So how far are we from saying "my genes did it?"

Clearly, you unwashed masses yearn for it.

So how far are we from saying "my genes did it?"

Clearly, you unwashed masses yearn for it.


When they find the " Romanetics" gene then everything will be solved. :D

Pssh, I think that's falsenetics.

Pssh, I think that's falsenetics.

It comes directly from the knowledgegentic gene, so it knows.;)

But in all seriousness, there's a great deal of people that think black people are stupid due to their genes. Even James Watson says so.

So the next time a black guy is in court for stealing a TV, could he say it really wasn't his fault?

So how far are we from saying "my genes did it?" ...



Isn't that, essentially, what the sodomites are saying these days? Surely the mass murderers and serial rapists will follow suit. After all, they were "born that way." Their "genes" provide a valid, cogent explanation.

there's a great deal of people that think black people are stupid due to their genes

Do you?

Isn't that, essentially, what the sodomites are saying these days? Surely the mass murderers and serial rapists will follow suit. After all, they were "born that way." Their "genes" provide a valid, cogent explanation.

I'm not sure what relation enjoying a good anal pounding and enjoying killing hookers has to do with one another, except on a very superficial level.

But in all seriousness, there's a great deal of people that think black people are stupid due to their genes ...


Perhaps our stupidity is a function of innate, hard-wired traits which are not associated with "genes" per se. We can't all be "smart" or even "average." There has to be a frame of reference with which to compare "smartness" or "averageness."

Hence our stupidity has both social and scientific value.

But in all seriousness, there's a great deal of people that think black people are stupid due to their genes. Even James Watson says so.

So the next time a black guy is in court for stealing a TV, could he say it really wasn't his fault?

The law is a tricky business that has nothing to do with truth, but everything with what can be proven within a particular context.

And you know that if one tries hard enough, pretty much anything can be "proven".

So how far are we from saying "my genes did it?"
Already there. This scientific concept is called the extended phenotype.

Central Theorem of the Extended Phenotype:

An animal's behaviour tends to maximize the survival of the genes "for" that behaviour, whether or not those genes happen to be in the body of the particular animal performing it.

I can't wait for society to accept the (blatantly obvious) conclusion that genes are the primary determinant of differentials between individual human behaviour. I'm rubbing my hands together in anticipation of rounding up the dysgenics for extermination.

I can't wait for society to accept the (blatantly obvious) conclusion that genes are the primary determinant of differentials between individual human behaviour. I'm rubbing my hands together in anticipation of rounding up the dysgenics for extermination.

You ever take a genetics course?
I just finished taking one this semester. It's so fucking complicated, there's no way genes are the only source of behavior. Epigenetics is a huge field right now. Makes sense, too, from an evolutionary standpoint. With high investment offspring, it's better to give them a bunch of genes that code for everything, then have the environment switch them on or off.

Otherwise, you're stuck with 4 kids that don't function, since some dinkus didn't code the gene.

But obviously, you're a layman, and haven't much of a clue.

I said PRIMARY. PRIMARY. Learn to read.

Or even the primary. Every time you use your brain, you're literally rewiring it. You think those thoughts are floating around, up in the ether? That when you "change your mind" it's because of some nebulous concept like "reason" or "logic"? Synapses dude. Turning off, turning on, switching places. Skillions of connections.

That right there tells me that environment has way, way, way more to do with it than genes, presuming that we all have more or less the same genes, which, according to most genetic studies, we do.

And sorry to name call. I didn't mean it.

Or even the primary. Every time you use your brain, you're literally rewiring it. You think those thoughts are floating around, up in the ether? That when you "change your mind" it's because of some nebulous concept like "reason" or "logic"? Synapses dude. Turning off, turning on, switching places. Skillions of connections.

That right there tells me that environment has way, way, way more to do with it than genes, presuming that we all have more or less the same genes, which, according to most genetic studies, we do.

And sorry to name call. I didn't mean it.

Why didn't you answer my question about this quote , there's a great deal of people that think black people are stupid due to their genes again I ask, do you?

But in all seriousness, there's a great deal of people that think black people are stupid due to their genes. Even James Watson says so.

So the next time a black guy is in court for stealing a TV, could he say it really wasn't his fault?

Well dude. Let's say hypothetically a defective gene causes you to grow two dysfunction legs. They're cute little nubs, but nonetheless completely nonfunctional. As a result, you buy yourself a wheelchair. What would be so wrong with him saying "My defective gene (my genes) made me buy a wheelchair!"?

Similarly, we know that blacks have significantly smaller brains than other races. This is caused by genetics. We also know that brain size strongly correlates with intelligence (big surprise). We've known for a long time through identical twin studies that intelligence is inherited through genes, probably due to the influence they have on the brain. It's not an unfounded conclusion.

To answer your question though, past a certain point, whose fault it is becomes irrelevant. If you do not punish the crook, he will lose the incentive to commit crime. Society needs to punish antisocial behavior. Insane people who cannot help themselves need to be helped, but people, regardless of whether they're stupid, if they can help themselves, they need to be conditioned to behave in ways that will not break society.

Similarly, we know that blacks have significantly smaller brains than other races. Somebody has to say this is BS every time somebody says it, I suppose,

to help deflect some of the bunch of people who could know better and don't, on top of the crowd who just doesn't seem capable of grasping the concepts involved.

"Black" is not a genetically defined race. It probably never will be, unless human evolution and genetic organization took a completely unexpected turn we don't know about yet, 200,000 years ago.

Back a few years, someone pointed out that women have significantly smaller brains than men, Chinese have significantly smaller brains than Poles, and modern white men have significantly smaller brains than either dolphins or Neanderthals.

So does having a grossly enlarged brain explain Neanderthal behavior? Or does it just explain the fact that only white people can swim? Enquiring minds want to know.

Neanderthals are a different animal from Homo sapiens. The two cannot be directly compared. Also, since you brought it up, Neanderthals did not have larger brains than us. Their brains were about the same size. However, they had smaller bodies than us, so relative to body size, yes, they had larger brains. But again, they're a different animal, and therefore, direct comparison does not make sense.

Also, East Asians have brains that are about the same size as whites. However, they have smaller bodies, and therefore, relative to body size, they have larger brains than whites. They, however, unlike Neanderthals, are Homo sapiens, so comparison does make sense. They have a higher EQ (encephalization quotient) than whites do, and so it could be predicted that they, would exhibit higher cognitive ability; this is in fact, precisely what has been found. Their IQ is about 6 points higher than for Whites.

Yes, women have smaller brains compared to men, by about 10 percent. However, their bodies are also significantly smaller, so the brain size relative to body size isn't huge. However, they still have higher EQs than women, and also higher IQs, by about 5 points.

In sum, brain size does matter. If you doubt it, do some reading. Also, brain size is largely determined by one's genetics. It's been known for some time that intelligence is a highly heritable trait. However, you can't reasonably make the argument that because one animal has a larger brain than another and is more stupid than that animal that brain size is unimportant. I hope that's not an argument you wish to pursue.

Also, East Asians have brains that are about the same size as whites. However, they have smaller bodies, and therefore, relative to body size, they have larger brains than whites. So it isn't the small brains of the blacks, but their large bodies, that make them stupid. So the smartest blacks would be African Pigmies, and as the Japanese and Chinese get bigger bodies with post war prosperity (their heads haven't been increasing in proportion, or they would look very odd) they are getting stupider ?

Or is the effect of diet and environment on human "encephalization quotient" one of the many things we must overlook, like the fact that many demographic groups of blacks have larger heads relative to their bodies than many groups of whites and yellows (and reds, a category often left out of these kinds of analyses, perhaps because the data from it tends to torpedo the whole approach), or the influence of childhood and maternal blood lead concentrations on IQ scores.

Maybe we should guide our Presidential selection by encephalization quotient, eh? My guess is Obama takes the prize. He has an Indonesian look to his build, for some reason.
Neanderthals are a different animal from Homo sapiens. The two cannot be directly compared. Also, since you brought it up, Neanderthals did not have larger brains than us. Their brains were about the same size. However, they had smaller bodies than us, so relative to body size, yes, they had larger brains. - - Well, if we are arguing about encephalization quotients among different kinds of apparently human beings Neandertals belong in there somewhere.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_2.htm

Comparison of Cranial Capacities
range (cm3) - average (cm3)


chimpanzees 300-500 ----
australopithecines 390-545 ----
Homo habilis 509-752 - 610
Homo erectus 750-1250 - 970
Homo heidelbergensis 1100-1390 - 1206
Neandertals 1300-1750 - 1450
modern Homo sapiens 900-1880 - 1345

Note the large range among modern humans. A newborn human baby has about 25% of the brain weight of an adult - at least 75% of the physical growth of the human brain is directly influenced by things like diet, pollution, stress, etc. That's discounting maternal diet and environment, for the first 25% and the epigenetic influences.

According to John Komlo's exhaustive studies, the difference in median height at age 18 between all measured human large demographic groups except bona fide genetic pigmies, when corrected for environment and gender, is probably less than half an inch. There have been no such studies on brain size.

My environment did it..

So it isn't the small brains of the blacks, but their large bodies, that make them stupid. So the smartest blacks would be African Pigmies, and as the Japanese and Chinese get bigger bodies with post war prosperity (their heads haven't been increasing in proportion, or they would look very odd) they are getting stupider ?

Look man, I'm not saying anything that is especially scientifically controversial. There have been multitudes of studies which indicate that brain size relative to body size correlates powerfully with intelligence. If you don't agree, then disprove the studies. But not here. That's not what this thread is about.

That said, it's my opinion that their small brains relative to their bodies contribute to their low intelligence. It's almost certainly one of the many possible causative factors.

Or is the effect of diet and environment on human "encephalization quotient" one of the many things we must overlook, like the fact that many demographic groups of blacks have larger heads relative to their bodies than many groups of whites and yellows (and reds, a category often left out of these kinds of analyses, perhaps because the data from it tends to torpedo the whole approach), or the influence of childhood and maternal blood lead concentrations on IQ scores.

Diet and environment probably do have an effect on intelligence. That's been demonstrated. However, it's been demonstrated to have a very small effect on intelligence, which almost completely disappears when the person becomes fully mature. The heritability of IQ is around .8-.85, which is an extremely high number.

Maybe we should guide our Presidential selection by encephalization quotient, eh? My guess is Obama takes the prize. He has an Indonesian look to his build, for some reason.
What the heck are you talking about?

Well, if we are arguing about encephalization quotients among different kinds of apparently human beings Neandertals belong in there somewhere.

As said before, Neanderthals are different animals than Homo sapiens. Comparing the two does not make sense. They are different animals with different brains.

Note the large range among modern humans. A newborn human baby has about 25% of the brain weight of an adult - at least 75% of the physical growth of the human brain is directly influenced by things like diet, pollution, stress, etc. That's discounting maternal diet and environment, for the first 25% and the epigenetic influences.

Okay, are you leading up to a point? When are you going to contradict what I have said?

According to John Komlo's exhaustive studies, the difference in median height at age 18 between all measured human large demographic groups except bona fide genetic pigmies, when corrected for environment and gender, is probably less than half an inch. There have been no such studies on brain size.

What's the point?



I'm saying that intelligence is controlled by genetics, which has been demonstrated again and again. Identical twin studies prove it. I'm also saying that brain size powerfully correlates with genetics. Again, multitudes of studies back this up. I'm also saying that blacks have very low IQs and also have small brains (relative to body size). I'm saying that logic strongly suggests that these data are related. And I'm not asking you to take my word for any of this. Look it up.

I'm saying that intelligence is controlled by genetics, which has been demonstrated again and again. Identical twin studies prove it. I'm also saying that brain size powerfully correlates with genetics. Again, multitudes of studies back this up. I'm also saying that blacks have very low IQs and also have small brains (relative to body size). I'm saying that logic strongly suggests that these data are related. And I'm saying that none of that comes under the heading of "not very controversial", or even "probably not bullshit".

Including your assertion that Neandertals were a "different kind of animal", that SE Asians have genetically established encephalization quotients higher than others, and so forth.

There is no such group as "blacks", in the sense of a group that inherits encephalization quotients and/or "intelligence", OK? You find me a study that demonstrates the existence of "blacks" as a genetic group, and I'll think about listening to your "logic" about related data sets.

Meanwhile, have you considered Komlos's work on body size ? Your encephalization quotient kind of depends on that, so you may want to take an interest.

He seems to have data indicating that height variation between large demographic groups of humans is almost entirely environmental in origin.

Height variation within a given demographic group is largely inherited, of course - taller parents breed taller children, within a given group, on average - but not between groups.

Consider the implications of that, for encephalization quotients, intelligence comparisons between large demographic groups, etc.

Roman:

Or even the primary.


I disagree.


Every time you use your brain, you're literally rewiring it.


Why don't some people's brains rewire as effectively as other people's? Why do those with Down's Syndrome have a lower IQ? Do non-human animals have the same 'rewiring' ability, to the same extent, that humans have?

I'm not arguing that environment shapes behaviour. However, I would argue that genes affect/bias how one reacts to the environment. For example, abuse by parents may cause one particular genetic construct to slip into depression and commit suicide, whereas another genetic construct will have the 'right stuff' to get on with life.

Fran-sauce:
So basically what that study shows is that all humans have basically the same sized head, but different sized bodies? Wouldn't that imply, if anything, that physical ability differs between groups, but intelligence is relatively even?

Mountainhare:
I don't disagree that genetics isn't involved. Hell, what makes us people IS genetics! But the variation between people, I think, isn't going to be as genetically based as you think. I'm not arguing that behavior isn't deterministic, but the belief that differences in genes accounts for most of human behavior, is frankly, intellectually stunted.

I don't disagree that genetics isn't involved. Hell, what makes us people IS genetics! But the variation between people, I think, isn't going to be as genetically based as you think. I'm not arguing that behavior isn't deterministic, but the belief that differences in genes accounts for most of human behavior, is frankly, intellectually stunted.

A fact I find very important is that people can learn, can change, can improve. But since change and improvement are not all that common, it seems easy to blame it on the genes.

However, people who have overcome an addiction, mastered a music instrument even if they started practising as adults, have gone from obese to athletic and so on - these people will tell you than humans can learn and change - even a lot.
In the face of this, it is hard to believe that it is all just in the genes.

And I'm saying that none of that comes under the heading of "not very controversial", or even "probably not bullshit".

Okay. Do you know what you're saying here? You're saying that the multitudes of established scientific studies which indicate that intelligence is almost entirely inherited are complete bunk. You're saying that the multitudes of established scientific studies which indicate that brain size relative to body size strongly correlate to intelligence are bunk, and you're also saying that the multitudes of established scientific studies which show brain size differences between the races are bunk. You must have a problem with established science. Again, this stuff is established and well known and I'm not asking you to take my word on any of it. I think it's more probable that years of science are right and you, some random dude on the Internet forums, are wrong. You're making some extraordinary claims which require extraordinary evidence which you have not given.

Including your assertion that Neandertals were a "different kind of animal", that SE Asians have genetically established encephalization quotients higher than others, and so forth.
I thought you were better than that. Now you're making strawmen? When did I say that Neanderthals were a "different kind of animal." You even put it in quotes. But I don't see myself doing that. Please be honest. I said that they were a "different animal" from us. Which they were.

There is no such group as "blacks", in the sense of a group that inherits encephalization quotients and/or "intelligence", OK? You find me a study that demonstrates the existence of "blacks" as a genetic group, and I'll think about listening to your "logic" about related data sets.

I'm not sure what you mean by "genetic group." But I know that I can tell the difference between an Asian person and an African person. I'm not going to put myself through the tedium and explain all of the physical traits which differentiate them, but the point is that their phenotypic traits are caused by genetic triggers. It is genes which cause a Chinese person to look like a Chinese person and an African person like an African person. Therefore, there are probably a number of genes which make a person black, and another person white, right? White people have "European genes" and black people have "African genes." (I know, we all have African genes. Hell, we all have Asian genes, and African genes again before that, due to ancestral migration patterns.) I don't know what the whole fuss about the "there is no race" argument," frankly. If we all agreed there was no race, then there would have to be another word invented to describe the same thing.

I never really comprehended that "there are no different races" argument. We've gone off track enough in this thread, however. Maybe you could explain that argument to me in another thread or PM?

Meanwhile, have you considered Komlos's work on body size ? Your encephalization quotient kind of depends on that, so you may want to take an interest.

He seems to have data indicating that height variation between large demographic groups of humans is almost entirely environmental in origin.

Height variation within a given demographic group is largely inherited, of course - taller parents breed taller children, within a given group, on average - but not between groups.

Consider the implications of that, for encephalization quotients, intelligence comparisons between large demographic groups, etc.

This really does no harm at all to my argument. Everything about us is "almost entirely environmental in origin." What do you think shapes our genes? We do not form our genes in a vacuum, that is for sure. Our environment shapes them.

Big. Deal.

Again, you've done nothing to disprove (or even put a significant dent into) the studies which indicate that EQ strongly correlates with IQ or that genetics determines intelligence.



Urgh! That's not even what this thread is about, is it?

Fran-sauce:
So basically what that study shows is that all humans have basically the same sized head, but different sized bodies? Wouldn't that imply, if anything, that physical ability differs between groups, but intelligence is relatively even?


Actually, I don't know where you got any of that from. Absolute brain size correlates with intelligence. Brain size, relative to body size, correlates with intelligence even more powerfully. There are differences in absolute brain size among the different races, but when you take body size into account, the differences become more pronounced.

Clearly, if you've looked at the research, IQ among the different groups can hardly be called "even."

Mountainhare:
I don't disagree that genetics isn't involved. Hell, what makes us people IS genetics! But the variation between people, I think, isn't going to be as genetically based as you think. I'm not arguing that behavior isn't deterministic, but the belief that differences in genes accounts for most of human behavior, is frankly, intellectually stunted.

Read some studies on identical twins. Identical twins score nearly the same on IQ tests, almost as if they were the same person taking the test twice. MRI studies show identical twins to have almost the exact same brains. This is significant because identical twins have the same exact set of genes as each other.

Okay. Do you know what you're saying here? You're saying that the multitudes of established scientific studies which indicate that intelligence is almost entirely inherited are complete bunk. No, I am poitning out that they cannot be used to compare intelligence on an absolute scale across demographic groups.

I used the example of height, which is uncontroversial in measurement and less loaded in implication. Chinese do not belong to a shorter genetic group than Canadians, for example, according to John Komlos's work (by far the most exhaustive in the field).
I'm not sure what you mean by "genetic group." I noticed. You seem to confuse the concept with such things as sociological "races".

A group defined by common possession of certain sets of genes or alleles.

- - Absolute brain size correlates with intelligence. Brain size, relative to body size, correlates with intelligence even more powerfully. There are differences in absolute brain size among the different races, but when you take body size into account, the differences become more pronounced. Or less pronounced, when the differences in body size between far-flung groups are shown to be environmental, and not genetically, established - as Komlos ans others seem to have pretty solidly done.

And you reflect that no one has even attempted to show that differences in brain size between sociological groups are genetically established.

And brain size is much easier to establish than intelligence - the measurement of intelligence is full of famous inconsistencies and problems, especially if the goal is to compare different sociological groups.
This really does no harm at all to my argument. It destroys it completely. None of the studies, research, etc, you cite have anything to do with your argument, in the absence of establishing the genetic groups in the first place, and ruling out the environmental variation in the second.

Similarly, we know that blacks have significantly smaller brains than other races.

The same article states that:

Further, the head-size difference between the two races was extremely small, about 1 per cent. [Edward M. Miller] [which may be sample variance]. The perinatal study found a significant correlation between body weight and I.Q., yet Miller has not suggested that obese people have superior intelligence.

Diet and environment probably do have an effect on intelligence. That's been demonstrated. However, it's been demonstrated to have a very small effect on intelligence, which almost completely disappears when the person becomes fully mature. The heritability of IQ is around .8-.85, which is an extremely high number.

It is very difficult to demonstrate such results. In fact I doubt any serious research is done on this. For example when one of my kids IQ in school test came out to be 168, no one knocked at my door asking permission to test diet etc. To test diet or nutrition, one has to do a double blind test of a twin, test the IQ first and then feed nootropics for two years and see what happens. I doubt anyone is doing such research. My other kid has an IQ of 200 and is superb in math and science but has no social skills. Never wish your kid to have super IQ, he will be a social outcast. 160 is the max you want to achieve but that can be done using nootropics from early childhood if you do not have the genes. It is like putting an after market turbo-charger on a four banger.

No, I am poitning out that they cannot be used to compare intelligence on an absolute scale across demographic groups.

I used the example of height, which is uncontroversial in measurement and less loaded in implication. Chinese do not belong to a shorter genetic group than Canadians, for example, according to John Komlos's work (by far the most exhaustive in the field).

Why can't they?

Some Chinese are freakishly tall. But usually pretty short compared to whites. Certainly genes are at least partly causing it, right? Height is inherited, isn't it? I don't frankly see how this is relevant to the point. Intelligence is inherited. That's what science says.

The only thing I can think of which you mean by "there is no genetic group(s)" is that there are no gene variations common to people of different races which cause them to have the distinctive, and minute, features they have in common with one another. That the genes which, say, make a black person look black, are different from person to person? In other words, different black people are black by different means. Is that what you mean? I'm asking because I don't want to impose any strawmen.

Although I doubt it's mostly true and that mostly, blacks have a lot of the same gene variation, because of the rules of parsimony, it makes no difference. So they meet the same ends by different means. So what?

I noticed. You seem to confuse the concept with such things as sociological "races".

A group defined by common possession of certain sets of genes or alleles.
Well, I just wanted to be clear and know precisely what you meant. So you're really saying that blacks do not have more genes in common with one another than, say, an East Asian person? Then how does it make sense for scientists to say "Watson has 6 (or I forget the number) times more black genes than the average white person." Wait--black genes?! Doh!

And you reflect that no one has even attempted to show that differences in brain size between sociological groups are genetically established.
The rule of parsimony strongly suggests they are. Intelligence is extremely highly heritable. Different groups vary in intelligence quite drastically. As in with height, there must be some genetic component.

And brain size is much easier to establish than intelligence - the measurement of intelligence is full of famous inconsistencies and problems, especially if the goal is to compare different sociological groups.
Properly administered IQ tests are not culturally biased. If IQ tests, designed by white men, are culturally biased, wouldn't East Asians do pretty poorly on them? In fact, they do not. They do significantly better than whites. They mostly indicate something that is true about a person.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1520][/url]
It is not known what exactly "g" is. But these new findings suggest that "g" is not just a statistical abstraction, but rather, that it has a biological substrate in the brain, says Robert Plomin, of the Institute of Psychiatry in London. Plomin has spent eight years looking for genes behind "g". "I'm convinced that there are genes," he says, a lot of them, each with a small effect.

The same article states that:

Further, the head-size difference between the two races was extremely small, about 1 per cent. [Edward M. Miller] [which may be sample variance]. The perinatal study found a significant correlation between body weight and I.Q., yet Miller has not suggested that obese people have superior intelligence.

No.... noo noo. That's not how EQ works. There is some complex mathematics involved in reaching an encephalization quotient, and I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with how fat a person is.

It is very difficult to demonstrate such results. In fact I doubt any serious research is done on this. For example when one of my kids IQ in school test came out to be 168, no one knocked at my door asking permission to test diet etc. To test diet or nutrition, one has to do a double blind test of a twin, test the IQ first and then feed nootropics for two years and see what happens. I doubt anyone is doing such research. My other kid has an IQ of 200 and is superb in math and science but has no social skills. Never wish your kid to have super IQ, he will be a social outcast. 160 is the max you want to achieve but that can be done using nootropics from early childhood if you do not have the genes. It is like putting an after market turbo-charger on a four banger.

You're saying we have the nootropics now which can make a kid have an IQ of 160? I'm not saying that's false, but it sounds like a pretty amazing claim. I do seem to remember reading an article about scientists injecting mouse embryos with choline (a chemical which the body uses to make acetylcholine, an important neurotransmitter needed in learning and memorizing) and it made the mice super smart. It made the brain much quicker and ready to LTP. It made them learn extremely quickly compared to the control. Needless to say, that would be really interesting to try on some humans, from a purely scientific perspective.

No doubt, nutrition and other environmental stresses can have a large impact on one's intelligence. If a mobman takes a few cracks to your temple with a baseball bat, that might do something to lower your IQ. For those people, the heritability of IQ might be very small. However, the point is, those things usually don't happen. Heritability of IQ for a group is an average, and that average is very high.

You're saying we have the nootropics now which can make a kid have an IQ of 160? I'm not saying that's false, but it sounds like a pretty amazing claim.

I am not saying it will go from 50 to 160 using nootropics. The point I failed to make is that IQ is not fixed with genes. Yes, the genes will give you certain amount, but they can be enhanced since conception. Just like in a body building profession people get bigger physically using chemicals, so can one enhance mentally in the same route. If a pregnant mother takes readily available DHA, I can gurantee that the IQ of the child will boost 20 points over family numbers. Just like body building, early childhood is the best time to boost mental capacity.

I had a friend's kid who suffered from stroke at age 18 that reduced his motor function 70%. After a year of therapy it improved to 50%. So, we tried a different route. Using nootropics (including Choline Bitartrate) and a new meditative techniques that I developed from my teachings, we were able to restore motor functions to 99% in a year. His cognitive functions also improved. The neurologist was amazed and talked about doing the same to his other stroke patients but never followed through. So, we will never know if that process was a fluke or actually works on all people.

Some Chinese are freakishly tall. But usually pretty short compared to whites. Certainly genes are at least partly causing it, right? Height is inherited, isn't it? Height is inherited within a given environment and demographic - tall parents have tall children, on average (there is normally regression to the mean, of course).

But height differences between whites and yellows, as groups, are not genetically established. There is no genetically established difference in height between Chinese and Europeans (at least, it's less than a centimeter).

There are no genetically established differences in height between any two sociological "races", as far as anyone can show.

That is according to John Komlos's et al research - and they have done the exhaustive research that has been done in the matter.

There is as yet no proposed reason "intelligence" (whatever it is) should follow any different pattern than height. There is certainly no evidence that it does.

The essential problem with trying to say this or that "race" is genetically shorter, smarter, etc, is that the races themselves are not genetically established or, probably, genetically establishable. You haven't taken the first, necessary step in setting up valid research.
Properly administered IQ tests are not culturally biased. That would be the definition of "proper administration". In order to show your test has been properly administered, you would have to show lack of cultural bias in the results. Has anyone done that ?

Has anyone figured out what a properly administered IQ test measures, exactly ?

If IQ tests, designed by white men, are culturally biased, wouldn't East Asians do pretty poorly on them? Not necessarily. They may be biased toward authoritarian childraising, for example. Or misogyny. Or fish as the main source of dietary protein. Or a lack of lead in the childhood environment. Or experience with close hand work. Or emphasis on visual rather than auditory memory. etc etc etc.

So how far are we from saying "my genes did it?"

Clearly, you unwashed masses yearn for it.

Say that too often and the response will be "then we'll remove your genes from the population".