Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Causes of International Differences in Cognitive Ability

So are you saying that IQ doesn't necessarily determine creativity, national wealth or achievement?

How is it that there can be significant variation within a race and still be a racial hierarchy in intelligence? Is this variation caused by genes or environment? As for Native Americans and the recent evolution of intelligence theory are you talking about The 10,000 Year Explosion? If so, I haven't read the book so I can't comment on its research. If you have let us know. Also perhaps you could explain what your specific views are on the evolution of human intelligence and the evidence supporting a racial hierarchy.

I base my views on the evolution of human intelligence on the arguments of C Loring Brace:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The argument that, assuming out of Africa is even true, human evolution stopped 100,000 years ago for no reason with no evidence? Good one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's not the argument being made. The argument is that because human intelligence has equal survival value in all environments it doesn't show a clinal distribution. Brace provided biological and archeological evidence backing up his argument.

Read the article for yourself:

https://mega.nz/#!nRVH3RaZ!ZN_jzo2REdop-_iz1PWACTJ6lp8HHlxhIY-m-tntc_I

Yesterday I purchased Chris Stringer's book Lone Survivors: How We Came to Be the Only Humans on Earth. Stringer told me via email that this book covers race and human intelligence in detail. When I am finished reading I will update the thread with his arguments.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why don't you briefly run through the points of evidence?

 

No. We are assuming that defining human "races" according to skin color is absurd, and no such pattern (even if it existed) would be meaningful.

You might also note that you are confused about the "hodge podge", because you have overlooked the summary nature of even an accurate and meaningful IQ test averaged over a population. In other words, you are talking about the "same" sociological pattern. The average skin racial pattern of omega 3/6 ratio in the diet is obvious, for example: and it happens to align and overlap quite well with the average skin racial pattern of literacy and local income inequality, childhood stress and neurotoxin (maternal and prenatal also) exposure, breastfeeding and nutrition, and so forth. These are sociological (and geographical) patterns that align and overlap with other sociological (and geographical) features such as skin color racial identity.

Problem is, in addition to being posited it's measured: and it's bigger than the variation between the "major races", and it correlates with location and culture and other environment rather better than with "race", major or minor.

This happens when you try to make sense of the IQ variation in terms of "major races" and "minor races" defined according to skin color. Nothing works, which is not surprising because you have no biological mechanism connecting skin color and IQ, but instead of simply abandoning your major and minor race presumption (as a scientist would) you flail around trying to find some other way of defining skin color races that will line up with your IQ scores. Geography! Skull shape! Genetics!

Give up.

 

Well you are just lying, since we have been over this. I defined race by ancestry, as it was always defined. Why do you need to rely on cheap lies to defend your position?

 

Well, you didn't. You said you were going to, but none of your defined races were based on ancestry, and when I handed you examples of various people whose skin color gave you a different answer than their ancestry you went with skin color every time.

 

More lies. Where did I do that?

 

When you put the Siberians and North American reds in one race, and the Russian whites in a different one. When you drew a circle that included the Maasai with the Mbuti in the same race but separated the southern Indians and many of the Ethiopians from the French. When you denied that the Irish and Scottish and Welsh and Gypsy were different races. And so forth.

Clearly ancestry means nothing to you, if it conflicts with your skin color assessment.

 

Lol. It shows genomic similarity between individuals. Each of the dots is one individual. You mean you totally failed to understand how these PCAs are made? Since shared ancestry is inferred from genomic similarity and shared ancestry defines race it has everything to do with race.

The circles include a range of skin colors and necessarily group by genomic similarity, since it is a plot of genomic similarity. If I was grouping by "skin color" why didn't I put Japanese with Europeans? Why do I include South Asians with Europeans? Your cheap strawman lie that you repeat ad nauseam grows tiresome.

You are just repeating yourself.

Are you denying that this graphic shows genomic similarity? Are you denying that genomic similarity infers shared ancestry? If you want I can link to the author of the graphic, and pull up plenty of sources to support me. But I'll guess you'll ban me on some technicality for disagreeing with your Communist Lysenkoist pseudoscience nonsense.

Cheap name calling adds nothing to your already bankrupt argument, which is basically repeating "no it isn't" like a petulant child.

 

The article provides the following evidence:

1. There are adaptive traits all human populations have in common (ex. salinity, iron content and blood pressure and other biochemical and physiological features).

2. Human intelligence has adaptive value.

3. Modern humans evolved from Homo Erectus based on mandibular evidence.

4. Based on Archeological evidence human populations during the Pleistocene Epoch shared hunting strategies.

5. Modern humans evolved articular speech which distinguishes them from the Apes and all human populations share the evolutionary trademarks of this development (ex. Broca's area).

6. Human brain size attained modern levels and ceased to expand during the Middle Stone Age.

7. All human children learn language during the same age span and each group is capable of learning other languages.

8. Differences in human life ways around the world arose so recently from the perspective of evolutionary history that there has been no time for any differential adaptive response to have occurred.


By the way is this Mikemikev? Your writing patterns are so easy to recognize.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If so, I recommend that you read the article in full. Interestingly Brace had some notable disagreements with Chris Stringer about the nature of why human intelligence is uniform across populations. Whereas Stringer argues that the recency of human origins in Africa did not provide enough time for human populations to differentiate intellectually Brace argues in his paper that the slow emergence of human linguistic behavior and gene flow throughout human populations resulted in a commonality in average intelligence for all human populations. Basically as humans began to learn language their intelligence grew rapidly and the selective forces that brought about this change were the same throughout the world.

 

So I think we're at an impasse.

Phill: "I define race by ancestry, which I infer from genomic similarity, using these plots of genomic similarity."
Bells: "You define race by skin color. There is variation within races, therefore there is NO connection. I want scientific proofs."

No need for any more iterations I think.

 

How similar do populations have to be to distinguish them as races separate from other races? What primary sources do you have that support your argument?

 

More similar. Which part of my argument do you have doubts about. Perhaps I can address it without resorting to authorities.

 

Sources would be helpful as they flesh out an argument and show that your position is widely accepted by the scientific community. As it is you have defined race by shared ancestry between populations that are more similar.

I don't have a problem with the idea that some populations are more similar than others and that they have shared ancestry. But that alone doesn't seem like a reliable basis to categorize groups as different races.

Templeton (2013) for example defines races as separate divisions within a species that exhibit an objective degree of genetic divergence or descend from distinct evolutionary lineages. The key is that there is some scientific criteria that justifies the division.

 

fyi
https://www.theguardian.com/science...-is-unhelpful-genes-play-a-role-in-who-we-are

 

No.

Your Templeton reference sets up an arbitrary threshold for "enough" difference to make a distinction. Any difference justifies a distinction. Hilariously, the difference between humans and chimps (Fst 0.18) is less than Templeton's misrepresentation of Wright's (Fst 0.25 for great differentitation) definition. Why does Templeton take Wright's great differentiation value and claim it means no differentiation? I guess he is just a liar.