Podcast with AOR, King, and Alpha on Eugenics, HBD, and Racism

Here is our podcast from last night.  Download it here, or listen to it here:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

It’s a long one–an hour and seven minutes, and 31 MBs.

I don’t have much to say about this, other than that it was a rather unusual conversation, possibly the most unusual conversation I’ve ever had.  I thank King and Asian of Reason for being part of this, and I thank Alpha-Asian for hosting it.  I think we all agree that the podcast format was fair, so I hope our newest anonymous internet tough guy doesn’t go ballistic on me.  (And if he does, I guess that’s okay too.  There isn’t much ammo in that cannon.)  Though I disagree strongly with what AOR stands for, I do thank him for having the courage to stand up and speak his mind.

Just a couple of highlights:

1. Alpha’s first question to AOR takes place at around 5 minutes, when he asks AOR to tell us about his blog.

2. My first question/statement takes place at around 8:30, when we begin talking about eugenics.

3. King starts with a statement about eugenics around 16 minutes.  Hitler’s name does get invoked as Godwin said it would, but in this case it may be relevant.  You be the judge.

4. The podcast turns around to HBD and genetic limitations around 30 minutes.

5. We talk mostly about IQ after that.

6. At around 54 minutes, AOR says that poor white kids outperform wealthy black kids.  We asked him to provide proof.  AOR linked a site over here.  I challenge the legitimacy and trustworthiness of the site he linked, and I found a link that actually showed that poor black boys in Britain  outperform poor white boys.  Y’all be the judge.

Thank you again for all stepping up and making your voices heard.  If you’re all not tired out from the original challenge post, sound off like a WOWO below.

113 thoughts on “Podcast with AOR, King, and Alpha on Eugenics, HBD, and Racism

  1. AOR,

    Although I now see your point about how wealth may not translate into super high SAT scores for black kids, that JBHE link actually disproves the statement that you made on the podcast. The wealthiest black kids outscore the poorest white kids. The chart clearly shows that black kids in families with over $200k in income have a higher score average than White kids in families making under $20k. The significant issue in my mind is that $40k a year isn’t all that poor, especially outside of the coastal big cities in the U.S. The average household income in the U.S. is around $52k, so the kids in the $20k-$40 tier are really just one step below average in terms of money.

    Now I do see your point though about the comparison. Kids in families with over $200k should outperform kids who are at $40k–average wealth. Why is that? I don’t know. Perhaps it’s cultural? I know my parents sent me to SAT school/Princeton Review-style. Maybe wealthier African American families represent more new money and therefore don’t know to do this? Maybe they don’t have the traditions yet? (that was the point made in the JBHE article)

    And then there’s the conflicting data that I posted in the other thread:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/nov/19/sats-white-boys-test-results

    Why do a greater percentage of poor black boys in Britain outscore poor white boys? Are white boys in Britain genetically inferior to black boys? They’re in the same latitudinal hemisphere as black and white Americans, so I doubt the Coriolis effect works affects IQ in the opposite direction.

    You see, this was what I talked about in the podcast when I addressed the “science” that HBD rests on. Herrnstein and Murray found that the Scarr Weinstein study showed black adoptees in white families had lower IQs than white adoptees (even though the study’s authors disagreed with , and yet the Bell Curve’s Herrnstein and Murray completely ignored a comparable study (comparable in that they measured the same qualities vs. race AND comparable in that there were similar problems in the methodology) that showed that among 4 and 5 year old black kids and white kids in one school, the black kids had an average IQ of 108 while the white kids were only at 103.

    Bottom line: no conclusive proof.

    So why not give people of other races the benefit of the doubt? As I said in the podcast, when you’re talking about sticking machines into women and cutting off aid to underprivileged minorities, the burden of proof is on you to establish that there are limitations. And you’re free to explore this if it’s your area of interest, but let’s not claim that it’s true. No one knows that.

  2. Regarding the british school kids, has this point been conclusively debunked yet?

    “Just 47.9% of white boys on free school meals managed the standard expected of them in the tests (level 4), compared to 51.6% of black boys on free school meals.”

    If you look at the figures released by the DCSF you will also find this:
    55% of the total of Black pupils are receiving free school meals whilst just 16% of the total of White pupils are receiving free school meals (16% is approx. the national overall average for all pupils). The story could have been about why being Black means you’re more likely to be living in poverty?”

    That is, 47.9% of white boys that are on free school lunch. That is 47.9% out of 16% of all white students total that are on free lunch.

  3. “f anyone is interested in seeing where I found that 108/103 study, it’s here:”

    Its well known in the medical community that black children physically mature faster than white children. The 108/103 black/white iq gap you refer to reverses during adolescence with white teenagers steadily increasing in IQ while their black peers’ iq begins to slow down.

    “http://books.google.com/books?id=CXZhh7PIRHsC&pg=PA195&lpg=PA195&dq=do+blacks+mature+faster+than+whites&source=bl&ots=IqEPc01USe&sig=n2YD0dPS7jlgfHLtbNPcqm9a8ac&hl=en&ei=2eeJTMqSJozK8wSgwdmVBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CEwQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false”

  4. “I’m studying a science. I cannot disclose what science that is. But it is a science.”

    LOL, the first 2 minutes are pure comedy gold. Will grab popcorn and listen to the rest later. But the first 2 minutes is some funny shit. Lol.

  5. Racism is often a product of low self-esteem and I think people like AOR and Kenneth Eng exemplify this.

  6. AD,

    The story could have been about why being Black means you’re more likely to be living in poverty?

    Sure, but that story has been told many times before. A lot of them are poorer immigrants, AND black people in Europe go through this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwpO-nnFY9g&feature=player_embedded

    See my post here:
    http://newexcursion.blogspot.com/2008/06/obama-and-black-people-in-france.html

    Its well known in the medical community that black children physically mature faster than white children.

    So do they mentally mature faster? If so, maybe they should restructure the educational system so that all those little precocious ones don’t get bored!

  7. Just finished listening to the podcast. That John Hpokins dude is sure funny. Make him a regular please. So many memorable quotes. Right off the bat he starts with -“I’m studying a Science. I cannot disclose what Science that is. But it IS a science.” Classic and it only got better after that. LMAO!!!!

    Now I know why AD doesn’t want to do a podcast. Probably would have been much funnier. Glad he didn’t fall for the trap. Lol!!

  8. mT wrote: “I’m studying a science. I cannot disclose what science that is. But it is a science.”

    LOL, the first 2 minutes are pure comedy gold. Will grab popcorn and listen to the rest later. But the first 2 minutes is some funny shit. Lol.

    I had to restrain myself from laughing when he said that. Anyway here’s my take on the podcast:

    Alpha Asian Hosts the Big WoWo Podcast

    I thought Byron and King brought up some excellent points to try to reason with AOR. I was particularly impressed with Byron’s point (and I’m paraphrasing here), \Don’t you think you’re closing yourself off to a lot of wonderful relationships and possibilities by thinking in terms of HBD?\

    That kind of sums it up for me. There are no doubt differences between groups of people, but you still got to give individuals the benefit of the doubt.

  9. Alpha, I heard it in your voice…the restraint. I think I spit out my water when I heard that. BTW, did anyone notice the slight quasi English, Australian accent he had? Is he trying to sound smart, ironic, satirical, or funny? I vote for funny because everything he sad was pretty damn funny. Anyway, it sounded like a person with a Chinese accent trying to do some weird English Australian accent or vice versa. I couldn’t tell.

    Anyway, my take on the actual podcast was this. AOR is who we thought he was. He has a lot of dangerous ideas and thoughts…and really needs to change major in college…because he’s failing hard at this Science, whatever science that is. Also, if he had some real friends, that would help. I think he’s just a lonely 6’1 well rounded individual who just happens to be Chinese American with no real friends, no real hobbies, no real sports, and no real social/emotional intelligence. And lastly, AOR has balls…big shiny brass balls…unlike Asian Dude. But I bet Asian Dude would be a lot funnier in person.

  10. “Alpha, I heard it in your voice…the restraint.”

    I think I just laughed… I tried to laugh away from the phone, but you can still hear me a little, I think.

  11. King wrote: “Alpha, I heard it in your voice…the restraint.”

    I think I just laughed… I tried to laugh away from the phone, but you can still hear me a little, I think.

    oh I’m sure both you and Byron tried to muffle your laughs with pillows.

    I think it inadvertantly lightened the mood. Instead of an angry heated debate the way the posts have been, everyone turned out to be quite reasonable and civil with each other.

  12. “So do they mentally mature faster? If so, maybe they should restructure the educational system so that all those little precocious ones don’t get bored!”
    -Yup, but it begins to taper off at adolescence. Whats to debate? During early childhood blacks possess the highest IQs, and from adolescence on it begins to regress until stabilizing at around 85.

    “Just 47.9% of white boys on free school meals managed the standard expected of them in the tests (level 4), compared to 51.6% of black boys on free school meals.”

    If you look at the figures released by the DCSF you will also find this:
    55% of the total of Black pupils are receiving free school meals whilst just 16% of the total of White pupils are receiving free school meals (16% is approx. the national overall average for all pupils). The story could have been about why being Black means you’re more likely to be living in poverty?”

    You do realize in actuality you’re comparing 55% of black students to 16% of the white students right? Please at least be intellectually honest here Jaehwan. If my reasoning is wrong, then debunk it accordingly.

  13. You do realize in actuality you’re comparing 55% of black students to 16% of the white students right? Please at least be intellectually honest here Jaehwan. If my reasoning is wrong, then debunk it accordingly.

    No, I think I’ll be intellectually dishonest and set up a trap. mT, it’s a trap!!! Guard my marbles! LOL!!!

    Okay, I’ll try to be serious. In science and statistics, you need to isolate variables. In this case, the variable happens to be race, and one of the fixed qualities (control) happens to be economic status. It’s not going to be a perfect control situation, but it’s a hell of a lot better than the Scarr Weinberg experiment. The same logic you used with the numbers used for black SAT scores. What percentage of black kids take the SATs, and under what circumstances?

    Bottom line: No evidence.

  14. Alpha,

    Instead of an angry heated debate the way the posts have been, everyone turned out to be quite reasonable and civil with each other.

    Yes, and though we ALL disagree with AOR and think his views are extremist, I think the fact that he stepped up gave us all a certain level of respect for him.

  15. Hey Bigwowo,

    Can you add me to your blogroll? I only ask because it seems like you’ve spent quite a lot of your time coursing through my blog posts and the subsequent comments It’s obviously very fascinating stuff for you, whether or not you agree with my positions. I think I deserve a place on your blogroll for being the most interesting blogger that you’ve ever come across.

    I think the worst thing right now affecting black-Asian relations in the US is the extreme xenophobia of many Asians and the resentful attitudes of many blacks. Because black women and Asian males are the losers in the miscegenation fest of the 21st century, I think the best way for all of us to fight racism (as Asian males) is to go out and game some black women. This way we can stop racial purists like myself and further blur the lines between the so called “races”. This is a great idea as well because it will allow your children to check off “black” when applying to college so that they will not have to worry about going to boring Princeton review classes. How many people can improve 400 points on their SAT? It’s much easier to be “black”.

  16. While I still think that if this podcast is adapted into a movie, AoR will be played by Mickey Rooney, I really give him respect for having the guts to face the music and present his point of view.

    But man, killing off blacks with low IQs to improve group IQ?
    Why not kill off all the European Americans with low IQ so they never have a chance to be elevated into the white male power structure?
    Will his solution to the asian stereotype consists of killing every Asian male that is not 6 feet tall?
    (I have no idea how you guys manage to hold down the rage)

  17. From Alpha Asian:

    If you’re a blogger, then you better damn well have an opinion. Otherwise there is no reason to read your ramblings. What’s the point of being a blogger if you don’t say what’s on your mind? Most AA bloggers are just bland: they don’t comment on controversial issues, and when they do, they give the most tepid lukewarm opinions. Then to top it off, they ask the readers, “What do you think?”

    Hey! That’s me! To be honest here, most of the “Asian-American blogs” (including this one) are pretty boring.

  18. “White British boys NOT on free school meals (84% of the total) attained 74.2% Level 4 and above, in comparison White British boys on free school meals (FSM) attained 48% – a gap of 26.2%. The story could have been about this huge gap in attainment and why is it that if you’re poor you do so much more badly than your peers?

    Instead the difference in attainment that’s reported is the one between Black and White pupils on FSM and even this has been manipulated. The figures reported are for ALL White pupils (including the low attainment figures for Roma and Irish Traveller pupils which bring the percentage down) and for ALL Black pupils (including the slightly higher attainment of African boys which brings the percentage up). If you look at the difference between White British boys on FSM (48%) and Black Caribbean boys on FSM (49.7%) it is 1.7% – This isn’t really a ‘news-worthy’ difference? There is however a big difference between the attainment of these two groups who are NOT on FSM: White British boys attain 74.2% whilst Black Caribbean boys attain 62.3% – a 11.9% difference. So why isn’t the story about why there are still such big gaps depending on your ethnicity?”

    “It’s not going to be a perfect control situation, but it’s a hell of a lot better than the Scarr Weinberg experiment.”
    -Well said jaehwan!

  19. @ AOR
    “Hey! That’s me! To be honest here, most of the “Asian-American blogs” (including this one) are pretty boring.”
    -LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOO, good one dude

  20. When I listening to this podcast, I kept thinking that “Asian of Reason” is actually a brilliant actor doing his best satire of a 19th-century British racial eugenicist–and trying to punk everybody here.

    With his British-sounding accent, AOR reminded me of some Adlous Huxley-like character, pushing some wacko eugenics program with people organized into alpha, beta, and gamma classes.

    AOR: You seem like a smart guy. But if you are sincere about HBD, come back from the dark side, dude. You are seriously headed down the wrong path.

    The one positive thing I got from this podcast is that it confirms what I suspected:
    Human Biodiversity is just an updated and more “politically correct” version of the racial eugenics tradition that has a long and ignoble tradition in America.

    I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

    Eugenics programs were actually implemented by America in the early 20th-century and embraced by leading US political elites and organizations–which in turn provided the foundation for similar programs in a wonderful place called Nazi Germany.

    Welcome to Brave New World!

    War Against the Weak
    http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/

    http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/178617-1

  21. @ Asian Dude and AOR: Come read a fashion design blog then! 😀 If you have girlfriends, buy them a new designer purse! Come on! I’ll give you a discount. ;-D

  22. AD:

    “@ jaehwan
    -Are you going to answer those questions?”

    Nope.

    “-Um, if I talked to japanese americans and asked them how internment affects them now, they would probably laugh at me.”
    Haha…”probably!” That’s awesome. Just like deceptive ol’ me would “probably” trick you by inviting you to a podcast.

    Dude, man, go out. I’m serious. You may be surprised by what you find.

    “-I’ve noticed that you’ve stopped using the term White Institutionalized Racism, and now just use the term institutionalized racism. Thats kind of funny. So I guess I was right about that?”

    Nope, wrong again. I don’t think I ever used “white institutionalized racism” to begin with. Go ahead, do a search. It’s you who used the term.

    “-This is a loaded question and you know it. You purposely choose to frame it in this kind of explosive context, even though its not at all conducive”

    So is that a “yes?”

  23. AOR wrote:

    From Alpha Asian,

    “If you’re a blogger, then you better damn well have an opinion. Otherwise there is no reason to read your ramblings. What’s the point of being a blogger if you don’t say what’s on your mind? Most AA bloggers are just bland: they don’t comment on controversial issues, and when they do, they give the most tepid lukewarm opinions. Then to top it off, they ask the readers, ‘What do you think?'”

    Hey! That’s me! To be honest here, most of the “Asian-American blogs” (including this one) are pretty boring.

    @AOR,

    Oh believe me I find your blog quite entertaining. I think you’re nuts, but like the Minority Militant, I do find some of your posts funny. Which is why I selected a handful of humorous blog posts for our podcast, but we never got to them due to time.

    And I think Big WoWo’s blog is pretty entertaining. Who else could get a dozen or so intellectuals to argue the IR disparity in such an entertaining fashion?

  24. Larry,

    Totally. HBD is to racism what intelligent design is to creationism. I meant to say that on the podcast but forgot.

    Alpha,

    Haha! We’ve hit IR from so many angles. And I promise we’re not done yet. 🙂 It is good to take a break though, right?

    AOR,

    I can’t add you to my blogroll. You’re definitely NOT the most interesting blog I’ve come across. Not all of the blogs on my blogroll update regularly, but of the ones that do, most probably beat yours in terms of interest. I do admire the fact that you stood up to say your piece. Better Asian Man asked me to exchange links on the blogroll when we first started talking, and I also told him no. To get on my blogroll, there are at least a few criteria:

    1. We need to agree on at least some larger issues. (which is why BAM isn’t there–I don’t think negging is going to solve the IR issue)
    2. Your blog needs to rest on logic and fairplay (eliminates yours, since the burden of proof is on you to show that races fall in a hierarchy)
    3. I need to feel comfortable endorsing that people go to your blog. Even though I linked you, I can’t really endorse your blog, since it’s more religion than science. Not to mention the fact that it’s all NEGATIVE. Activism, man! (although I admit that I don’t do much these days myself).

    If someday you turn around and embrace logic and love for your fellow human being, we can maybe revisit your request.

    Thanks for asking though.

    “Because black women and Asian males are the losers in the miscegenation fest of the 21st century, I think the best way for all of us to fight racism (as Asian males) is to go out and game some black women.”

    Umm…”game?”

  25. Let me say one more thing. I think you’re bright guy with potential, AOR. But your opinions don’t yet rest on reasoning, nor are they a fair assessment. You seek what you believe rather than opening yourself up for what the world has to teach you. I don’t know everything, but I allow the world to teach me. Your life will be that much richer if you do the same. When you meet a new person, allow him to teach you what he knows. Think about it.

    So don’t be insulted by what I said above.

  26. @ jaehwan
    “You seek what you believe rather than opening yourself up for what the world has to teach you.”
    -Haha, that is exactly what you do.

    “2. Your blog needs to rest on logic and fairplay (eliminates yours, since the burden of proof is on you to show that races fall in a hierarchy)”
    -Both of which you lack. Funny how everytime I bring up a pertinent point that you can’t debunk you just drop the subject and try to muddy the waters with some new inrelevant barb. You won’t actually argue about racial genetics because you know its a losing debate.

  27. “Your blog needs to rest on logic and fairplay (eliminates yours, since the burden of proof is on you to show that races fall in a hierarchy)”

    In that case, I think that you should delete your own blog which does not meet your own standards. Your sanctimonious harping on “burden of proof” is nonsensical and illogical. Why can’t you apply the same burden of proof to sociologists and writers who operate on the equality assumption? Please. If you want to play double standards, then OK.

    “If someday you turn around and embrace logic and love for your fellow human being, we can maybe revisit your request.”

    You mean, if one day I start lying to myself and start recanting like James Watson.

    “I can’t add you to my blogroll. You’re definitely NOT the most interesting blog I’ve come across. Not all of the blogs on my blogroll update regularly, but of the ones that do, most probably beat yours in terms of interest”

    Well then, am I the most offensive blogger you have ever met? I sure find it interesting that you took the time to scour through my archives.

    “Thanks for asking”

    I was mocking you when I made my request.

  28. @ Larry
    -I respect your point of view, however I have a question. What exactly is the mechanism that ensures completely uniformity in function across the board with regards to the different races? Why would we assume that all the different groups of humans would evolve in the same ways at the same rates? This phenomena is unheard of with regards to the rest of the animal kingdom, why would humans be exempt? What is the precise scientific mechanism by which this works? Additionally, apparently evolution has caused external features to diverge, what is the mechanism that would preclude internal features (the brain) from also being affected?

  29. AOR,

    Your sanctimonious harping on “burden of proof” is nonsensical and illogical. Why can’t you apply the same burden of proof to sociologists and writers who operate on the equality assumption? Please. If you want to play double standards, then OK.

    It’s asymmetrical. Innocence assumed before guilt, equality before inferiority.

    I realize this might be cultural. It’s the American way. It’s also the Buddhist way. It probably isn’t the only way. However, it’s my way and the way of most Americans and Buddhists.

    I was mocking you when I made my request.

    Ah, “satire.”

    AOR, my advice above was genuine. Because you stepped up, you have my respect, although I strongly disagree with your positions, views, and outlook. Unlike, um, someone else on this blog, I think you and I at least were able to put out all the issues on the table to debate them. Much respect.

    AD:

    Funny how everytime I bring up a pertinent point that you can’t debunk you just drop the subject and try to muddy the waters with some new inrelevant barb. You won’t actually argue about racial genetics because you know its a losing debate..

    Yeah, um, we all did “argue” racial genetics on the podcast. I invited you to the podcast and, uh, someone didn’t show up. Remember? You were tossing out all sorts of ridiculous excuses for not stepping up. At least AOR stepped up. I mean, seriously, I disagree with him in just about everything, but at least I respect him for courageously stepping up. He had the character and bravery to stand behind his words, unlike…well, I won’t go there because what’s done is done. But don’t you agree?

    My time is limited. Between running this blog and doing my other work in real life, I only have so much time. If you want answers, next time step up, dude.

  30. \Yeah, um, we all did “argue” racial genetics on the podcast. I invited you to the podcast and, uh, someone didn’t show up. Remember? You were tossing out all sorts of ridiculous excuses for not stepping up. At least AOR stepped up. I mean, seriously, I disagree with him in just about everything, but at least I respect him for courageously stepping up. He had the character and bravery to stand behind his words, unlike…well, I won’t go there because what’s done is done. But don’t you agree?\
    -I’ve been calling you out this whole time and you keep running off or changing the subject. I knew you wouldn’t step up. Sad…oh well, if thats what you want. To concede the debate and run off without even bothering to discuss the issue at hand with me. Why do you keep getting pwned jaehwan? Why not just stand your ground at debate the issue for once? Why keep running around it? Pathetic.

  31. Why HBD Doesn’t Work

    You may have noticed, if you heard the entire podcast, that near the end, I brought up a point that Asian of Reason both agreed to, and even repeated. The point was that there is more genetic diversity WITHIN some races than there is BETWEEN races. We all agreed to the point at the time, but it was near the end of the podcast, so there was no opportunity to explore its implications. I will just follow up here as to what I was getting at regarding the differences between perceived race and actual genetics.

    Take for example, the case of Africa. People often have a very keen idea of what a “pure African” looks like. It will usually be a very dark complected Sudanese or Congolese person with a broad nose, full lips, and type 4 hair texture. The idea being that you start from the darkest (pure) and anybody else who is lighter must be mixed with some lighter race. The same goes for hair texture or facial features, if they don’t conform to the stereotypical image of the “pure African” look, then the difference must be the result of genetic mixing with another ethnic population.

    I think that this comes from the bias of our European and American experiences of racial intermingling. We are used to seeing the results of short-term racial mixing as the norm in African variance, and rarely consider that Africans themselves don’t all look alike; aren’t all the same hue; have different features; and don’t all live in the same climate, latitude, or environment. In fact, the African continent is peopled by the widest variety of human genetic diversity on earth. Africa is not inhabited by a “race of Black people”, it is inhabited by many genetically different “races” of people, who have all adapted to some degree, to have darker skin, and denser hair texture. That is not conjecture, that is the current and nearly unanimous scientific conclusion.

    http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.genom.9.081307.164258

    I’ll try to embed a map below that demonstrates just how diverse African genetics is, based on our current abilities to test it.

    If not, here is the link to the image: http://scienceblogs.com/geneticfuture/massive_study_of_african_genet/tishkoff_africa_map.jpg

    All of the people below are Africans, born in Africa, and of African parentage:
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Desmond-Tutu.jpg
    http://www.jamati.com/online/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/90296f1f.jpg
    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_NJj1gS1wEqs/S2h2eLxpNSI/AAAAAAAADZE/d8aW_q2kUqs/s400/Lyrio+Boateng+32.jpg
    http://str8talkchronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Rwandan-Gen-Nyamwasa.jpg
    http://dakarfabulafricana.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/seynabou-3.jpg
    http://www.sohh.com/img/knaan-300×300.jpg
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Kenyan_man_2.jpg

    They’re not all the same complexion, they don’t all have broad noses, they don’t all have the same shaped lips or high cheekbones—they are different. Africa is a big continent, with a variety of different climates, and people have been living there for a very long time.

    Therefore, the terms, “Black People” or “The Black Race” are really just “catch all” terms that are used to indicate basic visually identifiable similarities, but on a genetic level, are meaningless.

    Yeah, but how different can Africans be from one another? I mean, hey, they still look kind of similar, right? Glad that you asked.

    “Stephan Schuster led a team that sequenced the genome of five people native to southern Africa—including famed anti-apartheid activist Archbishop Desmond Tutu—and found incredible genetic diversity compared to people in other parts of the world…”

    “…Gubi is the first person from an African minority population to be fully sequenced, and comparing him to the other three men from the region, shows as much genetic separation as you’d expect to find between European and Asian peoples. Says Schuster: “This is despite the fact that they sometimes live within walking distance of one another”
    Source: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/02/18/genomes-of-desmond-tutu-bushmen-show-africas-huge-genetic-diversity/

    So, some African peoples are even more different from each other genetically, than Asian are from Europeans. Then, how can you test them as a single genetic grouping? How can you theorize that the genetics of “Blacks People” limit their collective intelligence when it’s not even the same genetics??? Not even close!

    If intelligence is truly genetic, then you should be seeing vast differences in intelligence between different African populations, shouldn’t you? After all, they show the widest genetic variance from one another. However, when it comes to HBD theory, the selective criteria for testing intelligence is all based on non-scientific visual identification or self identification, yet the conclusions are expresses as uniform genetically discrete truths. That obviously doesn’t work.

  32. Now when I said something about this earlier, Bryon jumped down my throat and called me a racist. And what I said was: “blacks are more interested in becoming Rappers and football or baseball star than learning.” What’s wrong with what I stated.
    And one more thing: blacks in the country was denied education more than any other race. To my shame, white slave master forbid their slaves to read anything but the bible. (This is from a diversity class I had to take in high school). They were worried that the slaves would revolt if they learned. After Slavery, they could attend all black schools. I wonder if they had better grades at the time than today? Anybody know?
    We study about Booker T Washington and George Washington Carver.
    None of us will never know what it is like to be black in this forum or what it’s like being a black person in America. We can only read history and what’s on TV.

  33. Yay! You guys liked the cool accent I put on. The next time bigwowowowowow invites me to a podcast, I’ll bring out either my southern accent or my ebonics, which I think you will find much funnier.

  34. AOR-

    I find your support of subsidized welfare benefits seems to be a problem rather than a feature, and a more likely solution (albeit still unlikely in our current system) would be the elimination of these benefits. It would target the same groups but without the USG eliminating babies/fetuses and would instead increase prudence in those groups. Welfare elimination also leaves no room for interpretation of IQ tests, which was King’s concern. Those 3-4 points difference due to 20 years of laziness could marginally eliminate births among otherwise “eligible” parents. That error sounds like an design problem with your MOB.

    There’s no good reason to believe that in a developed society like America that black families would find a need to have as many children as in African societies, as Africans need children for labor to offset technological shortcomings. I think the comparison between black groups in these societies is dubious.

    Re: the Israeli birth control system, the international community created Israel, and if it won’t let them claim Gaza, then we can probably predict who will be controlling Israel’s welfare system in the next 30 years. If Israel were actually independent they’d own more than Israel.

    A MOB sounds to me like it would be parasitic, in that using our current civil service as a model you’d be inviting more people to join it and therefore lower the IQ requirements in order to increase the size of the bureau. This is how the civil sector works in America, which I’m sure you know. I’m interested in hearing under what model government you’re imagining your MOB forms, because it could never form in our current one.

  35. Pingback: Manifesto for Young Asian Women: The Life of Shiuan’s Vagina (Review) | bigWOWO

  36. Noam Chomsky wrote about this back in 1978
    http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1978—-.htm
    Skip down a few paragraph to get to the Race and IQ issues.

    All the debates about the details of HBD is moot, because in a decent society, rights and conditions are not contingent on any differences in endowment. Leftists and egalitarians are not arguing that people are identical beings, but that social and political rights should be equal for every member of a diverse society, including minority groups, people with a different sexual orientation, and people with disabilities. It is really a problem with values and not with the science.

  37. You seem to be arguing for communism with the statement, “rights and conditions are not contingent on any differences in endowment”. If this were the case, then it would then follow that Lebron James has no right to his x million dollars a year salary, unless of course, his ability to play basketball has absolutely nothing to do with “differences in endowment” and everything to do with the right nurturing environment.

    “Rights” should not be contingent on any differences in endowment. But conservatives and liberals disagree on what exactly these “rights” are and should be.

    As for “conditions”, that’s very hard to argue for, as I pointed out above.

  38. “If this were the case, then it would then follow that Lebron James has no right to his x million dollars a year salary…”

    Lebron James’ multi-million dollar salary compensation is not a human or even a civil right.

    Yes, he has the “right” to earn a salary for rendering value to another, (through his work) but he could just as easily be competing in a system where the entire team was paid a flat salary which was divided between them all, with only small differences in compensation based on individual points scored.

    Lebron does not have some specific “right” to be paid millions of dollars for what he does.

  39. There’s a lot of simple silliness that comes up in the conversation. One guy, I think it is “King,” states that there is no evidence for a genetic basis of intelligence. It would be laughable to say this if it wasn’t so stupid. If intelligence had no root in genetics how could people evolve to be smarter than our ancestors? Further, there is an abundance of twin studies out there, that show that identical twins reared in different environments are very similar in terms of IQ, not to mention a wide variety of other traits. Also I encourage you to read Steve Hsu’s blog as he, with BGU, is doing research to identify the actual SNP’s that relate with intelligence.

    Asian of Reason is an exception, but I get the impression that everyone else in the conversation simply has not done basic research on the topic of HBD. They are not well-read on the subject so they really do not know what they are talking about.

    Asian of Reason points out, most outrageously, that people not only differ at the individual level in part due to genetics but also at the group level.

  40. Shawn wrote:

    “One guy, I think it is “King,” states that there is no evidence for a genetic basis of intelligence.”

    I really don’t remember that part. Actually, I don’t think that happened. I could be wrong. Could you tell us the time that King stated this?

    We’ve ALL done research into racism, I mean, HBD. All of us.

  41. The comments are around minutes 49-50:10 if you care to listen to them.

    Most of that anti-HBD arguments were downright embarrassing. I don’t even think the concept of IQ is really understood properly. If you want a good primer on IQ I suggest you watch Steve Hsu’s talk at Google which I recently watched:

    http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2011/08/this-is-video-of-talk-i-gave-at-google.html

    First of all the whole idea of not being “racist ” means that one cannot say that race is superior than another, especially with in regards to genes. But if individuals are different due to their genes (the most ardent leftist would not dispute this) when individuals are grouped the groups must be different, again due to their genetics (duh); but this is racist to say, I guess, and goes to show how what is called “racism” is really a denial of certain uncomfortable truths. One group must be superior in certain regards (certain traits) whereas another must be inferior; this is not to say that one race is holistically superior it just means that for any given trait (say extroversion or athleticism) they are not identical because their genes are not identical (duh). This is also not to say that one group should be more equal under the law or that certain people are intrinsically worth more than others.

    Different races form different clusters because they tend to share more genes when compared to other clusters. Race can be thought of as an extended family (genetically speaking); people tend to have more in common with their family, genetically speaking than their ethnicity, and their ethnicity, again genetically speaking, tends to have more in common compared to other ethnicities within their racial group, and then races differ; there tends to be an outwards expansion of sorts in terms of genetic similarity. For example at the gene level there are even differences between an an average Swede and and average Norwegian, which have been genetically mapped, two groups which are already very similar ( http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2008/12/resolution-of-genetic-population.html ).

    Further search Steve Hsu’s site under the label “genetics and you will find lots of links to the current scientific literature, etc.:” http://infoproc.blogspot.com/search/label/genetics

  42. Shawn,

    Thanks for your comment, and I may check out what you posted, BUT I have to defend King here, because you misheard.

    You wrote: ““One guy, I think it is “King,” states that there is no evidence for a genetic basis of intelligence.”

    Listen to it again. King didn’t state that there is no evidence for a genetic basis of intelligence. It’s subtle when you hear the communication, but King asked Asian of Reason if AOR had any evidence–not for a “genetic basis of intelligence,” but whether there is a GENE or GENES that determine intelligence–and AOR said no. It was a question, not a statement, and AOR eventually went on to say that it’s because not a lot of research has been done in the area.

    FYI, the old AOR blog is gone, but AOR is actually a big fan of Stephen Hsu. So I’m sure he has researched everything that you wrote above.

  43. Man, I’m listening to this again. What a great podcast. 🙂

    Long, I hope you’re well and healthy.

  44. Listen closer to the 50 minute mark and a little afterwards and he says it outright (even as you state it he strongly implies it). There actually has been a lot of study done in the area: twin studies. Now we have the technology to actually identify the specific genes, which will be done by BGI.

    The whole concept of genetic differences can be figured out via basic inductive logic and reason; i.e. you do not have to find find the genes to know they exist. A layman can induct it via common sense.

    Put simply:

    1) Individual people differ in traits due to genetics (evidence: it would have to be the case for evolution to occur; also twin studies have provided overwhelming evidence).

    So,

    2) When individuals are lumped into groups the groups will vary as far as any trait is concerned (height, IQ, skin color, athleticism personality, etc.) in part due to genes.

    Then,

    3) Therefore for any certain trait — because the groups vary one group will be in the position of being superior while the other(s) would be “inferior.”

    Now this is just to say that groups differ in the aggregate, that is, when certain traits are examined. I’m not saying that holistically one is better than another or that one race should get preferential legal treatment, etc.

    Racism as defined by Webster, Americas preeminent dictionary:

    “1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
    2 : racial prejudice or discrimination”

    As to definition one the word “primary” is operational as to whether or not HBD is is “racist.” As to definition “2,” HBD could not not necessarily meet that definition.

    No one in HBD suggests that it is all genetics. We just acknowledge that genes work with environment to shape who were are and that there are differences. We are not out to harm people but we do not want to spread a lie, even if it is a so-called “noble lie.”

    Right now a lot of my thinking, when I hear liberals talk, is whether they are actually not intelligent or well-read or if they are instead putting forth a “noble lie;” I believe it is a bit of both on most cases. I have come to believe that certain academic frauds like Gould, Rose, Kamin actually did not believe their own science (e.g. Kamin outrageously suggested the heritability of IQ could be zero); they were smarter than that. It was all about creating a “noble lie” to help different groups live together peaceably. I propose that people can handle the truth, that is, when they realize that a person’s worth is in their humanity and not in their differing abilities.

  45. King said 49:30:
    “…This is something that we really don’t know, therefore we can’t really blog on the idea that intelligence is genetic, unless we have proof” then a little later …”you don’t have any genetic background for it.”

    Okay, so if I understand King correctly, there is no proof that intelligence has a genetic basis and therefore we can’t blog about it. This is disingenuous at best…

  46. Proof as in evolution, proof as in twin studies, and soon we will have actual proof via the SNP studies. Can we talk about it now, or is that “racist?” Huh, King?

  47. Shawn, this is a loaded topic and whenever it comes into the public domain, discussion will always be moulded by implications. This topic will never be discussed solely on the merits of the facts, because the facts leave out the political and social impacts of the topic.

    The social impact can be significant. We’re discussing intelligence now, but will you also accept that Asians also have smaller penises (based on “studies” conducted), are smaller and punier than white men (based on under-representation in sports and media coverage) and are not as sexually attractive as their white and black peers (also based on “studies” conducted), and this time have all of it attributed to “genetics”?

    How do such beliefs impact the lives and mental attitudes of people? It may be just about the facts to you, but some of us also have the intuition that this isn’t just about the facts, that this type of science can be used to propagate and justify another layer of racism or even other sinister motives, and that this idea that traits are primarily determined by genes can hamper the human spirit because it places a psychological cap on the majority of people as to what they can achieve.

    Most driven people never truly believe in limits no matter how you try to impose it. But the majority of people do. If they’re ignorant of it they can at least try and learn something or make cumulative improvements in the process.

  48. The social impact can be significant. We’re discussing intelligence now, but will you also accept that Asians also have smaller penises (based on “studies” conducted), are smaller and punier than white men (based on under-representation in sports and media coverage) and are not as sexually attractive as their white and black peers (also based on “studies” conducted), and this time have all of it attributed to “genetics”?

    Yes I would be willing to accept all of that. Why not? It’s part of being open to HBD, living in the real world, and being an adult. I would rather believe in the truth than believe some “feel good” lie that is BS. By the way none of us in HBD attribute “it all to genetics.” Perhaps you knew that but said it anyways? We just acknowledge that genes and environment both shape who we are.

    “How do such beliefs impact the lives and mental attitudes of people?”

    That’s the moral dilemma which I addressed. Should people believe in a “noble lie?” It seems to me that you are a proponent of it, like some scientists are which I aforementioned. Truth is better for people than wishful thinking. We need to deal with reality. There are those who deny evolution because they thought its acceptance would harm our social order. Remember, no race is best at anything.

  49. “Okay, so if I understand King correctly, there is no proof that intelligence has a genetic basis and therefore we can’t blog about it. This is disingenuous at best…”

    Just catching up.

    Shawn, I’m assuming that you’re talking about primarily about this new study.

    http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp201185a.html

    You might want to read this article below, to get a more rounded idea of what it means and doesn’t mean – which is likely to be more informative than the tidal wave of misinformation currently being spouted about it (in lock step) on all the HBD blogs.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/09/genetic-differences-intelligence

    As for my statements in the Podcast, I was speaking within the context or “RACIAL INTELLIGENCE” not on the idea that there is no genetic component at all to individual intelligence and heredity. I have said many times (including in the podcast) that when it comes to intelligence and genetics that we simply don’t know *to what degree* it effects cognitive aptitude or outcome.

    So, to be clear, variation or heritability of intelligence among individuals is NOT the same as the individual genetic inheritance of a “trait.” That is the outcome of the study, and that still does not come close to making the case for “racial intelligence,” which is likely the point that you desperately would like to make.

  50. Shawn:

    “…This is something that we really don’t know, therefore we can’t really blog on the idea that intelligence is genetic, unless we have proof” then a little later …”you don’t have any genetic background for it.”

    “Okay, so if I understand King correctly, there is no proof that intelligence has a genetic basis and therefore we can’t blog about it. This is disingenuous at best…”

    First of all, nothing King said was untrue. “You” (AOR) had no background and no one on the call had any proof. That was established just a minute or so earlier.

    Second, you seem to be unfamiliar with how debates work. You should turn on some Court TV to watch how lawyers question people on the stand. Or you should read something, anything, by Plato. (Incidentally, this is part of the whole emphasis on the humanities that I’ve been trying to promote.) See how Socrates establishes agreement, and then moves from there. It’s was typical for Socrates, the father of Western philosophy, and it’s common in American courtrooms today.

    That’s exactly what happened. At the beginning of what you posted, King questioned AOR, and AOR himself said that he had no proof that there was any gene or genes that were responsible for intelligence. Once both parties agreed on that, there’s no longer any need to question it. Your beef isn’t with King, it’s with the Asian of Reason.

    But let me defend AOR too. His blogs are no longer up, but if I remember correctly, he had some pretty prominent conservative and/or HBD proponents who posted on his blog–Derbyshire and Sailer among them. He may be young, but he did the research and was acknowledged by the HBD community as someone in the know. I’d say that if there was proof of a gene or genes responsible for intelligence, he’d be one of the first to know about it.

  51. The problem with trying to make an absolute case even for hereditary intelligence is that intelligence itself is something of an illusive concept. A good example would be that of the prodigious idiot savant (like in the movie “Rain Man”). The savant character in the movie (Raymond Babbitt) was a high-level mathematics prodigy on one hand. However, on the other hand, he was barely able to function socially or to take care of himself, due to the effects of his autism. The question is, was he brilliant or was he an idiot? And the answer is that he was both.

    So if you happen to inherit Savant Syndrome, is that a case of inheriting superior or inferior intelligence or? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome

    The answer is that it all depends on how you want to define intelligence. Intelligence is a concept, not a feature, like black hair, or blue eyes. It’s ALWAYS highly debatable, and without an absolute metric for measurement. This is why it can only be observed in general terms in individuals or in families. But when you try to apply a fuzzy concept like intelligence to and even fuzzier concept, like race, the result is both ridiculous and hilarious.

  52. King,

    There is zero evidence for the stance that racial groups are genetically identical, be it for superficial traits (e.g. hair color, eye color, etc.) or those which are not (intelligence, personality, etc.). However there is a good example that the “clusters” or races are not identical due to divergent evolution over the past tens of thousands of years. This is why I am in the HBD “camp” of reasoning.

    Who cares what the precise definition of intelligence is; it’s irrelevant. When we talk about IQ we are referring to a trait which is highly correlated with a number of desirable (or not so desirable outcomes). People with high IQ scores are more likely to finish college (especially in a challenging major), get higher grades, perform better at work, earn more money, stay out of prison, less likely to have children out of wedlock, are more likely to be eminent scientists, etc. The fact that certain individuals can have a high IQ and mental illness does invalidate the fact that whatever is measured (you can call it the ability to solve problems, intelligence, or whatever you choose) by an IQ score has a strong statistical predictably for many life outcomes.

    You can learn a good deal about genetics and IQ by watching this talk at Google: http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2011/08/this-is-video-of-talk-i-gave-at-google.html

  53. I made a typo. When I wrote “However there is a good example that the “clusters” or races are not identical due to divergent evolution over the past tens of thousands of years,” I meant to write evidence instead of “example.”

  54. I will add that the precise evidence at the gene level for genes for ability will soon be discovered now that we have the technology to do so. China does not have the PC hangups with regards to this type of research. Check this out: http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=663ae01bd1dac210VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=hong+kong&s=news

    At some point masses of people from different races and ethnic groups will be tested in mass for the specific genes that will be identified as being associated with IQ. The odds that the probability distribution of such traits will be identical amongst the groups are astonishingly small. It’s going to be harder to support genetic egalitarianism with cheap gene sequencing.

  55. Who cares what the precise definition of intelligence is; it’s irrelevant. When we talk about IQ we are referring to a trait which is highly correlated with a number of desirable (or not so desirable outcomes).

    Are you saying that you can accurately test for a condition that you cannot accurately define? How can you test for something with precision that you cannot even define with reasonable precision?

    I’ll give you another example for the fuzziness of understanding intelligence. Take something as simple as basketball. Putting the ball into the basket takes a rather precise skill. That skill is calculating ballistic trajectory, which is a rather complex mathematical skill. Here is the formula:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajectory_of_a_projectile#Distance_travelled

    That calculation has to be made within a split second every time a basketball player takes a shot. And those split second calculations are clearly correct, in many cases, based on the number of successful outcomes. So are basketball players geniuses?

    Most would say no, because these guys aren’t doing the calculations consciously, but unconsciously – clearly the brain is doing the calculations, but not the side of the brain that we respect for doing it. But then again, there are people who can understand musical composition almost in the same way. There are geniuses in every field who seem to have freakish powers that we can’t explain through conscious processes. For example:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95L-zmIBGd4

    Again, is this intelligence? Is this tested for? Does this show up in an IQ test, or not? And to some degree, how similar are such skills when compared recognized geniuses of the past? Does intelligence only based on conscious thinking or is the subconscious also part of intelligence? IT matters.

    More later when I can get back to you.

  56. “Are you saying that you can accurately test for a condition that you cannot accurately define? How can you test for something with precision that you cannot even define with reasonable precision?”

    We do not have to say that we are necessarily testing for intelligence when we are testing for IQ (although personally I call it intelligence); people can call it what they want to (reasoning ability, whatever).

    The fact is that whatever is being tested for is strongly correlated with a lot of positive or negative outcomes, depending upon whether or not an IQ is high or low. Whatever IQ means can be open to debate with the scores still being highly relevant to many important outcomes in life.

    I think we are arguing about different things. You are saying the definition of intelligence is fuzzy and with that I agree. I am saying that whatever is being measured by IQ is highly relevant in life, which you don’t seem to dispute. Further IQ tests are not a perfect indicator of all abilities, including many sporting activities (although the NFL uses an IQ test, the Wonderlic). I do think there is an association between IQ and certain musical abilities, however. The fact that a single test cannot measure everything (no test does) does not make it invalid for use in the social sciences.

  57. Do you really not se how this effects the process?

    “We do not have to say that we are necessarily testing for intelligence when we are testing for IQ”

    Even though I.Q. is short for “Intelligence Quotient?” So… the Intelligent Quotient test isn’t testing for Intelligence?

  58. In response to the above it is a non-issue.

    You could call an IQ test a “reasoning test,” and argue about what the definition of “reasoning” is. Or you could call it an “intellectual battery” and argue about what an “intellectual battery” is. There is no perfect term for what it measures. “Intelligence Quotient” is probably just as good as any term but that is my opinion. What we do know, as I have mentioned, is that it is useful because it correlates with certain life outcomes.

  59. So therefore, if someone gave an Algebra test in the 8th Century A.D., and they discovered that the Hindus, Arabs, and North African peoples, showed proficiency in Algebra (among their educated classes) but failed to find proficiency amongst the Germanic tribes, then that would prove a genetic ability for advanced mathematics in the non-Germanic peoples?

    Or would it just mean that at that point in the continuum of history, certain cultures were developing certain advances in mathematics? Why would those advances be necessarily genetic?

  60. King, You are very unintelligent. You construct a straw man argument. Your hypothetical example does not control for culture or genes. So no, of course not. Why would you even suggest such a stupid experiment?

    Most of the heritability research regarding genes is done with identical twins who have been separated at birth and thus are raised in different SES environments. They tend to be far more similar than unrelated individuals hence the heritability argument.

  61. Hahah! A strange accusation, since you freely admit that you can’t even define intelligence, remember dummy?

    Let me cut to the chase. We were discussing “racial intelligence” with AOR. Are you trying to make a case for racial intelligence, or are you just saying that there is a genetic component to intelligence? That is the real question at hand.

  62. King, good points you bring up in your arguments. You’ve obviously done a lot of homework on the subject matter: you bring up a lot of nuance in the debate around “intelligence” that others try to avoid.

  63. Now, now. No need to insult each other.

    Since it would take practically forever to address every individual points made on this thread in detail, I will simply address a few points.

    King,
    we can say intelligence consists of or can be demonstrated by various abilities, which would agree with your examples. Although there isn’t a consensus on what intelligence really is, we can intuitively say that an IQ test assesses cognitive abilities which are themselves a subset of intelligence.

    For instance, if I ask ‘7 + 8 = ?’ to a group of people, assuming that they have taken basic arithmetic classes, I can intuitively say for certain that this question assesses some subset of intelligence.

    Shawn,
    I agree with your argument by inductive reasoning. However, I see a glaring gap. What group(s) do you mean? Are there some significant groups of humans that can be classified without much fuzziness? Clearly, arbitrarily chosen groups will mean little to nothing. I will admit my lack of expertise in genetics here.

    Raguel,
    I agree with you that this is a loaded topic. But, I sincerely believe knowing the truth would be far better in the long run than the alternatives.

    As for myself, I am borderline leaning towards ‘there may be some differences in a subset of intelligence because of race’. This doesn’t mean of course that I view a race as superior amongst others. Perhaps, there just isn’t enough hard evidence to prove/disprove racial intelligence yet. Again I admit my lack of expertise in genetics.

  64. @King

    Shawn is a white dude, and most likely to be a rice-chaser as well.
    So of course he’s happy to assume black people are stupid and Asians guy have small private parts.

  65. @ Raguel

    Thanks! I think intelligence is more complex than most people (especially HBD types) are willing to admit.

    @ N

    No doubt! So easy to believe falsehoods that costs you nothing, but are held at the expense of other groups.

    @ Reader

    Because this is the internet, insults come with the territory. Every medium has it’s quirks. I’m not above a gutter brawl when I deep it to be necessary. Insults are met with the same.

    “…we can intuitively say that an IQ test assesses cognitive abilities which are themselves a subset of intelligence.”

    Correct. An IQ test assesses a *slice* of the intelligence pie. Of course, the size, texture, and shape of the pie is subject to change. That is called a “fluid definition.”

    “For instance, if I ask ’7 + 8 = ?’ to a group of people, assuming that they have taken basic arithmetic classes, I can intuitively say for certain that this question assesses some subset of intelligence.”

    The problem of assessment is more complex than that. Part of it has to do with how important arithmetic is in the culture of the test taker. Of course, in your example, you are using very basic arithmetic, but as it gets more complex you also have to deal with a component of cultural worldview, logic, and academic tradition. You have a long way to go before you can simply conclude that the reason that a person tests low on an IQ test is because they possess “stupid genes.”

    “As for myself, I am borderline leaning towards ‘there may be some differences in a subset of intelligence because of race”

    I’m afraid that is quite ridiculous. There is no genetic research that indicated for race- based differences in intelligence. ALL arguments for this idea are based on raw extrapolation rather than direct evidence.

    But then, common sense should give you some clue to the reality here. If the Greeks (for example) were genetically more intelligent than the other peoples of the Mediterranean region, than they obviously should have maintained their edge of superiority. Why then did the empire begin to decline after the death of Alexander? Did they suddenly get genetically stupid again? Where have the Greeks been for the past 2500 years? Where are the modern Greek philosophers? Where are the Greek Nobel laureates? How many men have the Greeks put on the moon? WHERE oh WHERE are the Greek ECONOMISTS, hmmm?

    And when the Romans arrived, and copied Hellenic culture wholesale, did they suddenly become a genetically smarter ‘race’? Maybe it was just coincidence that by copying the most successful Mediterranean culture of the time, they also had greater success on every level —or was it because their genes got better?

    NONSENSE.. use your brain man!

  66. “I agree with you that this is a loaded topic. But, I sincerely believe knowing the truth would be far better in the long run than the alternatives.

    As for myself, I am borderline leaning towards ‘there may be some differences in a subset of intelligence because of race’. This doesn’t mean of course that I view a race as superior amongst others. Perhaps, there just isn’t enough hard evidence to prove/disprove racial intelligence yet. Again I admit my lack of expertise in genetics.”

    Reader, research into the subject matter continues despite public opinion. Scientists can and do go about with research into the genetic basis of traits quietly and without interruption.

    Our knowledge and understanding in this area is still in its infancy. Much of what we “know”, we know through hypothesis and inference – knowledge that can and will change with new developments and discoveries. So who are all these people – people not directly involved with the research – doing their utter best to convince us that this small body of research proves a particular thing absolutely?

    Do they have a dog in this fight?

    It has been brought up that the subject of genetic pre-determination is not as loaded in Asia as it is in the West. The answer is simple: Asia is not haunted by the spectre of science perverted into racial mythologies or eugenics programs as a justification for ethnic cleansing or class warfare. (What research Imperial Japan did was appropriated by America)

    The idea that traits can be attributed to race and genes and that they are absolute is not new. Centuries ago, Americans and Europeans used this as a justification for the enslavement of people from Africa, they have used it as propaganda to wage war against Asians, comparatively recently they have even formed shady eugenics programs on the basis of pseudo-science in order to conduct ethnic cleansing. The excesses of the racial obsession in Nazism is not new, shit like that has happened a long time before and also after the fall of Nazi Germany.

    Being cautious about the implications of the fledgling research in this area is not hiding the truth, it is not a “noble lie”, it is simply the prudent recognition that there exists a palpable need by some quarters and some individuals -perhaps even a tradition, perhaps a HISTORIC tradition, perhaps even a motivation as basic as the need to eat sleep and fuck – to use this research to push their own agendas and to manipulate public opinion towards their own ends.

  67. [The problem of assessment is more complex than that. Part of it has to do with how important arithmetic is in the culture of the test taker. Of course, in your example, you are using very basic arithmetic, but as it gets more complex you also have to deal with a component of cultural worldview, logic, and academic tradition.]

    I agree and disagree. Assessment of what? Sure, assessment of complete intelligence would be complicated, if not improbable today. In my example I only intended to assess the basic arithmetic skills of the testee, not assess the complete intelligence of a person. And in the case of an IQ test, it is only intended to assess whatever subset of intelligence it tests.

    [You have a long way to go before you can simply conclude that the reason that a person tests low on an IQ test is because they possess “stupid genes.”]

    Oh? Well, I wouldn’t go so far as to say ‘stupid’ genes because ‘stupid’ is always a relative/comparative term (stupid in comparison to what? A human? A Donkey? A carrot?). Your statement isn’t exactly my position on this. I would say that a low IQ would indicate a higher chance of possessing ‘stupid genes’.

    [I’m afraid that is quite ridiculous. There is no genetic research that indicated for race- based differences in intelligence. ALL arguments for this idea are based on raw extrapolation rather than direct evidence. ]

    Sure, there is scant if any reliable genetic research currently compared to other fields of endeavors, but how exactly would the absence of evidence imply that my position is ridiculous? If anything, it should provoke open-mindedness to all possibilities, however dreadful they may be.

    For instance, if someone proposes that the Earth resonates at a certain frequency and there was not yet any research on this possible physical phenomena (now known as Schumann resonances), can you outright reject this concept as ‘ridiculous’ ?

    […If the Greeks …were genetically more intelligent than the other peoples of the Mediterranean region, than they obviously should have maintained their edge of superiority. …]

    Not exactly. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that having a higher intelligence would certainly guarantee ‘superiority’. I would say that having a higher intelligence would mean a greater probability of social/economic success. Then there is the problem of this term ‘higher intelligence’. This term doesn’t make sense since ‘intelligence’ itself is not a number. It would make more sense to say an intelligence factor.

    [NONSENSE.. use your brain man!]

    Forgive me…I had forgotten my brain was in a cryogenic freezer. *puts brain in head* I am now using my brain. Please continue.

    [Reader, research into the subject matter continues despite public opinion. Scientists can and do go about with research into the genetic basis of traits quietly and without interruption. ]

    Good. Then I salute them.

    [So who are all these people – people not directly involved with the research – doing their utter best to convince us that this small body of research proves a particular thing absolutely? …it is simply the prudent recognition that there exists a palpable need by some quarters and some individuals … to use this research to push their own agendas and to manipulate public opinion towards their own ends.]

    Sure, I agree there will always be racists who join the ‘bandwagon’ and that we should be cautious about any policies which bases its merits on genetics/race.

    I’m arguing for the possibility that there may be differences in IQ between races.

    I really don’t see where you and I disagree with what you just said.

  68. @ Reader,

    Well said. A few points of contention.

    “In my example I only intended to assess the basic arithmetic skills of the testee, not assess the complete intelligence of a person. And in the case of an IQ test, it is only intended to assess whatever subset of intelligence it tests.”

    Would that the second sentence of your statement were true, but it is not. An I.Q. test is a tool based on a particular belief. That belief is that people are born with (or very quickly develop) a set amount of intelligence that fact determines their cognitive abilities and/or limitations throughout their lives. All assumptions in the I.Q. debate are based upon this a priori belief. So the “subset of intelligence” that you mention, is always further extrapolated to be a significant indicator of total cognitive ability. That is essentially what is meant by having a certain “quotient of intelligence.”

    Others however, believe that intelligence is dynamic—that the use of intellect expands one’s intellectual abilities, just as the misuse or lack of use may cause intellectual atrophy. In other words, most people are capable of expanding their intellectual abilities significantly, or reducing their abilities, with a much smaller number of exceptions on the very low and very high ends.

    “Oh? Well, I wouldn’t go so far as to say ‘stupid’ genes because ‘stupid’ is always a relative/comparative term (stupid in comparison to what?”

    As compared to persons who are supposed to possess superior genetic intelligence.

    “if someone proposes that the Earth resonates at a certain frequency and there was not yet any research on this possible physical phenomena (now known as Schumann resonances), can you outright reject this concept as ‘ridiculous’ ?”

    Of course not. But if a person said that they were leaning towards that hypothesis, based on an utter lack of evidence, then that would be the ridiculous part.

    “Then there is the problem of this term ‘higher intelligence’. This term doesn’t make sense since ‘intelligence’ itself is not a number. It would make more sense to say an intelligence factor.”

    I agree. But intelligence itself is so complex, and race is so poorly defined that it seems clearly impossible to bring those two concepts into a reasonable theory of “racial intelligence.” On the other hand, there is clear evidence of a cultural base for knowledge transfer, and values transfer that makes fertile ground for high-level thinking. Why try to poorly explain something that has a much more readily apparent explanation?

  69. @King and Reader

    History shows that Highly successful/Academically excelling parents doesn’t necessarily produce equally successful/academically excelling offsprings. If intelligence (whatever that is) can’t be guarranteed to be inherited from one gen to the next, even by direct bloodline, how could anyone even think about relating it to Race?

  70. I just love how those inbred Hillbillies, the kind that join the White nationalism bandwagon, rant about racial superiority, obviously to their favor. These guys are always saying that Asians haven’t produced anything of value, or lack creativity. Meanwhile, their existence in the provincial rural south is supposed to make them creative and productive like they say it to be.

    Raguel, How about making a case that AFs desire WMs due to some genetic material lacking, and wanting from the other? I have heard this before!

  71. Chr that is no joking matter and is in fact true.

    A few examples:

    If you have observed a large number of white women from America, Europe and Sweden/ Norway have a preference for darker skinned men from all sorts of countries.

    The reason is simple: ozone depletion is causing large amounts of ultraviolet rays to penetrate the atmosphere and is hurting the white people there, causing all sorts of nasty cancers. In the past, humans developed lighter skin and hair color because living in the north you had reduced sunlight, so your skin needs to be able to absorb sunlight in order to produce Vitamin D. Darker skinned people living in the far north are also in the medical literature for not being very healthy because they don’t get enough sun, but don’t ask me to quote sources this is from memory and I’m not like that nerd Response who has shit like this handy for internet debates. So when these white women drop their pants for Turks and Moslems from Algeria etc they are actually hedging their bets genetically by ensuring their offspring has genes from both a light skinned parent and a dark skinned one, this way, future generations have a better chance of adaptation.

    This is especially important because Chernobyl’s fallout fell over large parts of Sweden and Norway, so selection pressure caused by cancer is very high.

    Of course, the men would also have sex with darker skinned women if they could, in fact most would like to have as many sexual partners as possible.

    It’s just too bad that they can’t. XD

  72. “Of course, the men would also have sex with darker skinned women if they could, in fact most would like to have as many sexual partners as possible”

    I guess you were an ex-PUA, so I wouldn’t want to say otherwise.

    I just think it doesn’t apply to most AMs. AMs are ranked at the bottom when it comes to desirability in the Western realm.

  73. Lol, how true is that? Have you travelled the entire Western realm and sexed all the women there? :p

  74. @ Raguel

    “I’m not like that nerd Response who has shit like this handy for internet debates.”

    Yea your like one of those cool guys who likes to make shit up as you go along. Your just lazy and uninformed.

    It takes a few minutes to find studies on the internet backing up what you say if it has any merit. Unfortunately for you what you say has none, then when someone proves you wrong you just start insulting them.

    Because that’s what cool guys do

  75. Why thank you.

    I put in a lot of time and dedication in the effort to become cool, I’m glad its paid off.

  76. “Lol, how true is that? Have you travelled the entire Western realm and sexed all the women there? :p”

    It’s a myth to say that European women are more open to Asian men than American women. Definately not true, and much of this sis pread like a rumor. Go to countries like Spain, Italy and Greece, and the women there generally don’t care for Asian guys.

    I have been hearing “well, Eastern European Women like Asian Men”. Well, yeah, they are poorer and do like men with money – straight in the face golddigging attitude that is.

  77. I’m very sure its a myth Chr, but it changes nothing. The sexual game is ultimately played on an individual level, not collective. A tall, good looking and well socialized Asian man would have better reception anywhere he goes than a short, ugly and boring Asian man.

    It might be good for an Asian man to worry about his own individual qualities, than obsess over how he may be perceived.

  78. “I’m very sure its a myth Chr, but it changes nothing. The sexual game is ultimately played on an individual level, not collective. A tall, good looking and well socialized Asian man would have better reception anywhere he goes than a short, ugly and boring Asian man.

    It might be good for an Asian man to worry about his own individual qualities, than obsess over how he may be perceived.”

    I’ve been saying it all along. There is a discrepancy between Asian guys when it comes to this. It’s not about ALL Asian men, but the individual guy. But you know how the story goes, AMs are oppressed in the dating world. That seems to be the drum beat we’ve been hearing for a long time. At least for a decade if I can remember.

  79. Raguel,

    Just to dissect what you said in your last post again.

    “A tall, good looking and well socialized Asian man would have better reception anywhere he goes than a short, ugly and boring Asian man.”

    There’s not much of a reception if you ask many!

    “It might be good for an Asian man to worry about his own individual qualities, than obsess over how he may be perceived.”

    We are all obsessed by how others perceive us. Focusing on self qualities doesn’t get you the deal. Just ask those Asian guys before they became PUAs!

  80. King,

    [But if a person said that they were leaning towards that hypothesis, based on an utter lack of evidence, then that would be the ridiculous part.]

    I disagree. I think we all can anticipate an answer to an open-ended question in general, even if we do end up with different conclusions.

    [I agree. But intelligence itself is so complex, and race is so poorly defined that it seems clearly impossible to bring those two concepts into a reasonable theory of “racial intelligence.”]

    Well, we’ll just have to wait and see. There were once scientists who said that heavier-than-air flying crafts were impossible.

    [On the other hand, there is clear evidence of a cultural base for knowledge transfer, and values transfer that makes fertile ground for high-level thinking.]

    Sure.

    [Why try to poorly explain something that has a much more readily apparent explanation?]

    I disagree. There could be more to intelligence than the currently accepted factors, which is why we should keep an open mind.

    N,

    [History shows that Highly successful/Academically excelling parents doesn’t necessarily produce equally successful/academically excelling offsprings. If intelligence (whatever that is) can’t be guarranteed to be inherited from one gen to the next, even by direct bloodline, how could anyone even think about relating it to Race?]

    The key word is probability.

    \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
    Although some readers here may dislike him, I agree with what Shawn had stated in one post:

    [I propose that people can handle the truth, that is, when they realize that a person’s worth is in their humanity and not in their differing abilities.]

    Especially since I believe we will eventually be surpassed in every way by artificial intelligence. But that’s another story.

  81. “I disagree. I think we all can anticipate an answer to an open-ended question in general, even if we do end up with different conclusions.”

    It is profitless to anticipate the results of the scientific process on any issue before they have been established. Neutrality, patience, and equanimity, are the proper postures to take when the science is still inconclusive. When you don’t have evidence then you don’t have an opinion.

    Well, we’ll just have to wait and see. There were once scientists who said that heavier-than-air flying crafts were impossible.

    There once also alchemists who thought that they could turn lead into gold by boiling it along with certain minerals, in an iron caldron, and stirring it with an oar.

    What are your thoughts on dynamic intelligence?

  82. “I propose that people can handle the truth, that is, when they realize that a person’s worth is in their humanity and not in their differing abilities.”

    That old bromide is true only in theory, it is NEVER true in practice.

    In practice, people who are deemed to be most valuable to society are soon deemed to be the most human. People who are thought to be less valuable are deemed to be sub-human with alarming rapidity.

  83. [It is profitless to anticipate the results of the scientific process on any issue before they have been established. ]

    Not necessarily. For one thing, it can spark new ideas which differ from the original. It can quench that burning curiosity inside you.

    [Neutrality, patience, and equanimity, are the proper postures to take when the science is still inconclusive. When you don’t have evidence then you don’t have an opinion.]

    Sure. What you have stated doesn’t conflict with what I have stated. I can still anticipate/predict a result while still maintaining neutrality and the above (as in able to accept an opposing view) to an open question.

    [There once also alchemists who thought that they could turn lead into gold by boiling it along with certain minerals, in an iron caldron, and stirring it with an oar.]

    Haha! I see your point. We’ll have to agree to disagree.

    [What are your thoughts on dynamic intelligence?]

    Frankly, I have not heard of ‘dynamic intelligence’ in the technical sense of the word. Please elaborate.

  84. [That old bromide is true only in theory, it is NEVER true in practice.]

    Never true? Would you rather trust person A who is smart but deceitful or person B who only knows basic math but is trustworthy?

    [In practice, people who are deemed to be most valuable to society are soon deemed to be the most human. People who are thought to be less valuable are deemed to be sub-human with alarming rapidity.]

    Fair point. Though you could clarify what ‘valuable’ mean. Valuable as in how?

  85. Shawn wrote:

    ““I propose that people can handle the truth, that is, when they realize that a person’s worth is in their humanity and not in their differing abilities.”

    Shawn’s statement has all kinds of flaws:

    http://www.bigwowo.com/2011/08/a-person%E2%80%99s-worth-is-in-their-humanity-and-not-in-their-differing-abilities-and-the-art-of-racist-deflection/

    Actually though, it’s not really Shawn’s statement. I’ve seen numerous HBD religious freaks saying the exact same thing–he’s just repeating the sales pitch. I was raised a fundamentalist Christian, so I sympathize with Shawn. He’s imbibing the Kool Aid.

  86. Pingback: “A person’s worth is in their humanity and not in their differing abilities,” and the Art of Racist Deflection | bigWOWO

  87. “Would you rather trust person A who is smart but deceitful or person B who only knows basic math but is trustworthy?”

    It depends on if the first person was smart and deceitful enough to run for office. Take a good look at who is running the governments around the world, in most cases, and answer your own question.

  88. King,

    [“Would you rather trust person A who is smart but deceitful or person B who only knows basic math but is trustworthy?”

    It depends on if the first person was smart and deceitful enough to run for office. Take a good look at who is running the governments around the world, in most cases, and answer your own question.]

    In my case, I happened upon this scenario where I could only confide my trust in one of two people with the above attributes at a specific time in the past. I did not regret my decision.

    If we are speaking of governments, sure.

    My point being that you have said the old ‘bromide’ was never true in practice, and where I now did point out under specific circumstances that it can at least be true on at least some occasions.

  89. @ Reader

    Perhaps I should have made the point that I was speaking in the sociological sense, not in the sense that no single individual in earth’s history had ever done so.

    Dynamic Intelligence is essentially the belief that cognitive ability is not static but dynamic. In other words, it is subject to expansive or reductive practices. It means that people (when free and capable to chose so) can exercise their intellectual muscles and ‘grow their intelligence’ or can diminish their cognitive speed, memory recall, and problem-solving skills, by allowing cognitive atrophy .

  90. [What are your thoughts on dynamic intelligence?]

    [Dynamic Intelligence is essentially the belief that cognitive ability is not static but dynamic. In other words, it is subject to expansive or reductive practices. It means that people (when free and capable to chose so) can exercise their intellectual muscles and ‘grow their intelligence’ or can diminish their cognitive speed, memory recall, and problem-solving skills, by allowing cognitive atrophy .]

    To a degree, I agree that cognitive ability can be dynamic, subject to the environment, health, and one’s willingness to exert mental effort.

    However, it is clear that genetics has to be a primary factor of intelligence. Several simple searches in Google will yield the necessary technical papers for this.

    —————————-
    Really, there’s been too much focus on what we call cognitive ability that some even obsess over it. People take for granted the very important unconscious tasks we perform daily.

    Quoting from Moravec,

    [Encoded in the large, highly evolved sensory and motor portions of the human brain is a billion years of experience about the nature of the world and how to survive in it. The deliberate process we call reasoning is, I believe, the thinnest veneer of human thought, effective only because it is supported by this much older and much powerful, though usually unconscious, sensorimotor knowledge. We are all prodigious olympians in perceptual and motor areas, so good that we make the difficult look easy. Abstract thought, though, is a new trick, perhaps less than 100 thousand years old. We have not yet mastered it. It is not all that intrinsically difficult; it just seems so when we do it.]

  91. “To a degree, I agree that cognitive ability can be dynamic, subject to the environment, health, and one’s willingness to exert mental effort.

    However, it is clear that genetics has to be a primary factor of intelligence. Several simple searches in Google will yield the necessary technical papers for this.”

    We all agree that genetics plays some role, just not genetics based on your skin color. And of course, there are so many other factors that play a role (ones we can control ourselves) it seems rather impractical to think of an I.Q as a set quantum.

  92. [We all agree that genetics plays some role, ]

    Sure.

    […just not genetics based on your skin color.]

    Presently, there is relatively little reliable research into race and intelligence (or a subset thereof), but the answer will be found eventually. I will comment no further on this since we will be going in circles.

    [And of course, there are so many other factors that play a role (ones we can control ourselves) it seems rather impractical to think of an I.Q as a set quantum.]

    As far as I know, there is no evidence to say that we can purposefully change IQ significantly after a certain age. If you do find a reliable study indicating this, please enlighten me.

  93. I’ll have look around for the studies. I know many people who have taken IQ tests at different times in their lives and have gotten dramatically different scores.

  94. @ Raguel

    You can change I.Q. scores just by reading more, or going to school for a few years. The idea that I.Q. scores define some sort of upper limit to a person’s intelligence, for the rest of their lives is nonsense.

  95. Pingback: The Perversity of “Human Biodiversity,” a.k.a. “Scientific” Racism | bigWOWO

  96. Pingback: Eugenics in American History | bigWOWO

  97. I’m currently listening to this and my mind is about to explode and I’m currently trying, desperately, to remember the eugenics lecture I sat in on in an APA convention that was held in Pittsburgh, PA earlier this year.

    Someone needs to a take a class in history and systems of psychology. Eugenics is not racist in itself but the people who back it and the era it came out of—racist as f*k.

  98. What really galled me is the idea that this is somehow original and unique to the internet age. It’s like, dude, c’mon, this stuff is old.

  99. Pingback: The experiences of an affirmative action supporter (podcast) | bigWOWO

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *