    This means that our genomes hold within them a multitude of ancestors. Any person’s genome is derived from 47 stretches of DNA corresponding to the chromosomes transmitted by mother and father plus mitochondrial DNA. One generation back, a person’s genome is derived from about 118 (47 plus 71) stretches of DNA transmitted by his or her parents. Two generations back, the number of ancestral stretches of DNA grows to around 189 (47 plus 71 plus another 71) transmitted by four grandparents. Look even further back in time, and the additional increase in ancestral stretches of
    NA every generation is rapidly overtaken by the doubling of ancestors. Ten generations back, for example, the number of ancestral stretches of DNA is around 757 but the number of ancestors is 1,024, guaranteeing that each person has several hundred ancestors from whom he or she has received no DNA whatsoever.

    To flesh out your Reich quote, at 20 generations back we have 1,048,576 genealogical ancestors and Reich’s chunk estimate is 47 + 71 * 20 = 1467 chunks. That is the source of “almost a thousand times.”

  184. Anti-HBD says:

    @res

    I saw Dr Thompon’s post and decided to reply but in all honesty did not see your comment nor know who anon is.

    In any case, I won’t troll you here but reply with concise arguments.

    This is an interesting assertion: “Our analysis suggests that a population ancestral to present-day Eurasians contributed as much as a third of the genetic material in many modern African populations.”

    Yes but there was also migration from Africa to Eurasia if you take a look at the figures.

    (BTW, this observation seems to disagree a bit with your second reference)

    It is an odd paper, I won’t disagree with you here. It runs contrary not only to my second reference but also this study: https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30059-3

    But it seems certain that signficant gene flow has occured between Africa and Eurasia judging from that paper (and I have 2 more supporting the same inference)

    Any thoughts on that? The notable point to me is the lack of gene flow between Eurasia and Africa since Neanderthal admixture.

    This is just a rough model, there is direct genomic evidence of recent exchange between Africa and Eurasia: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959437X20300599
    I am not saying this paper is not unusual but their method checks out with all geneticists I have consulted. Ancient DNA has shown more recent gene flow taking place too, I don’t know why they do not.

    What you might expect though is high frequency non-ancestral alleles outside of Africa which are at zero or very low frequency within Africa. I wonder what that analysis would look like?

    That’s a good point and I would also like to see such an analysis. Do you think that private variants would be in low frequencies even in the absent of subtantial gene flow between geographic regions?

    his likely reflects greater genetic connectivity within Eurasia owing to culturally driven migrations and admixture in the past 10,000 years, events that did not involve the more isolated populations of the Americas and Oceania

    Reviewing recent literature, it seems that Eurasia has been a melting pot since the Pleistocene. Europeans for example all have Asian and likely North African admixture as well.

    At the same time, perhaps the absence of private variation within Eurasians could be explained by alternative scenarios rather than admixture, I can consider this possibility too if you have an explanation in mind.

    Just keep telling yourself that those clusters are only (or even mostly, as you wisely qualified) statistical artifacts. LOL!

    I will quote directly from the text to show you what I mean:

    “Using simulated and real data, we show how the method is able to detect a bad fit of inferred admixture proportions due to using an insufficient number of clusters K or to demographic histories that deviate significantly from the admixture model assumptions, such as admixture from ghost populations, drift after admixture events and nondiscrete ancestral populations.”

    Basically, clusters do not reflect actual demographic processes as we know from ancient DNA that all these populations of the same color these programs find are actually admixed from all other ones (ie West Eurasians having African and Asian ancestry as well as sharing ancestry with Native Americans)

    “Furthermore, we simulated a scenario with 500 individuals sampled from a continuous cline of
    genetic variation in allele frequencies (Figure 2A), which is an scenario that departs from the admixture model assumptions. The admixture proportions estimated assuming K = 2 create a subgroup of individuals modelled as having homogeneous ancestry in each extreme, and an intermediate group of individuals modelled as admixed with proportions continuously ranging between the two extremes. The correlation of residuals detects that these admixture proportions are not a good description of the sampled individuals demographic histories. We find a positive correlation of residuals between individuals close together in the cline, and a negative correlation between the ”admixed” individuals and each group of discrete individuals.”

    Entirely clinal structure (with no distinct pops) can result in clusters where none are found in reality.

    And finally:

    “This decreases the correlation within populations from these continents, but does not result in a perfect fit for none of the populations. Interestingly, in both the AFR and the EAS super populations we find a positive correlation of residuals between individuals from the two populations that have mostly uniform ancestry from each within continent ancestral clusters, i.e. LWK and GWD in the AFR and CDX and Japanese in Tokyo, Japan (JPT) in the EAS (Supplementary Figure S6B). This is a similar pattern as what we observe in the simulation of continuous variation, where individuals from both extremes of the continuous cline have positively correlated residuals (Figure 2B).”

    Thanks for linking me that other paper. They are discussing slightly different things though. I think the paper I linked definitively demonstrates how obsolete papers like Rosenberg’s are.

    At least the references in your first objection were interesting. Though I am still unclear on exactly which proposition you are objecting to and how your references support that. Perhaps you could clarify?

    I am objecting to a lack of major admixture events between races that I often see as an argument in favor of HBD (and using these papers as opposed to Templeton’s help illustrate my point as they are more recent, authored by many researchers and based on higher quality data than Templeton’s). Again, I am open to other interpretations of these results rather than admixture.

    In addition I am objecting to the argument that variation private to (ie) Europeans is an explanation for group differences in IQ for example if one compares them with Africans.

    the 3rd reference is about how phenotype is relatively uninformative on genotype but I am not sure if I have cited it before. In any case, if you are interested in continuing this discussion it can wait.

    @mikemikev

    No, I actually agree with you that one can not demarcate a population using only one trait or gene. But that is not what I said. I also agree with @res that common ancestors don’t necessarily invalidate group differences or even races.

    PS. I recovered access to my old email so using old username again.

    • Replies: @res
  185. mikemikev says:

    No, I actually agree with you that one can not demarcate a population using only one trait or gene. But that is not what I said.

    You hadn’t made up which strawman you were responding to when you started going on about “private alleles”. I had to guess. So your strawman here is that hereditarians think group differences are explained by alleles at 100% fixation?

    • Replies: @res
  186. res says:
    @Anti-HBD

    It is an odd paper, I won’t disagree with you here. It runs contrary not only to my second reference but also this study: https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30059-3

    But it seems certain that signficant gene flow has occured between Africa and Eurasia judging from that paper (and I have 2 more supporting the same inference)

    That is another interesting paper. It seems to disagree with conventional wisdom in multiple places so it will be interesting to see how the results hold up.

    Table S6 estimates a range of 0.9-1.5 Mb of Denisovan sequence across all 1000 Genomes populations. This seems contrary to the idea that the Denisovan admixture happened in East Asia and is most prevalent there.

    The Neanderthal admixture in AFR is new. Ignoring the ACB and ASW outliers (probably admixture?) we see that AFR has about 1/3 the Neanderthal admixture of the other populations (which are in a fairly narrow range).

    This is just a rough model, there is direct genomic evidence of recent exchange between Africa and Eurasia: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959437X20300599

    I notice they lead off with PCA and ADMIXTURE results in Figure 1. Am I to infer that you think those results are useful when they affirm conclusions you like, but not otherwise?

    Figure 2 gives a look at migration routes. The conflation of North African and sub-Saharan African into “African” becomes tiresome after a while.

    What you might expect though is high frequency non-ancestral alleles outside of Africa which are at zero or very low frequency within Africa. I wonder what that analysis would look like?

    That’s a good point and I would also like to see such an analysis. Do you think that private variants would be in low frequencies even in the absent of subtantial gene flow between geographic regions?

    Depends on how you define “private” and “substantial.” I don’t think it would take much gene flow to make a variant have non-zero frequency.

    “Using simulated and real data, we show how the method is able to detect a bad fit of inferred admixture proportions due to using an insufficient number of clusters K or to demographic histories that deviate significantly from the admixture model assumptions, such as admixture from ghost populations, drift after admixture events and nondiscrete ancestral populations.”

    Basically, clusters do not reflect actual demographic processes as we know from ancient DNA that all these populations of the same color these programs find are actually admixed from all other ones (ie West Eurasians having African and Asian ancestry as well as sharing ancestry with Native Americans)

    You need to take a logic class. Just because some fits are bad does not mean they all are. And there are degrees of bad when it comes to the fits.

    You keep talking about clusters as some sort of Platonic ideal. Are you telling me that the three clusters of European/Asian/African which appear in virtually all PCA analyses including those populations do not reflect actual demographic processes?

    Entirely clinal structure (with no distinct pops) can result in clusters where none are found in reality.

    Not going to revisit that time wasting discussion beyond noting the relevance of the Continuum fallacy. Anyone who wants to torture themselves can search for “clinal” in either my or Anti-HBD’s comments.

    This decreases the correlation within populations from these continents, but does not result in a perfect fit for none of the populations.

    That quote seems garbled. What was the source?

    I am objecting to a lack of major admixture events between races that I often see as an argument in favor of HBD

    By whom? I have repeatedly emphasized that what matters is current SNP frequencies.

    In addition I am objecting to the argument that variation private to (ie) Europeans is an explanation for group differences in IQ for example if one compares them with Africans.

    Again, who is making that argument? (the strawmanning from you is long past tiresome) This is why I went on at length about “private.” By the definition used in your reference, Europe does not have private variants because it is a central migration crossroads. BUT by my alternative subtree idea it is quite possible there will be variants outside of Africa which are not present in Africa (more true of SSA).

    Do you disagree that there are SNPs which are low frequency in sub-Saharan Africa and high frequency outside? Do you disagree that some of these are IQ related SNPs?

    What matters is not some purist concept like “private variants.” What matters is relative SNP frequencies (as well as other forms of genetic variation).

    the 3rd reference is about how phenotype is relatively uninformative on genotype but I am not sure if I have cited it before. In any case, if you are interested in continuing this discussion it can wait.

    We have discussed this before:
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/whos-to-blame-for-the-black-white-achievement-gap/#comment-3687632
    It was a waste of time then so I have no particular desire to revisit that discussion. Searching that thread for “phenotype” we see that the genotype/phenotype issue shows you at your disingenuous worst.

    P.S. Could you please point out his conflation of MRCA and isopoint to Adam Rutherford? It is embarrassing to see a geneticist make that mistake repeatedly (it makes other geneticists look bad). He might actually listen to you, while I am just another racist (by his definition of the word. BTW, if he is so good at arguing with racists as to write a book on it why doesn’t he take some time to show me the error of my ways here?).

    I summarize the mistake in this comment:
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/how-long-ago-was-the-most-recent-common-ancestor-of-all-living-humans/#comment-3628020

    I did not notice it at the time, but did you have a preview copy of Rutherford’s book?
    https://www.unz.com/jthompson/explaining-race-and-genetics-no-need-to-despair/?showcomments#comment-3529404

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  187. res says:
    @mikemikev

    The strawmen are ever multiplying and changing. Think of it as Whac-A-Strawman
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whac-A-Mole

    • Replies: @mikemikev
  188. mikemikev says:
    @res

    Somebody should make an “Anti-HBD” strawman bingo card. But I’m not sure his strawmen really ever change.

  189. botazefa says:
    @RobbieSmith

    When I get a reply, I then respond with one of my pre-made responses. Why wouldn’t I? I have tailored these over the years and continually improve them and I see it as doing the work of God. Your moderator sees it a spamming.

    You found this site recently, which is great. You have long experience exploring ideas around HBD. Hey, that’s great too. You’ve been commenting since the BBS days on this topic and have saved some of your commentary that you copy and paste here in support of your position.

    Am I being fair so far?

    [MORE]

    You could be a valued member of the discussion here, and there is much to explore. I think you’re already valued, but it may be tentative.

    What caught my attention and frankly compelled me to advise you earlier was your apparent disinterest in your audience. Hey, I do that to. We all do.

    When I get a reply, I then respond with one of my pre-made responses. Why wouldn’t I?

    You wouldn’t if you didn’t want to appear like someone who is just waiting for his turn to speak. I’m sure you don’t want to come across that way. No one does.

    I know I’m bright and I’ve been reading Dr. Thompson’s blog for years. I don’t understand it all. Maybe you would, having more experience than I, but we don’t know, do we? We don’t know because you haven’t made the effort yet. No biggie.

    When you have Ron, Emil and James jumping in to coach you, my suggestion is to take it as a compliment. Feel proud that you got their attention. Become curious. They left you good breadcrumbs.

    I’m happy to be your audience, but not if you are just looking for a stage to perform your oldies-but-goodies. A good performer loves his audience, I’ve heard.

    I think this is a fine place for you. I think Ron does too, but he lives in a mansion on an Island surrounded by sexy women and servants, so who am I to speak for him!

    As for your interest in supporting the site, there should be a ‘Patron’ button on the front page.

    Apologies for typos. Real men comment to Unz with mobile phones in the fly. And when their wives aren’t watching.

  190. Anti-HBD says:
    @res

    The Neanderthal admixture in AFR is new. Ignoring the ACB and ASW outliers (probably admixture?) we see that AFR has about 1/3 the Neanderthal admixture of the other populations (which are in a fairly narrow range).

    The implication being that there has been massive gene flow from Eurasia to Africa. The Denisovan admixture could be explained as Denisovan gene flow to Neanderthals before Neanderthal admixture with humans.

    I notice they lead off with PCA and ADMIXTURE results in Figure 1. Am I to infer that you think those results are useful when they affirm conclusions you like, but not otherwise?

    I said that PCA and ADMIXTURE are context dependent. They are not useless but they can be used to support race by themselves. Especially ADMIXTURE, PCA might be a bit more accurate. The thing is you can do a PCA with British ethnic groups, are they separate races?

    Depends on how you define “private” and “substantial.” I don’t think it would take much gene flow to make a variant have non-zero frequency.

    Perhaps not, I suppose the distribution shows more gene flow from Europe than the reverse given it is the region that lacks most private alleles.

    You need to take a logic class. Just because some fits are bad does not mean they all are. And there are degrees of bad when it comes to the fits.

    I am not following here. What do you mean degrees of bad when it comes to the fits?

    Are you telling me that the three clusters of European/Asian/African which appear in virtually all PCA analyses including those populations do not reflect actual demographic processes?

    They do, but that does not make them races nor does it imply by itself sufficient differentiation. Depends how much of the genetic distance/variance they explain.

    For example, clusters account for only 2% of the Fst as Kevin Bird explained in this thread about a year ago https://twitter.com/itsbirdemic/status/1134136430219816960

    That quote seems garbled. What was the source?

    The paper I linked to you regarding admixture fit.

    By whom? I have repeatedly emphasized that what matters is current SNP frequencies.

    Fair enough.

    This is why I went on at length about “private.” By the definition used in your reference, Europe does not have private variants because it is a central migration crossroads. BUT by my alternative subtree idea it is quite possible there will be variants outside of Africa which are not present in Africa (more true of SSA).

    Ok, but if that was the case, would we not see that in the paper? Variants private to Europe and Asia that are not present in Africa? If such variants did exist then I could think of a way that they explain group differences in some manner.

    Do you disagree that there are SNPs which are low frequency in sub-Saharan Africa and high frequency outside? Do you disagree that some of these are IQ related SNPs?

    If we are talking about frequency then no I do not disagree. Some of them could be IQ-related SNPs but I have yet to see any casual SNPs regarding IQ.

    Searching that thread for “phenotype” we see that the genotype/phenotype issue shows you at your disingenuous worst.

    Did I link you this paper? I don’t really remember but that’s what I mean regarding phenotype and genotype. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/773663v2 (this is what I believe to be a big issue with Piffer’s papers for example, the only studies in favor of the hereditarian hypothesis in that field)

    -that is, phenotypes that are initially associated with the ancestral background in one source population are taken to reflect ancestry in that population. Examples exist, however, in which genotypes or phenotypes initially associated with ancestry in one source population have decoupled from overall admixture levels, so that they no longer serve as proxies for genetic ancestry. We develop a mechanistic model for describing the joint dynamics of admixture levels and phenotype distributions in an admixed population. The approach includes a quantitative-genetic model that relates a phenotype to underlying loci that affect its trait value. We consider three forms of mating. First, individuals might assort in a manner that is independent of the overall genetic admixture level. Second, individuals might assort by a quantitative phenotype that is initially correlated with the genetic admixture level. Third, individuals might assort by the genetic admixture level itself. Under the model, we explore the relationship between genetic admixture level and phenotype over time, studying the effect on this relationship of the genetic architecture of the phenotype. We find that the decoupling of genetic ancestry and phenotype can occur surprisingly quickly, especially if the phenotype is driven by a small number of loci. We also find that positive assortative mating attenuates the process of dissociation in relation to a scenario in which mating is random with respect to genetic admixture and with respect to phenotype. The mechanistic framework suggests that in an admixed population, a trait that initially differed between source populations might be a reliable proxy for ancestry for only a short time, especially if the trait is determined by relatively few loci. The results are potentially relevant in admixed human populations, in which phenotypes that have a perceived correlation with ancestry might have social significance as ancestry markers, despite declining correlations with ancestry over time.

    P.S. Could you please point out his conflation of MRCA and isopoint to Adam Rutherford? It is embarrassing to see a geneticist make that mistake repeatedly (it makes other geneticists look bad)

    I will email him.
    The most recent ancestor stuff is valid imo but it is based on some assumptions and does not cancel out race by itself as you don’t get DNA from all your ancestors.

    I did not notice it at the time, but did you have a preview copy of Rutherford’s book?

    No, but a colleague did.

    @mikemikev

    So your strawman here is that hereditarians think group differences are explained by alleles at 100% fixation?

    No, but some hereditarians (like Emil Kirkegaard) have hinted at a possible role of private variants.

    • Replies: @res
  191. res says:
    @Anti-HBD

    The implication being that there has been massive gene flow from Eurasia to Africa.

    What is “massive” here? The over the top adjectives (consider something like “substantial” or “significant” instead?) lacking actual quantitative meaning are tiresome. If the gene flow is so massive, why do the Fsts remain high?

    And I should emphasize a point I have made before. Gene flow will tend to eliminate drift, but have less effect on selection. If gene flow really is massive while Fsts remain high I think that is an argument for selection being relatively important compared to drift for the differences observed.

    I said that PCA and ADMIXTURE are context dependent. They are not useless but they can be used to support race by themselves. Especially ADMIXTURE, PCA might be a bit more accurate. The thing is you can do a PCA with British ethnic groups, are they separate races?

    Are you missing a negative there? I can read through mistakes like that in most cases, but they greatly increase the possibility of miscommunication.

    Race is hierarchical. The answer to your question depends on whether one is in a lumping or splitting mood. As you mention below, what matters is degree of difference (e.g. variance explained).

    I am not following here. What do you mean degrees of bad when it comes to the fits?

    I don’t know how you measure fit here, but consider how correlation coefficients relate to how good/bad of a fit a line is to a set of data. If your r is 0.01 the line fit is useless. 0.9 is another matter, even though it is not 1.0.

    They do, but that does not make them races nor does it imply by itself sufficient differentiation. Depends how much of the genetic distance/variance they explain.

    For example, clusters account for only 2% of the Fst as Kevin Bird explained in this thread about a year ago https://twitter.com/itsbirdemic/status/1134136430219816960

    An assertion by Kevin Bird is not evidence (LOL at “explained”). Why does he write tweets like that without supporting evidence? Do you have any?

    I would actually argue that percent of phenotypic variance is even more important, but since we can’t measure that easily genetic variance is what we use. While remembering that there will be significant “silent” (phenotypically) variance caused by drift.

    This paper looks at PCA results for 53 HGDP populations. I was not familiar with the differences in variance explained for the different PCA approaches and need to look at that more. But even 11% for the first two PCs (characterizing 32,991 autosomal SNP markers!) is significant.
    https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1002886

    A PCA plot finds that as in previous studies [7], [8], [10], samples from the same geographic region (indicated by colors in Figure 1) generally cluster together, and that different clusters align on the PCA plot in a way that qualitatively resembles the geographic map of sampling locations. The first two PCs of our PCA explain 6.22% and 4.72% of the total genetic variation, respectively. These values are considerably less than the values reported by Li et al. [7] in their Figure S3B, which were 52.3% for PC1 and 27.8% for PC2. The difference can be attributed primarily to the different versions of PCA used in the analyses. We applied PCA on the genotypic matrix for individuals and loci, whereas Li et al. applied PCA on an matrix recording levels of identity-by-state for pairs of individuals [7]. Although the two approaches provide visually similar PCA plots, the values and the interpretation of the proportions of variance explained by each PC differ, as they are based on quite distinct computations.

    If we are talking about frequency then no I do not disagree. Some of them could be IQ-related SNPs but I have yet to see any casual SNPs regarding IQ.

    The causal argument is getting old as well (and can you please spell it right? I know autocorrect can make that hard). What exactly does it take for you to consider a SNP to be causal? I don’t believe you ever responded to my causal point in
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/whos-to-blame-for-the-black-white-achievement-gap/#comment-3691247
    To summarize:
    See this link: https://www.unz.com/jthompson/even-more-genes-for-intelligence/
    In particular, this graphic showing tissue types associated with some intelligence SNPs.

    Is being associated with the brain enough to assert with a fair degree of confidence that a SNP is causal for intelligence? If not, what do you consider sufficient evidence?

    Did I link you this paper? I don’t really remember but that’s what I mean regarding phenotype and genotype. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/773663v2 (this is what I believe to be a big issue with Piffer’s papers for example, the only studies in favor of the hereditarian hypothesis in that field)

    That paper is saying something very different from phenotype not being related to genotype. It would help if whoever is explaining these things to you did a better job.

    They are talking about the relationship between overall genetic ancestry (percent admixture in an admixed population) and phenotype. Furthermore, they are doing a simulation of a very specific case (highly admixed population interbreeding). Interesting as a hypothetical, but IMHO not terribly relevant to the real world. Especially given how many generations it takes for the correlation to decrease in their simulations.

    And to be explicit, given that the paper is using simulations, how do you think they evaluate phenotype? Looking at the caption of Figure 1 we see that they determine phenotype by looking at three additive loci (i.e. phenotype). So in fact, they determine the phenotype by looking at the genotype!

    What is funny is that if I return to one of your older comments I see you saying the opposite of what that paper implies.
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/whos-to-blame-for-the-black-white-achievement-gap/#comment-3677790

    There are variations in phenotype, sometimes corresponding to “race” but that is not particularly informative of variations in genotype, rather it is mostly due to shared geographic ancestry.

    The primary point of your paper is that phenotype can decouple from shared ancestry (admixture)!

    To be clear, this is one of your biggest fails in our entire history of comments. And that is saying something!

    I will email him.

    Thanks. If his response is something other than “I was wrong” I would be interested in how he tries to explain it.

    No, but some hereditarians (like Emil Kirkegaard) have hinted at a possible role of private variants.

    Link? I would not get too caught up in “private” as being 0% frequency vs. 0.1% or even 1% if the variant is (say) 25% or more in the other population.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  192. Anti-HBD says:
    @res

    If the gene flow is so massive, why do the Fsts remain high?

    I don’t know. The person who I am consulting on this is not sure either. It’s a peculiar finding. Massive in the sense that the paper suggested some 1/3 of the ancestry of African populations is due from Eurasian backmigration.

    If gene flow really is massive while Fsts remain high I think that is an argument for selection being relatively important compared to drift for the differences observed.

    Yes, but if selection was that strong shouldn’t we be able to see signatures of it? Most traits in humans do not show much selection . I must admit that I am also curious about that.
    https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1000500

    An assertion by Kevin Bird is not evidence (LOL at “explained”). Why does he write tweets like that without supporting evidence? Do you have any?

    Have I cited this to you before?
    https://www.igb.illinois.edu/sites/default/files/Longetal2009.pdf (That’s Kevin’s source)

    In any case, I still don’t get why you think the paper I linked earlier about STRUCTURE does not make clusters useless phylogenetically. It shows that the K=5 (or even K=8 etc) divisions for humans don’t match up with the genetic data, does it not? Maybe I am missing something, feel free to point it out to me.

    In particular, this graphic showing tissue types associated with some intelligence SNPs.

    It’s just not the way GWAS works, you get associations not direct casual paths. It’s also very hard to correct for stratification issues as this paper points out (came out about 2 months ago)
    https://www.genetics.org/content/215/1/193

    “To study this, we have implemented an individual-based model in continuous geography that incorporates overlapping generations, local dispersal of offspring, and density-dependent survival. We simulate chromosome-scale genomic data in tens of thousands of individuals from parameter regimes relevant to common subjects of population genetic investigation, and output the full genealogy and recombination history of all final-generation individuals. We use these simulations to test how sampling strategy interacts with geographic population structure to cause systematic variation in population genetic summary statistics typically analyzed assuming discrete population models. We then examine how the fine-scale spatial structures occurring under limited dispersal impact demographic inference from the SFS. Last, we examine the impacts of continuous geography on GWAS and identify regions of parameter space under which the results from GWAS may be misleading.”

    If not, what do you consider sufficient evidence?

    I would consider it sufficient evidence but I was told that it is not. See paper above.

    They are talking about the relationship between overall genetic ancestry (percent admixture in an admixed population) and phenotype.

    Isn’t their point that someone with darker skin color might not have more African ancestry that someone with lighter skin color? Therefore does it not also imply that African ancestry eventually decouples from mental traits as well, and associations of African ancestry with IQ are therefore spurious?

    The primary point of your paper is that phenotype can decouple from shared ancestry (admixture)!

    Yes, I don’t get your objection here.

    Thanks. If his response is something other than “I was wrong” I would be interested in how he tries to explain it.

    No reply as of yet but I am almost certain it will be that there are standards in phylogenetics and race does not meet those standards.

    Link? I would not get too caught up in “private” as being 0% frequency vs. 0.1% or even 1% if the variant is (say) 25% or more in the other population.

    I had this saved, if he did not actually support that then I will retract my previous statement. I ran across this type of argument before but don’t remember when tbh.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @res
  193. mikemikev says:
    @Anti-HBD

    Have I cited this to you before?

    Yes

  194. The NSB at work……

  195. res says:
    @Anti-HBD

    If the gene flow is so massive, why do the Fsts remain high?

    I don’t know. The person who I am consulting on this is not sure either. It’s a peculiar finding.

    Peculiar indeed. I wonder if at some point the cognitive dissonance will become great enough that you realize Greg Cochran has a point–whether or not you believe the EXACT details of his calculation.
    https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2019/01/07/gene-flow/

    Massive in the sense that the paper suggested some 1/3 of the ancestry of African populations is due from Eurasian backmigration.

    Excerpt from comment 180 and the paper itself:
    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.01.127555v1
    This is an interesting assertion: “Our analysis suggests that a population ancestral to present-day Eurasians contributed as much as a third of the genetic material in many modern African populations.”

    Your imprecision and eliding of important facts is tiresome. Again, Africa is a large continent with a great deal of genetic diversity.

    First, let’s note how you dropped the word “many” from the paper statement. That is an important qualification (and AFAICT they did not get more specific about that claim, which makes me curious). Does anyone know the exact data they use to justify their claim? I am not seeing anything which fits in the paper or SM.

    You also omit that the backmigration from the ancestral Eurasian population occurred 40-70 kya. A great deal of both drift and selection has occurred in all of the present day populations since then.

    While we are here, let’s mention this paper looking at some “highly informative” genetic variation between populations (HGDP). Check out the Fsts!
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/47545562_CoAIMs_A_Cost-Effective_Panel_of_Ancestry_Informative_Markers_for_Determining_Continental_Origins

    And look at these clusters! Notice the variance explained by the first two PCs. Now there is some systematic variation.

    If gene flow really is massive while Fsts remain high I think that is an argument for selection being relatively important compared to drift for the differences observed.

    Yes, but if selection was that strong shouldn’t we be able to see signatures of it? Most traits in humans do not show much selection . I must admit that I am also curious about that.
    https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1000500

    You referenced this paper before. My response is in this comment.
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/whos-to-blame-for-the-black-white-achievement-gap/#comment-3699598

    An assertion by Kevin Bird is not evidence (LOL at “explained”). Why does he write tweets like that without supporting evidence? Do you have any?

    Have I cited this to you before?
    https://www.igb.illinois.edu/sites/default/files/Longetal2009.pdf (That’s Kevin’s source)

    Yes. You cited it twice in this thread (maybe learn to search your own comments?):
    https://www.unz.com/jthompson/explaining-race-and-genetics-no-need-to-despair/?showcomments#comment-3554356

    I never really responded to it there (though others did), so…

    First, when someone cites a paper in genetics from 2009 little warning bells should go off in your head. This paper looks at a very limited data set. We have much better data available now. Have those results held up?

    More importantly, please outline in more detail how that paper supports his tweet (and it would help to clarify the tweet point since it is out of context in a longer conversation). That is what I call explaining. Notice how it is different from asserting.

    In particular, this graphic showing tissue types associated with some intelligence SNPs.

    It’s just not the way GWAS works, you get associations not direct casual paths.

    Are you being intentionally obtuse? The whole point is we are taking the SNPs generated by the GWAS and using another method to associate them with tissue types. Don’t you find it the least bit interesting that the brain is so thoroughly overrepresented?

    If not, what do you consider sufficient evidence?

    I would consider it sufficient evidence but I was told that it is not. See paper above.

    Even if a SNP itself is not fully causal in itself (e.g. it is possible the SNP is part of a haplotype in LD which is needed in greater size to have the full causal effect), it seems clear that in real populations these SNPs are quite clearly marking causal (e.g. brain tissue) variation. The sense in which causality becomes important is for gene editing. Note that for embryo selection and other phenotype estimation the SNP would with high probability represent the entire haplotype.

    They are talking about the relationship between overall genetic ancestry (percent admixture in an admixed population) and phenotype.

    Isn’t their point that someone with darker skin color might not have more African ancestry that someone with lighter skin color? Therefore does it not also imply that African ancestry eventually decouples from mental traits as well, and associations of African ancestry with IQ are therefore spurious?

    The primary point of your paper is that phenotype can decouple from shared ancestry (admixture)!

    Yes, I don’t get your objection here.

    Yes, it is clear you don’t understand this. The point is that ancestry and genotype are not the same. Think of it as a breeding experiment. Consider two parents (European/E and African/A) homozygous for all of the alleles which are highest frequency in their respective populations. Then consider a male and female child of this pair. Those two children are essentially F1 hybrids:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F1_hybrid

    Now consider children of those two children. Those grandchildren are essentially F2 hybrids. Those F2 hybrids have variable genotypes even though they all have an ancestry which is exactly one half European and one half African. In theory (though it is heat death of the universe level improbable, perhaps we could call this thought experiment Watson’s demon?) those grandchildren (F2 hybrids) could recreate the ancestral African and European genotypes. The reality is they will be some varying mix of the original African and European genotypes.

    Skin color of the grandchildren will follow the genotype of various skin color alleles even though the ancestry is exactly the same. Similarly for IQ. Since those alleles are inherited separately the grandchildren may have different mixes for different traits.

    Thus we see, phenotype can decouple from ancestry (as discussed in your paper), but it does not decouple from genotype (which was what you incorrectly claimed).

    Both you and the person who is explaining things to you need to get better at this.

    Thanks. If his response is something other than “I was wrong” I would be interested in how he tries to explain it.

    No reply as of yet but I am almost certain it will be that there are standards in phylogenetics and race does not meet those standards.

    I was talking about his conflation of MRCA and isopoint. Which has nothing to do with race. But thank you for making clear just how blindly you pull out talking points from your script.

    There’s thousands of variants that exist in one but not another group (private alleles). Maybe one can even find a loci with 10 different private alleles, one for each of ‘the’ 10 traditional races. I doubt anyone has looked but the genome is huge and messy so maybe.

    I had this saved, if he did not actually support that then I will retract my previous statement. I ran across this type of argument before but don’t remember when tbh.

    Emil’s statement (first blockquote) is a bit unclear to me (have I mentioned before how much Twitter sucks for serious technical communication? ; ) but I will make an attempt at elaborating (I was unable to find a blog post from him on this topic, perhaps he could clarify if he happens to see this).

    There are multiple things involved here and precision is good. First, allele can refer to either genes or SNPs. His comment refers to 10 alleles which seems to indicate gene (since only 4 bases possible at a SNP), but he writes “a loci” which is mismatched. A seems to indicate SNP while loci (plural) is more like gene.

    Private genes are much more likely to exist than private SNPs (combinatorics). IIRC your paper was about private SNPs.

    Second, his first sentence is describing pairwise private which is very different from the unique to a single population private of your paper. Single population private SNPs are unlikely to occur in crossroads populations like Europeans or Asians–they appear more in peripheral (in a migration network sense) populations like sub-Saharan Africa, the Americas, or Australia. Pairwise private is very different. Consider an Asian population in northern Siberia. It is quite possible variants originating there (say 20 kya) made it to America, but much less likely those variants made it to Africa.

    You really need to make more of an effort to understand people who disagree with you (even those evil HBD badthinkers you are opposed to enough that you chose the handle “Anti-HBD”. Again, thank you for being so upfront about your bias) rather than oversimplifying their points (aka strawmanning) and leaping to the conclusion that they are wrong. Followed by stating that with complete confidence.

    • Replies: @Anti-HBD
  196. Anti-HBD says:
    @res

    I wonder if at some point the cognitive dissonance will become great enough that you realize Greg Cochran has a point–whether or not you believe the EXACT details of his calculation.

    I mentioned your points and was linked to this:
    https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1008552

    Apparently also conclude substantial gene flow African-non African after the OOA event as well as European-Asian after the East-West split about 40kya. (see fig 5 and 6)
    Some of it is confusing even to me, I am not aware of movement of peoples between East Asia and Europe so recently but my point is, humans move around a lot and Fst might not be the best way to test that.

    More importantly, please outline in more detail how that paper supports his tweet (and it would help to clarify the tweet point since it is out of context in a longer conversation). That is what I call explaining. Notice how it is different from asserting.

    Apologies, I cited you the wrong Long paper. I meant to cite this: https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/62159/20932_ftp.pdf

    I would cite you a specific segment but if you have the time I think it’s worthy reading it in full. Particularly figure 3.
    “Specifically, we demonstrate that the observed pattern of global gene identity variation is consistent with a history of serial population fissions, bottlenecks and long-range migrations associated with the peopling of major geographic regions, and gene flow between local populations. This history has produced a nested pattern of genetic structure that is inconsistent with the existence of independently evolving biological races”

    I can not find how it supports Kevin’s point about Fst. I am awaiting a reply on the issue. I don’t know why he cited the paper that I previously cited to you, as it does not seem to touch upon that point.

    Are you being intentionally obtuse? The whole point is we are taking the SNPs generated by the GWAS and using another method to associate them with tissue types. Don’t you find it the least bit interesting that the brain is so thoroughly overrepresented?

    It is interesting, yes. But did you not read Coop’s paper on GWAS? We just can not be sure yet whether these associations are valid or not. I am willing to concede that differences even in IQ between populations are possible. I know most anthropologists do not think IQ has any validity but I actually think it does, even if it’s not the whole story. My main issue is whether human populations have been isolated for long enough for these differences to come into being.

    In theory (though it is heat death of the universe level improbable, perhaps we could call this thought experiment Watson’s demon?) those grandchildren (F2 hybrids) could recreate the ancestral African and European genotypes. The reality is they will be some varying mix of the original African and European genotypes.

    Why call it improbable, do you think that their paper will not apply in practice? So the point is that someone who has 50% African ancestry and 50% European ancestry might genotypically be more African than European or vice versa?

    I was talking about his conflation of MRCA and isopoint. Which has nothing to do with race. But thank you for making clear just how blindly you pull out talking points from your script.

    I see, still no reply unfortunately. Yes he is conflating the two I agree with you.

    Private genes are much more likely to exist than private SNPs (combinatorics). IIRC your paper was about private SNPs.

    Yes private SNPs.

    Consider an Asian population in northern Siberia. It is quite possible variants originating there (say 20 kya) made it to America, but much less likely those variants made it to Africa.

    That’s reasonable.

    • Replies: @res
    , @mikemikev
  197. res says:
    @Anti-HBD

    I mentioned your points and was linked to this:
    https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1008552

    Apparently also conclude substantial gene flow African-non African after the OOA event as well as European-Asian after the East-West split about 40kya. (see fig 5 and 6)
    Some of it is confusing even to me, I am not aware of movement of peoples between East Asia and Europe so recently but my point is, humans move around a lot and Fst might not be the best way to test that.

    Thanks for the interesting paper. Did you read it? Because I skimmed through it and see comments like:

    We find that in all population pairs involving either San or Mbuti, the main separation process from other populations dates to between 60-400kya, depending on the exact pair of populations

    Apart from the deep structure seen with Mbuti and San, we find the second-most deep divergences between the West African Yoruba, Mandenka and Mende on the one hand, and French on the other

    All separations outside of Africa are younger than separations between Africans and Non-Africans, as expected (Fig 6, S4 Fig).

    They seem much more comfortable with the ideas of “separation” and “divergence” than you do.

    You are right that Fig 5 and 6 are key. I am not sure what constitutes “substantial” gene flow, but if you look at Yoruba_French (Fig 5) and French_Han (Fig 6, I think these two are decent proxies for migration between the bulk of Europe and the bulk of Africa and Asia respectively) we can make some observations.

    For Yoruba_French the peak migration rate is 2.5e-4 ending about 55 kya. And the rate steadily declines to essentially 0 by over 30 kya. Looking at M(t) (which I understand to be the proportion of cumulative migration to that date, right?), M(t) declines to 1% around 20-30 kya (hard to make out even at 300% zoom).

    Now contrast that with French_Han. The peak migration rate is close to 5e-4 (almost double the Y_F) ending about 35 kya. It stays almost that high through about 28 kya then declines steadily to near 0 around 13 kya. Even 13 kya is a long time for drift and selection to occur, but the Y_F time is about 2.5x that.

    If you want an example of what I would call “substantial” (and much more recent) gene flow then take a look at French_Sardinian, and be sure to notice that the migration rate Y axis covers 10-20x the range of the others!

    Could you please explain further how you and your source think this paper supports your position? It seems to me to affirm my observation in comment 180:
    An important point: “consistent with migration occurring before the European-East Asian split approximately 40kya”
    I wonder how much of the European and Asian genetic drift/selection occurred before/after that point. I find it intriguing they are not finding as much recent migration.

    As far as I can tell that paper makes clear that intercontinental gene flow declined to minimal levels a long time ago (tens of thousands of years).

    BTW, S4 Fig greatly expands on Fig 5 and 6. It gives full page versions of the migration rate and M(t) graphic for ALL pairwise population comparisons (13 pages and something like 144 comparisons). Worth downloading. The Yoruba comparisons are on page E/5 with the French on page G/7. Those pages are what I actually used above. Easiest to just compare French_Yoruba and French_Han on the same page.

    Apologies, I cited you the wrong Long paper. I meant to cite this: https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/62159/20932_ftp.pdf

    I would cite you a specific segment but if you have the time I think it’s worthy reading it in full. Particularly figure 3.
    “Specifically, we demonstrate that the observed pattern of global gene identity variation is consistent with a history of serial population fissions, bottlenecks and long-range migrations associated with the peopling of major geographic regions, and gene flow between local populations. This history has produced a nested pattern of genetic structure that is inconsistent with the existence of independently evolving biological races”

    You know how I keep accusing you of strawmanning? Thanks for providing an example as good as: “existence of independently evolving biological races.” Do you see me arguing that? I am arguing that races differ (in important ways) in the present and that gene flow has not been sufficient to eliminate those differences.

    That paper looks to be (at least as you are attempting to use it) an excellent example of Lewontin’s fallacy updated for The Current Year. Even if most genetic variation occurs within populations that does not mean the variation between populations is unimportant. Especially if the former is more random and the latter relatively more systematic as I think tends to be the case.

    BTW, did you notice this IBD comment?
    The results are also inconsistent with the predictions of isolation by distance. The relationship
    between gene identity and geographic distance forms multiple tiers rather than a monotonic decay

    It is kind of you to provide me with evidence against points you have made in the past. The discussion has more elaboration on that topic.

    When you start finding that your references provide more support for my points than yours it might be time for you to start reconsidering your views.

    I can not find how it supports Kevin’s point about Fst. I am awaiting a reply on the issue. I don’t know why he cited the paper that I previously cited to you, as it does not seem to touch upon that point.

    Hopefully at some point you will understand exactly why I am so scornful of tweets containing assertions while lacking supporting evidence. This seems to be an excellent example.

    It is interesting, yes. But did you not read Coop’s paper on GWAS? We just can not be sure yet whether these associations are valid or not. I am willing to concede that differences even in IQ between populations are possible. I know most anthropologists do not think IQ has any validity but I actually think it does, even if it’s not the whole story. My main issue is whether human populations have been isolated for long enough for these differences to come into being.

    Once more with feeling. The tissue associations are established using a different method (i.e. NOT GWAS). Here is the link again:
    https://www.unz.com/jthompson/even-more-genes-for-intelligence/
    And the relevant paper:
    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/09/06/184853.1
    The published version is at:
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-018-0152-6

    Abstract:
    Intelligence is highly heritable1 and a major determinant of human health and well-being2. Recent genome-wide meta-analyses have identified 24 genomic loci linked to variation in intelligence3,4,5,6,7, but much about its genetic underpinnings remains to be discovered. Here, we present a large-scale genetic association study of intelligence (n = 269,867), identifying 205 associated genomic loci (190 new) and 1,016 genes (939 new) via positional mapping, expression quantitative trait locus (eQTL) mapping, chromatin interaction mapping, and gene-based association analysis. We find enrichment of genetic effects in conserved and coding regions and associations with 146 nonsynonymous exonic variants. Associated genes are strongly expressed in the brain, specifically in striatal medium spiny neurons and hippocampal pyramidal neurons. Gene set analyses implicate pathways related to nervous system development and synaptic structure. We confirm previous strong genetic correlations with multiple health-related outcomes, and Mendelian randomization analysis results suggest protective effects of intelligence for Alzheimer’s disease and ADHD and bidirectional causation with pleiotropic effects for schizophrenia. These results are a major step forward in understanding the neurobiology of cognitive function as well as genetically related neurological and psychiatric disorders.

    The way this works is they first identify the loci (SNPS) with GWAS:
    In the meta-analysis, 12,110 variants indexed by 242 lead SNPs in approximate linkage equilibrium (r2<0.1) reached genome-wide significance (P<5×10−8) (Fig. 1a, Supplementary Figs. 4 and 5, and Supplementary Tables 5–7). These were located in 205 distinct genomic loci

    Once the SNPs are obtained they look at various biological factors given their locations:
    We observed enrichment for heritability of SNPs in conserved regions (P=2.01×10−12), coding regions (P=1.67×10−6), and acetylated Lys9 of histone H3 (H3K9ac) histone regions/peaks

    Conserved and regulatory regions have previously been implicated in cognitive functioning22, but coding regions have not.

    Then they look for variant/gene followed by gene/tissue associations with a detailed explanation of their methods on page 913/2. Here is an excerpt, but I recommend reading that part in full.
    To link the associated variants to genes, we applied three gene mapping strategies implemented in FUMA24. Positional gene mapping aligned SNPs to 522 genes by genomic location, eQTL gene mapping matched cis-eQTL SNPs to 684 genes whose expression levels they influence, and chromatin interaction mapping annotated SNPs to 227 genes on the basis of 3D DNA–DNA interactions (Fig. 2, Supplementary Figs. 8 and 9, Supplementary Tables 12–14, and Supplementary Note). This resulted in 859 unique mapped genes, 435 of which were implicated by at least two mapping strategies and 139 of which were implicated by all three (Fig. 3). Although not all of these genes are certain to have a role in intelligence, they point to potential functional links for the GWAS-associated variants and give higher credibility to genes with convergent evidence of association from multiple sources.

    Is that enough detail to make my point? If not, please read that paper then explain which portion of the tissue association analysis you object to. Do you understand how weak this is: “We just can not be sure yet whether these associations are valid or not.”? How much in science is 100.00000% certain? Have I mentioned isolated demands for rigor recently? ; )

    Regarding being “isolated for long enough”, how long and how isolated? I think the first paper you linked does a good job of establishing that there has been sufficient isolation for tens of thousands of years. During that time the different branches of humanity have lived in widely varying climates (e.g. cold winters) and experienced the advent of agriculture followed by increasing civilization size and complexity. All of those are likely to have provided significant selection pressure differing between regions.

    Private genes are much more likely to exist than private SNPs (combinatorics). IIRC your paper was about private SNPs.

    Yes private SNPs.

    Consider an Asian population in northern Siberia. It is quite possible variants originating there (say 20 kya) made it to America, but much less likely those variants made it to Africa.

    That’s reasonable.

    You understand how those points make it quite possible (I would say likely) that Emil’s statement is true for pairwise private gene alleles despite your paper’s point about one versus all others private SNP alleles, right? Do you see why it is important to use precise terminology? And recognize it when it is being used?

    Those statements are even more true if rather than “private” variants we look at variants with substantially different frequencies in different populations. Which is really what matters. Not some purist “exactly 0 of this variant occur elsewhere.”

  198. mikemikev says:
    @Anti-HBD

    My main issue is whether human populations have been isolated for long enough for these differences to come into being.

    You’ve got it the wrong way around. You establish the differences, then theorise about how they came about.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All James Thompson Comments via RSS