Evolution and Race

No, they don't.

That's an illusion created by first categorizing by "race" based on skin color, and then mining for correlations, and then collecting every disparate correlation with the "race", however unconnected with each other, under the umbrella of the "race". Very, very poor statistical procedure.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well most of our evolutionary past is prehistory, so there is a degree of speculation in this regard however, it has been argued,quite reasonably i think, that colder climes experience greater season variation and thus require more forward planning. They also favour fewer offspiring, but more parental investment per offspring, which is likely to require more complex social interraction. I do feel this argument, while it has merit, is pressed too strongly sometimes. I think it is generally true that colder climes will more stronger favour intelligence, but what if the cold environment is very barren and there is little to manipulate or interract with? I dont think seasonal variation can be the only consideration in how favourable intelligence is in a given environment, so to assert that colder always means smarter is a bit too simplistic i think.

That said, the best reason to believe that europe demanded a greater level of intelligence of its population than africa is that the evidence strongly indicates that they have evolved to be smarter. For evolutionary reasons alone, it would be very surprising if humans everywhere were equally intelligent, and the empirical evidence to suggest they are not is compelling.

The conditions dont exist now because there is no relation between success and fertility. In a society where you can support the material needs of everyone, at least to the degree that they cant survive comfortably, if not live in luxary, then what determines fertility isnt success, but the differences in relative payoffs for children between the well educated and poorly educated. The well educated realistically arent going to be having children before 21 at earliest, and even that is unlikely, as they couldnt finish their degree. Further, children mean stunting career progress, which could be very costly to someone well educated and able to command a high wage. Also, as they are tax payers, and not recipients of benefits, they will not qualify for means tested benefits, and will also probably expect to spend more money on their children per head, to match their own affluent lifestyle, and expectations, spending more on education, holidays, more expensive food etc. By contrast, for the poor and unemployed, there is little to stop them having children young as career and education prospects are far fewer. As welfare recipients, they well qualify for means tested benefits, which coupled with their lower expected standard of living and therefore expenditure for their children, means that children dont actually make them much worse off, and this side of the atlantic, typically make unemployed parents much better off. Therefore, relative to poorly educated mothers, well educated mothers start having children significantly later, and as they cost more, they have substantially fewer of them. This leads larger gaps between generations, and less growth between generations (for well educated mothers, the growth rates are actually negative on average, the fertility rate usually being less than 2.1, the rate of replenishment). Thus poorer mothers have more children per generation and shorter gaps between generations, leading to substantially faster growth rates.

As for benefits of interracial breeding, who people choose to have children with is their business, and between consenting adults, I have no objections. In terms of practical benefits however, I think they are limited. Yes black people are generally more resistant to malaria, that is because they have higher incidences of sickle cell anemia, and being a carrier of this disease provides significant resistance. The problem is for every disease another race is not as vulnerable to, there is usually another they are more vulnerable to. And in europe, white people are going to have the resistances most suitable for continent. Whites arent as resistant to malaria, because there isnt much malaria in the region. As for black intelligence catching up through interbreeding, this will unforunately lower the average intelligence of the white population (or rather, the mixed race population will have a lower intelligence relative to white people, and higher relaive to black people). Mixed race offspring have IQs bang in the middle of the two parent races, there is no net gain.

As for the dysgenic effect on European IQ, as I have already stated, black people's IQ will change due to the same dysgenic affect. Infact, it will likely act more rapidly; The number of low IQ, high fertility mothers is much greater, relative to high IQ low fertility mothers, in the black population than the white population. So this trend, if not addressed, will be far more damaging for blacks that it is for whites, and is likely to cause the IQ gap to grow.

The problem is that migration to countries with generous welfare states doesnt necessarily select for intelligence. The relative benefit for the unproductive citizens of third world countries in migrating to the west is actually greater than for productive workers. Of course hardwroking people will be drawn for greater opportunity, but hardworking people can usually at least cope in the majority of countries around the world. Only in the west can the unemployed live comfortably. It is folly to assume that unselective immigration will bring the brightest and best from around the world. Importing citizens from countries whose populations have lower average IQs than those of the west is likely to lower average IQ, not raise it. The only way you can raise IQ through immigration is if you consciously select for intelligence with regard to legal migrants, and enforce your boarders strictly against illegals. All western nations are failing on both counts.

And although its a tangental issue, you have to remember that mass migration has consequence beyond its impact on average IQ. If large scale immigration occurs, migrants are able to establish large communities of their own, and live their lives without having to interract with the incumbent populations. This leads to segregation and a divided and tension riddled society.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have stated several times already that people should treated on individual merit regardless of race, and that race shouldnt be used as the basis for legal discrimination.

However, my judgement of you as an individual isnt likely to be positive if you insist on arguing with emotive irrelevances. The main argument I made was that humans that have evolved in different environments probably didnt evolve identically, and that amongst other things, you would expect some variation in intelligence. Asking whether or not I like arabs isnt an answer to this. Nor does it in any way dispute anything I have said regarding race.

Anyway, I bear no personal animus to any individual because of his or her race. But I do believe that biological variation between human populations in different regions of the world account for the differences we see in outcomes between the races, and that social policy shouldnt pretend that this cannot be so.

Whether or not I believed you to be inferior to me would depend entirely on you as an individual. I dont pretend that I regard all people as equal to myself, I think I am better than murderers and rapists for example, but I am under no illusions that there arent members of every race who are significantly more talented than me.

I can appriciate that statements about racial variations in intelligence are hardly statements that people can be expected to have no personal feelings about, but I say what I say because I believe it to be true on the basis of evidence, not because I want it to be true out of my dislike for none whites. If my honest assessment of the evidence offends you, youll just have to stay offended.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There's a real question. Let's investigate: Does it in fact bolster the IQs and outcomes of "east asians"? Not Hmongs, in my neighborhood. Is there some feature of "black" people's circumstances in the US that is different from the "east asians" ? Gee, 250 years of slavery, one kind and another, with its derivative circumstances, would seem to qualify.

So we seem to have an issue worth investigating - beginning, of course, by carefully removing any trace of the sociological classifications from our research program.

And what's with the "presumably", in the racist society? Agenda showing through?

You have yet to present even a single piece of evidence based on "different regions of the world". You are obsessed with the sociological races, and they are your chosen base of argument.

 

That answer gives absolutely no account of why a racist society that is majority white would favour jews and east asians.

As for the "presumably", I am not entirely sure how you are reading an agenga into this, the presumably was meant to the fact that the racism you claimed is presumably WHITE racism, hence why I said "this presumably white racist society". Trying reading what is actually written, not what you would like to see.

 

What I don't understand is why you think relatively small differences in average IQ are so damaging. Humans in general are very intelligent. It would be unwise to underestimate anyone. Being really smart is not always such a benefit in the job market. Things like social intelligence and dependability tend to be more important. If you admit that less intelligent people have more children, then doesn't that mean it's better not to be intelligent? From an evolutionary point of view it certainly is.

There is also the factor that IQ isn't everything. Our brains do more than take intelligence tests, which often do not relate to real life problems. We create art and music, at which Africans excel, surpassing even the achievements of western culture in many cases. I would give a million Louis Leakeys for one Wesely Willis. How smart does every individual really have to be to create a functioning society? The future will probably involve a lot less paperwork and a lot more farming. Smart people can also be scheming, vindictive, and evil. The situation is far too complex to let one measurement rule our outlook.

But if they are doing what's right for themselves and ensuring their future, that must count for something. There will always be those geniuses to invent things, it only takes a few.

 

They look more white. Appearance is the trigger for racism, I think it's an evolutionary trait. In the past, people did not very often venture out of their own tribe or area, so anyone that looked at all different could be assumed to not be related, and so were a threat to your exclusive gene pool and resources, so it would be an advantage to hate outsiders. The gene in this case is the unit of selection, not the individual, as per Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene".

 

Well actually, the link I gave you, if you bothered to read it, does give a pretty substantial ammount of evidence relating to variations in IQ scores globally.

And you are hardly in any posistion to talk of a lack of evidence. I havet seen you link any evidence, or even state a fact or figure that I could actually investigate. You simply make vague allusions to environmental factors, without stating precisely what they are, how they influence outcomes, and by what degree.

Moreover, I always find it odd that environmentalists will cobble together a piecemeal collection of individually dubious and collectively incoherent explanations for why all varation must be environmental, whilst rarely providing any supporting evidence (I have heard a dozen suggested environmental causes this thread alone, many of them dreamed up after me having pointed out the obvious inconsistencies in the previous explanation), and giving no good explanation whatsoever for why there should not be any biological component, and yet refusing to even consider it in their explanations.

This leads to all sorts of intellectual muddles, such as you claiming that white racism creates the IQ gap, inspite of the fact that several groups that have been victims of white racism actually surpass them. Or that economic and social depravation are key, yet adoption into white families doesnt even reduce the gap, let alone eliminate it.

Of course, all of these observations can be logically explained by the simple and internally coherent argument that the races are not necessarily identical. An explanation that is the more appealing when you consider that geopgraphical isolation in evolution would not only mean there is no reason to assume racial equality, but that there is good reason to anticipate inequality.

Finally, when the environmentalists clearly find themselves unable to logically explain the evidence without recourse to biology, they play their trump card:

"Race is a social construct"

And do so without giving any good reason to suppose that the groups to which people self identify are biologically identical, nor offering any alternative concept by which to discuss biological varation between populations, nor do they bother to explain how this "social" construct can be reliably identified by DNA and skeletal remains, and yet still have no biological validity.

So you'll forgive me if I dont find the environmentalist arguments altogether compelling. I was hoping that this forum might offer up some well reasoned rebuttals. I've been so far disappointed.

 

Oh come off it, east asians look no more like whites than blacks. No one has any difficulty distinguishing Irish from Korean for example.

I dont deny that appearance may well play a part in racism, and that evolved tribal instincts are also at play. But I see no reason why whites would regard east asians as being any more white than they would black.

Also, this is NO explanation for why they perform BETTER than whites. It could only explain why they perform less poorly than blacks.

 

Could be some random mutation.

 

Who said I was arguing anything? I merely asked a question you pretentious fuck.

 

Well firstly, i never actually said they would be so damaging, I said they should be acknowledged before discriminating against successful groups on the assumption that they must have somehow succeeded unfairly.

But secondly, there differences are hardly trivial, as you seem to suggest. A 15 point, or one standard deviation IQ gap means that the average white person is more intelligent than 84% of blacks, and the average black person is more intelligent than only 16% of whites. Thats a pretty large difference, and it has an even larger effect at the extremeties. There will be a great many times more exceptionally high IQ whites relative to blacks for example, and that will lead to very marked underrepresentation of blacks in jobs that demand high intelligence. Academics in the natural sciences for example.

And whilst in MODERN society fertility is inversely correlated with IQ, that is because we no longer have natural selection. But more importantly, what is socially desireable to us is clearly not the same as what is reproductively successful. Being a rapist in a natural environment, where there is no abortion or contraceptive measures, is probably good for your reproductive prospects. That doesnt mean it should be welcomed in our society. And clearly, it is not a healthy trend for society for the least intelligent to be having the most kids. Eventually, that will lead to our welfare state and standard of living becoming impossible to maintain.

Firstly, most of what you are saying here is pure fallacy. No intelligence isnt the only important attribute in life, but there is no saying that people who are stupid are endowed with other qualities to compensate. You say that smart people can be vindictive scheming and evil, well yes they can, but there is no reason to think the are less immoral than anyone else. Actually, the evidence indicates the contrary. If you look at the average IQ of the prison population, its well below the average of the general population. You mention artistry, well that too is correlated with IQ. Great writers and composers in particular are usually very smart.

African art and cutural achievements hardly surpass the west. If you look at the compare the numbers of great artists, writers, or composers, then whites come win hands down. I dont say that to be nasty to black people, but the modern insistence on pretending equivalent levels of achivement between the races when it is palapably untrue is something I find rather annoying.

As for how smart does ever individual have to be to have a functioning society, well if you look average IQ and correlate it wealth across the globe, you see a pretty firm trend: Smarter populations are generally more prosperous. It isnt absolutely perfect, but its a pretty strong link. And that is true within societies and between societies.

As for the future will involve alot more farming and less paperwork, I see no reason why there would be less paper work, but in any case, the idea that intelligence doesnt matter to farming is nonesene. Modern farming is technologically intensive, technology which requires very smart people to develope it, and is complex even to opperate. Ask africans what happens when competant farmers are replaced with people who dont know what they are doing. Fertile land becomes arid dersert in many cases, and yeilds decline dramatically.

No, to sustain an advanced society it takes an awful lot of very smart people. And as I say, average IQ makes an enormous difference to the numbers of extremely smart people, the distortions at the tails of the distribution are very large. Lower the average IQ, and youre going to loose alot of researchers, inventors, doctors, lawyers, Computer programmers, financiers and so on, and likely have to lower standards in these fields too.

 

How is it pretentious to point out that your question was irrelevant to the thread? If all youre going to do is spout profanities, I couldnt care less what you have to say.

 

I dont know what this is in response to.

 

I asked a simple question, I got a blowhard answer. I ask because this appears to be crypto-white sumpremacism.

 

Well first of all, white people did succeed unfairly. Don't tell me slavery was a fair proposition. The most intelligent blacks caused trouble and were more likely to be killed, so that's another selection factor. Also, US law, for example, did not recognize civil rights for blacks and other minorities until the 1950's! Most minorities had a reputation for being less intelligent. The Chinese were thought to be good for nothing more than manual labor. Most white people that took advantage of the situation did not personally invent the gun, the cotton gin, or the steam engine, or understand how they work. When slavery ended, blacks entered the civilized halls of government alongside whites, but the whites couldn't let that stand and shut them out of politics until recently. There is no reason for such actions, if the only difference between us (on average) is 15 points on an intelligence test? What does that even mean in real life? Will they take 10 more minutes to solve a crossword puzzle? Will they not be able to read a bus timetable? Will they never pass High School biology? I barely did! (and I'm Jewish). The black people I have known are usually with it, no less motivated or resourceful as my white friends. I maintain the real life results of these tests are not significant enough to matter.

What does that mean? How much more intelligent? Are they disfunctional? Are they on a lower socio-economic strata (and therefore more successful on average in the genetic arms race)?

Sure, if there's no affirmative action!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That just means the employer has to work harder to find them. If you are afraid of the competition, maybe you aren't smart enough!

We need that cannon fodder. You don't want to risk your big brain in a war do you?

Ah ha! You never said black people were stupid, did you? A lower IQ doesn't mean you are a stupid person. It just means you are slightly less clever on some tests. Think about this, did stupid people invent a way to wipe out the entire species? No, that was some very clever people.

How about total number of humans killed in a war? How do white people rate on that? Blacks may have small conflicts now and then, the anger builds up and they go after each other with machetes, but white people let the anger and tension build while building powerful weapons, and then they kill 10 million people a year for 5 years. What's good for society about that?

Oh yes they do, some of them. African art stimulated and inspired western artists. Without them we wouldn't even have rock and roll.

Because they owned all the media and means of reproduction.

Well it's hardly a scientific fact. It would be unfair to treat any particular individual as less than full of the potential to succeed.

Maybe prosperous nations become smarter. It only took one person to invent the boat, or the compass, or the astrolabe. Every other white person just went along for the ride. Smarter people probably worry more and suffer from depression and stress.

Yes, but farmers aren't known for being geniuses. Some team at a corporation invents some weedkiller, or builds the tractor, and the farmer just drives it around. I believe the future will be less energy intensive as the oil runs out, and as alternative energy sources prove inadequate. Yes, there things to watch out for. We can thank the black scientist George Washington Carver for some of this knowledge.

We aren't going to be that advanced. We are Rome before the fall.

I knew you could see the silver lining!

The reason could be chance. Some smart person happened to have more children and their children happened to survive. How old are the races? Hardly enough time to prove which design will win out in the end, or if we will combine. I think the greater genetic diversity can only benefit us as a species. When species specialize too much, they become fragile.

Have any studies been done to narrow down subgroups within white people? Their percentage is larger in the places where studies are likely to be carried out. Maybe it the effect isn't seen in all white people.

 

Define 'race' and provide evidence of it existence. Because I don't think it exists and I've seen a large number of people mix race-memes with ideas about human culture, languages, skin colors and even religious belief. In a few years we may even have DNA mythelation maps? Which would be interesting because I know other "white" people (who happen to be my brothers) who'd rather sit at home smoking pot than put in a hard day's work! Why!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Race is an illusion IMO and most humans can do most jobs if they work hard enough. With the exception, maybe, of high-level math which arise in all populations.

I think meme's may be more influential than gene's

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Puni 'umans, how dare you question our wisdom, we will 1 day rulz these planetz

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes, I guessed you were trying to imply I was somehow a white supremacist (the fact that I claim asians and jews are generally smarter jars with this somewhat), hence why I called it emotive irrelevance.

Lets ignore the fact that I am not claiming whites to be supreme, but rather 3rd place, and pretend I was a white supremacist, how would that have any relevance to whether or not what I claim is true or false?

An accurate statement of fact does not become less accurate by virtue of who states it.

 

By races I refer to populations of humans that have become biologically distinct having evolved differently in accordance with their different environments, which you would know if you actually read the post.

As for the evidence, we find consistent biological differences between the racial groups to which people self identify. Skin colour alone demonstrates this is obviously so, and as I have already stated, you can reliably determine the racial group to which people self identify from skeletal remains or a DNA sample, neither of which are socially determined. These biological differences are not an illusion, they are matters of hard fact. Again, this was in the original post.

And no most humans cannot do most jobs excpet advanced mathematics if they simply work hard. You need to be highly intelligent to be a doctor, researcher in any of the natural sciences, or an academic in general, or work in law or finance or computing, and I could go on.

Also, I would point out that neither you nor anyone else has actually been able to refute my central argument:

If human populations involved in different environments, with different environmental pressures, what reason is there to suppose that we should have evolved identically, with regard to intelligence or anything else?