All I can say to this is that in the America I grew up in, there was always a world of difference between American blacks and Somalis. This was true when it came to everything: physical appearance, attitude, culinary habits, you name it. The two groups are always at one another’s throats. Whenever I see headlines about their clashes, I cannot help but remember Henry Kissinger’s notorious comment about the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s…

“It seems like some Igbos want to leave Nigeria and form their own country…”

Ya think? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerian_Civil_War

The Igbo and the Yoruba in Nigeria generally tend to outperform most Black African and most Black groups generally speaking. Ironically, Diasporan Yorubas outperform the Igbos academically. Though the two groups outperform whites in the UK.

Did you watch any Glory or MMA lately?

Regression to the mean is something else….or is it.

It happens because ofgenetic change. For instance, a man with above-average IQ will likely marry a woman with above-average IQ. But only part of their above-averageness is genetic.

But what if their above average IQ is only ‘just above’ because of unfavorable circumstances, in other circumstances it would have been even higher. So their children’s IQ will be even higher if they themselves grow up in better circumstances. So their children will in turn marry someone with an even higher IQ and the descendants of the original couple will belong to the cognitive elite.

So much for regression to the mean, which can only occur if there is no natural selection taking place, which is what assortative mating actually is.

Remember Darwin people?

To correct an error I missed:
17% believe they are perceived as ambiguous(not 28% as I mistakenly wrote before. The rest of the previous edit is correct.: 37% think they are seen as mixed, 5.7% don’t know, 38% as a single group).
So there is a low-moderate tendency(38% as above) for back/white biracials to believe they are perceived as a single group according to the study.
Two thirds of this 38%(ca. 25%) felt the single group they were perceived to be was “black” and the remaining third (ca. 12.6%) thought they were perceived as “another group”, or more rarely as “white”. And those who believe they are perceived as black do not necessarily identify as such.

It seems like some Igbos want to leave Nigeria and form their own country. Also, they view their conationals with disdain: http://www.vanguardngr.com/2015/12/biafra-surprises-from-the-north/

Who said Afro-Caribbeans in the UK were from a “high achieving group” background. They were not. The people who were brought after WWII to the UK were for low level work.

Edit(again):

37% of (black-white) biracials believe they are perceived as mixed an another 28% believe they are perceived as ambiguous. 38% believe they were perceived as “belonging to a single group� and 5.7 % “don’t know�…….

Edit:
The perception of biracials that they are externally perceived as black seems to be moderate-(possibly low) rather than strong.

In one early 2000’s study, 37% of (black-white) biracials believe they are perceived as mixed an another 28% believe they are perceived as ambiguous. 28% believe they were perceived as “belonging to a single group” and 5.7 % “don’t know”…….

Mixed Race Identities
By Peter Aspinall, Miri Song, p. 80-81

“… and the growing numbers of biracial children (the census now has a mixed-race category, but most biracial people still self-identify as “blackâ€�). In the UK, 55% of Black Caribbean men and 40% of Black Caribbean women have a partner from another ethnic background. It’s very likely that half of all “blackâ€� children in the UK are at least half-white by ancestry (Platt, 2009, p. 7).”

The source you give for this cites outmarriage rates of Black Caribbeans , but does not mention racial identification (of biracials).
It is not clear that the most of biracials in the UK identify as “Black”. The one- drop rule is more characteristic of the US and has not existed in the UK historically. While the designation of biracials as black did sometimes occur in Britain, it was not a common nor as strict as in American culture. In previous times biracials were sometimes designated colloquially as “colored” instead of Black. Before the 2000 option of the “mixed raceâ€� category was introduced, that of “otherâ€� existed on official forms. Some of those individuals identifying as black also chose “black otherâ€� rather than “black Caribbeanâ€�,(perhaps as a way indicate a distinctiveness from other Black groups)

The trend for biracials, especially White- Black Caribbean biracials, seems to be one of assimilation into British culture.

Some biracials (though likely more so those who are more white than black) may in fact identify as White or “English” as the article below describes.

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21595908-rapid-rise-mixed-race-britain-changing-neighbourhoodsand-perplexing

“Rob Ford of Manchester University points out that Caribbean folk are following an Irish pattern of integration, in that their partners are often working-class. The Irish parallel also suggests they will eventually be fully absorbed into the British population. Polls show that adults who are a mixture of white and black Caribbean tend to see themselves not so much as black, Caribbean or even as British, but rather as English—the identity of the comfortably assimilated.”

The perception of biracials that they are externally perceived as black seems to be moderate rather than strong

In one study Roughly 40% of (black-white) biracials believe they are perceived as mixed an another 28% believe they are perceived as ambiguous,
“�
p.80-83
Mixed Race Identities
By Peter Aspinall, Miri Song

https://books.google.com/books?id=hRA0AAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Mixed+Race+Identities++By+Peter+Aspinall,+Miri+Song&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAGoVChMIzKz5jODHyAIVRXg-Ch3upg--#v=onepage&q=Mixed%20Race%20Identities%20%20By%20Peter%20Aspinall%2C%20Miri%20Song&f=false

A significant number of those who feel themselves perceived as black, nonetheless identify as mixed race.

http://www.academia.edu/1490635/Is_racial_mismatch_a_problem_for_mixed_race_young_people_in_Britain

I’ve watched a lot of kids take practice SATs, learn a few SAT-taking tips, and then re-take the SAT. They consistently scored better on the second try, and better again if they spent a few weeks cramming vocabulary. I wouldn’t expect long-term results this way, though.

I do not dismiss all of HBD as a joke. How did you get that impression? My reference to “these sorts of scenes” was in reference to HBD. He is not without many people who think his work, even in HBD, is weak to say the least. Have you read Peter’s “emerging consensus” post? It does not include Rushton’s ideas as the main factor, although Peter does think something similar to it was, but it’s clear from reading around that Rushton’s work isn’t the predominating explanation in the least.

With the lower black IQ, note that that I said it’s been sometime since I read it and I was going off from what I recall. I reread it, and it’s as poor as I remember. Even if the WWII data is the largest sample, we have a century of data beyond that, none of it suggesting such a low average. It’s true most of the black population (in reference to the WWI data) was rural, but that hasn’t been the case for a long time, and a vague reference to them being underrepresented in Shuey’s data. And for some reason, they take these rural scores as being indicative of genetic averages and not at depressed by other factors, given how much worse conditions were back then. One black school district in one state and one sample of college students is even worse evidence in favor of such an extreme average than anything else they bring up. They also had no evidence to support the claim that researchers frequently overlook this mysterious underclass of severe retards in the inner city. I think it’s very strange evidence as old as all this would make them change their minds to something so extreme.

Why would an average of 78 give them an SD of 15+? I’ve never believe the SD of 12 that’s given out at times either, but I don’t think that’s what’s always been found.

I’m sorry if I’ve never read anything of Rushton to indicate he believes anything other than paleolithic climates are the sole factor in racial differences. I read that post and didn’t see anything really informative. I’m aware that E.O. Wilson has been favorable to HBD and endorsed Nicholas Wade’s work, which is remarkably absent of anything like Rushton’s work. Rushton, as an example, not too long ago did IQ testing of roma (who I’ve heard were largely a refugee population) and found an IQ of 70, and thought this was largely, if not entirely genetic, and remarked how this goes well in line with the intelligence of south asians, a region of well over a billion people, with roma being vastly smaller in number and heavily mixed with various middle eastern peoples.Lynn, to this day, is overwhelmingly disposed towards the paleolithic climate theory. Among the only exceptions he has allowed are africans and Jews. He accepts that the african IQ is sizably depressed (but is about 80 in reality) and he believes jews are smarter due to recent selection, but also believes Mizrahi jews have an IQ of 91, going in line with how dumb middle easterners are, and this being the onky reason why Sicilians and balkan whites have low IQ’s (meaning they’re also not fully white), even though the claimed admixture in them isn’t anywhere near high enough to be responsible for IQ’s as low as that. He’s all over the place when allowing exceptions to his fixation on the ice age climate theory.

Rushton, as far as I can tell, has only allowed exceptions for Ashkenazi jews. Is there anything to indicate Rushton was any better or even equal to Lynn today?

Adjusting body to brain size (encephalization) is often times bogus because people have often (not always) acted like brain size is merely an artifact of body size, that a larger brain is needed to control a larger body, and not that the two could still be related, while still allowing brain size be related to intelligence. People who have tried to dismiss the correlation between brain size and intelligence have often times used this argument, and it is not always the case in the animal kingdom. Birds are often remarkably intelligent despite very small brains, and alligators/crocodiles also have large bodies, but also small brains and aren’t particularly intelligent. There is some evidence brain and body size are weakly correlated in humans, but it could be that body size is reflective of a larger brain, and not a matter motor control.

When Nisbett brought this up, Rushton and Jensen trotted out the argument people like Nisbett have usually used, claiming that a decrease in brain size has been correlated with a decrease in body size, and that neanderthals didn’t really have larger brains (if you adjust for body size, of course) because they were more muscular. Yet then, they claim the increase in brain size over the past 500+ million years in all life has had little to do with an increase in body size, and largely regurgitate Rushton’s theories he had been using for over 20 years almost word for word.

This isn’t the first time Rushton has done this- I recall he once found, via an army sample, a slightly larger brain size in whites, but then “adjusted for body size” so asians came out on top. They are using the model of it being a direct artifact of body size when they see fit. I have addressed the claims that a decrease in brain size is related to agriculture elsewhere: https://www.unz.com/pfrost/the-jews-of-west-africa/#comment-1003562

Whether brain size has increased in the past 150 years is irrelevant to paleolithic times. Your remark about agriculture sounds like lamarckianism the way you frame it.

Either way, consideration of brain size from when modern humans left africa to now is virtually absent in Rushton’s work. It doesn’t appear once in REB. Looking at how brain size has evolved is pervasive in studies of the evolution of human intelligence, but Rushton has barely anything to say about it (or do many people who’ve espoused similar ideas.) This is not the mark of the “Darwin of the 20th century.”

I have also never heard of Rushton considering anything (aside from jews) approaching what has become popular in recent years, or that he thinks civilizations have risen and fallen based upon those things. And no, human behavioral traits can change dramatically even in a period of generations. Whites and east asians are behaviorially very different from their ancestors at the closure of the ice age. There is no reason to think behavioral traits from back then have persisted to any degree.

You’re using the “some women are tall etc.” analogy at a very poor time. Overwhelmingly, arctic/central asian populations do not exhibit anything approaching “K” behaviors. They have been shown in pre-modern and modern times to be remarkably destructive and violent, or just highly dysfunctional people. And promiscuous too: http://www.nature.com/news/genghis-khan-s-genetic-legacy-has-competition-1.16767

These are more than specific examples. I also mentioned how much more violent whites and east asians were in the past. The only specific example is the claimed low intelligence of the Ainu, which I said is debatable, but still worth noting. The african ethnic groups I mentioned are noteworthy, because, as Peter has argued, the “r” behaviors of africans are likely related to the female centered agriculture that has predominated, and despite this, are more technologically advanced and socially complex than the africans who are “K” selected. He has even said the stone age hunter-gatherers of Africa are among the most “K” selected on record. I don’t know how true that is, but: http://www.cep.ucsb.edu/grads/Sell/AkaSite.html

“he homicide rate of the Aka is very low for a foraging people (approximately .003%) though still higher than the United States (approximately .00005% in 2008). There has never been a report of an Aka woman dying from male violence (Hewlett et al. 1986).

Aka culture is extremely egalitarian with band-wide sharing of food, predominate monogamy (though polygyny is accepted), incredibly high levels of paternal investment in children, and low levels of spousal violence. The Aka have been called the “Best Dads in the World.â€� Unlike other hunter-gatherers in the area, Aka practice family net hunting in which men, women and children participate.”

Pygmies have also been noted as having among the fastest rates of maturation of any human population in the world. Somehow, the “Darwin of the 20th century” and an overlooked Nobel laureate missed this.

Of course, I don’t think this is the entire picture, given past violence of whites/east asians and how violent native americans could be (and still often are), but yeah, there’s more than just a few examples.

The best you can say about his work is that he put together a large collection of racial differences, yet with a very poor, inept catch all theory to explain it all (with a good amount of dishonesty thrown in.) This isn’t going into his poor understanding of mental development (like how smarter children are usually precocious with early development milestones- delayed ones are usually related to forms of mental retardation and aspergers/autism), exaggerates the physical prowess of blacks, acts like east asians are so physically frail and asexual, and really his entire approach to race and physical differences/sexuality. This has a good rundown of the many flaws with his work there: http://www.donotlink.com/h405

Rushton may have once said that about african IQ, but that Vdare article was written in 2004, and he died in 2012. His views likely changed since then. Oddly, he seems to have conducted this study before he put out the 3rd edition- go to about 40:30 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1mgrTGeDPM

Video Link
And go to 41:10 where q&a begins, and his response to the incredulity (and a counter-example) is the “genetic vs. familial retardation” example. He uses roughly this same sort of example (what a person with an IQ of 70 can do) in the Vdare article.

So yes, I can say Jensen was dead wrong to take seriously Rushton and co.’s work, but I’m not alone in these sorts of scenes in thinking Rushton’s work is a joke.

One wouldn’t be alone in dismissing all of HBD as a joke. The entire field is marginalized and ridiculed, not Rushton only.

It’s been sometime since I read the paper in which they advanced that idea, but I don’t recall them bringing any good evidence to the table, it was largely based around a baseless claim that somehow, for years, researchers have overlooked an underclass of severe retards that actually lowers their IQ to 78.

LOL! It’s based on Charles Murray’s research showing that arguably the single most representative sample of African Americans ever tested (WWII recruits) obtained a mean IQ around 78 (significantly lower than WWI recruits and modern test samples, both of which Rushton and Jensen felt largely excluded the extreme black underclass in inner-cities and the rural South where Jensen found an average black IQ of 71 for an entire school district in Georgia and where a sample of black college students in Georgia scored at the 8th grade level on a scholastic achievement test).

Now I reject their speculation based on my own research, but it wasn’t the mindless assertion you portray it as.

I’m sorry, but that’s crazy. If that average were true, african-americans of high intelligence would be incredibly scarce, among other things.

No because if the average African American IQ were 78 instead of the usually reported 85, then the standard deviation would become 15+ instead of the strangely small SD of 12 that is usually reported in the literature, so you would actually expect more blacks, not less, in the extremely brilliant range under their proposal.

The idea that paleolithic climates are the sole factor in racial differences, that they’ve remained 100% unchanged since the closure of the ice age- it’s completely detached from reality.

Straw man argument. He doesn’t claim paleolithic climate is the SOLE factor in ALL racial differences, but rather that climate is one of two factors in the evolution of MACRO racial differences. The other factor he cites is the concept of evolutionary progress which has been endorsed by such luminaries as E.O. Wilson and Princeton biology professor John Bonner:

http://pumpkinperson.com/2014/10/11/is-evolution-progressive/

Are they autistic too? 🙂

And he in no way implies racial differences are 100% unchanged since the ice age, but rather that the ice age had a large genetic effect that can still be seen today when you look at the three classical races in totality.

The complete and utter lack of archaeological evidence- brain size was much larger worldwide in the paleolithic than it is now, including in Africa and Australia. This is pretty much the single biggest piece of evidence, if you believe those are reflective of intelligence (they are), but it’s totally absent. Nisbett brought this up, and Jensen and Rushton’s response was to use the bogus “brain to body mass ratio� as a reply, which has often been used by people who deny brain size is a factor intelligence. They did this because they know it’s a prime flaw and don’t have any way to explain it.

Adjusting brain size for body size is not bogus, otherwise elephants would be smarter than people. And they don’t have to explain it. The fact that brain size shrunk since the ice age (which is consistent with the climate theory btw & even in warm climates it would become less cool) for reasons that are likely both genetic and environment (agriculture created mass malnutrition) is independent of racial differences that exist within a given time period. And brain size has been increasing dramatically over the last 150 years btw (thanks to changes in the bio-environment):

http://pumpkinperson.com/2014/12/11/the-biological-flynn-effect-rising-crania-over-the-20th-century/

-The fact, if you’ve payed any attention to the past several years, human evolution can work remarkably fast, and that east asians and europeans were behaviorally much different (more “r�, if you really want to use that term) than they are now even a few to several centuries ago.

Rushton does not preclude the possibility of evolution occurring fast; indeed he blames a decrease in K for the fall of civilizations and recoveries in K for their resurgence, however ancient differences that evolved over tens of thousands of years are going to leave a genetic imprint that is not easily swept away at the macroracial level.

-The fact ice age climates really aren’t that conductive towards “K� behavior, or possibly even high intelligence, if you look at past and contemporary arctic peoples- central asia and the areas bordering Siberia have produced some of the most violent and destructive people to have ever lived, like the Huns and Mongols.

And some of the tallest people to ever live are women in Holland. Some of the shortest people to ever live are pygmy men. It doesn’t change the fact that men are genetically taller than women when you look at the totality of the human species. Analogously, you can’t cite specific exceptions to Rushton’s general rule to debunk his overall racial hierarchy, because a general rule, by definition, doesn’t work in every specific case, particularly for a theory involving 60 human traits.

Read his article published on Vdare defending his findings on South African university students and his idea that a “winning personality� has misled people to the reality that Africa is a continent of retards. He makes it clear that the remarkably low IQ found in university students, which is about 1 SD and supposedly similar to university students elsewhere, is tied to how their average is 70. He goes into detail about all of the things people with an IQ of 70 can do and the “winning personality� thing, using Muhammed Ali as an example, who, contrary to him, had dyslexia and most likely wasn’t functionally retarded/borderline. You wouldn’t say these things if you believed something like “this score is heavily due to things like malnutrition, poor education, disease etc.� He really does believe the average is 70. I’m not aware of anything to indicate he changed his tune.

The fact that Rushton thinks a winning personality makes blacks appear smarter than they are tells us nothing about how much of their IQ deficit he thinks is genetic. In fact Rushton is explicit about the low African IQ NOT being entirely genetic. On page 16 of Race, Evolution and Behavior. Third Edition (2000) he writes:

The full explanation for the low African IQ has yet to be discovered. Perhaps the cultural contribution to IQ scores is greater in Africa than it is in North America and so has a greater suppressant effect. South African Blacks have far higher unemployment rates and poorer schools, libraries and study facilities than do Whites. Thus, Africans may have less exposure to or stimulation on the constructs measured by IQ tests. They also live in overcrowded homes, often with no running water or electricity, and have poorer nutrition. Therefore their poor performance is partly the result of these cultural disadvantages.

“So because you disagree with Jensen’s claim that Rushton’s book was the most brilliant race scholarship he had seen in the Worldwide literature, I should believe you over a scholar as eminent and influential as Jensen?”

I’m sure you know that very intelligent, learned people can have very stupid ideas and beliefs about things. I can say Jensen was an expert when it came to the theoretical and quantitative aspects of intelligence and racial dynamics in the US, but when it came to global issues and the evolution of intelligence and such, he was very poor. So yes, I can say Jensen was dead wrong to take seriously Rushton and co.’s work, but I’m not alone in these sorts of scenes in thinking Rushton’s work is a joke.

It’s been sometime since I read the paper in which they advanced that idea, but I don’t recall them bringing any good evidence to the table, it was largely based around a baseless claim that somehow, for years, researchers have overlooked an underclass of severe retards that actually lowers their IQ to 78. I’m sorry, but that’s crazy. If that average were true, african-americans of high intelligence would be incredibly scarce, among other things.

“Absolutely! That Rushton was able to synthesize so many different behavioral, physiological and sexual traits into a theory that simple and elegant was a rare and stunning achievement.”

And you’d be wrong. Rushton’s work is an absolute and utter joke and is basically a cartoon model of human history evolution. The idea that paleolithic climates are the sole factor in racial differences, that they’ve remained 100% unchanged since the closure of the ice age- it’s completely detached from reality. I don’t want to segue too much in what’s wrong with Rushton’s work, but here are some examples I can think of:

-The complete and utter lack of archaeological evidence- brain size was much larger worldwide in the paleolithic than it is now, including in Africa and Australia. This is pretty much the single biggest piece of evidence, if you believe those are reflective of intelligence (they are), but it’s totally absent. Nisbett brought this up, and Jensen and Rushton’s response was to use the bogus “brain to body mass ratio” as a reply, which has often been used by people who deny brain size is a factor intelligence. They did this because they know it’s a prime flaw and don’t have any way to explain it.
-The fact, if you’ve payed any attention to the past several years, human evolution can work remarkably fast, and that east asians and europeans were behaviorally much different (more “r”, if you really want to use that term) than they are now even a few to several centuries ago.
-The fact ice age climates really aren’t that conductive towards “K” behavior, or possibly even high intelligence, if you look at past and contemporary arctic peoples- central asia and the areas bordering Siberia have produced some of the most violent and destructive people to have ever lived, like the Huns and Mongols. The most backwards and crime-ridden parts of Russia are the far eastern parts, which are predominantly native Siberian. The Ainu, the original inhabitants of Japan (who were eventually relegated to Hokkaido, which the Japanese didn’t settle until a few hundred years ago), were always regarded by the Japanese as less intelligent than themselves, the extent of which is debatable, but still. Nunavut is the poorest, most backwards part of Canada. Alaskan natives have quite high crime rates and social dysfunction. Greenland also has a high murder rate, about 20/100k. None of this supports the idea cold climates select for low violence and such.
-The most primitive, isolated african groups- stone age hunter-gatherers like the pygmies, khoisan, and hadza- are predominantly monogamous with low rates of fecundity.
-Rushton claims the peak of pre-modern african accomplish are some tribes who created nice iron and wood art, and the Zulu Empire. Not even close.

To call him the Darwin of the 21st century is an insult to Darwin and science as a whole. Saying he deserves a Nobel prize is insulting to even people who’ve won Nobel peace prizes. I’m sorry, but aspergers/autism lends people towards debilitating behaviors and ideas (like many other conditions people use as insults), and I think it’s fair to call things in that vein “autistic” disparagingly. They are 100% wrong, and it’s telling how you feel the need to defend proclamations many people in this scene would find laughable.

Rushton’s work on race is, for the most part, complete and utter garbage, and it’s telling Jensen took his and similar ideas seriously. It’s also worth noting, as I detail here, Rushton embraced progressively crazier ideas as he approached the end of his life, like the work of Arthur Kemp (an insane South African nordicist), and his idea that Ancient Egypt was a “nordic desert empire”: https://www.unz.com/article/closing-the-black-white-iq-gap-debate-part-i/#comment-1191757

“Rushton claimed it was the average. When did Rushton ever claim 70 was the GENETIC average?”

Read his article published on Vdare defending his findings on South African university students and his idea that a “winning personality” has misled people to the reality that Africa is a continent of retards. He makes it clear that the remarkably low IQ found in university students, which is about 1 SD and supposedly similar to university students elsewhere, is tied to how their average is 70. He goes into detail about all of the things people with an IQ of 70 can do and the “winning personality” thing, using Muhammed Ali as an example, who, contrary to him, had dyslexia and most likely wasn’t functionally retarded/borderline. You wouldn’t say these things if you believed something like “this score is heavily due to things like malnutrition, poor education, disease etc.” He really does believe the average is 70. I’m not aware of anything to indicate he changed his tune.

http://www.vdare.com/articles/solving-the-african-iq-conundrum-winning-personality-masks-low-scores

The problem is also that Rushton was largely a charlatan when it came to race differences, and Jensen’s credibility isn’t as clear cut as it was (contrary to what his fans in academia and on the internet liked to claim) given that he embraced so much of Rushton’s work uncritically,

So because you disagree with Jensen’s claim that Rushton’s book was the most brilliant race scholarship he had seen in the Worldwide literature, I should believe you over a scholar as eminent and influential as Jensen?

which is more apparent in face of how he signed on to a later Rushton paper that offhandedly claimed african-americans could have an IQ of 78 because somehow, researchers have for years and years overlooked an ultra-retarded subset in the deep inner cities.

I personally disagree with that hypothesis but it was perfectly well reasoned speculation and they cited evidence to back it up.

You’ve also gone on record as detailing on you used to speak with Rushton extensively on the phone and called him the Darwin of the 21st century,

Absolutely! That Rushton was able to synthesize so many different behavioral, physiological and sexual traits into a theory that simple and elegant was a rare and stunning achievement.

one of various other sterling bits of autism on Rushton’s credibility (such as Lynn calling it worthy of the nobel prize, Taylor saying it’s a guide to understanding the world as is etc.)

They’re both 100% correct. I’m sorry you feel the need to call those you disagree with autistic, which reduces a serious mental condition to a schoolyard taunt.

However, Rushton did claim that around 70 was their genetic average, going by university students in SA, (with no regard to the fact university standards have dramatically declined since the apartheid era, baseless claims about the selection of universities throughout africa etc.) so it’s better than him atleast.

Rushton claimed it was the average. When did Rushton ever claim 70 was the GENETIC average?

You also seem to genuinely consider the idea that Victorians had an IQ dramatically higher than now, which is also absurd.

I never said they had higher IQs. I consistently blogged that they have much lower IQs, but I was open to the idea they might have higher GENETIC IQs but I agree it’s an extreme idea, and I’ve found no strong evidence in support of it.

I have taught a few of these extraordinarily intelligent blacks from Nigeria. The thing I have noticed is that they are very precocious – GCSE maths when 9 etc – far more than any other ethnicity (including The Jew), but they don’t train on ( to use a phrase from racing). They wind up at some 2nd division university, not Oxbridge.

Yes, what I said is that the term ” caucasian ” in the case for ethiopians, can mean anything that is above the Sahara Desert, North Africa and/or the Middle East Semitic origin.

Are not the same Caucasoids we have in Europe, obviously. So the fact of ethiopians be 40% ” caucasoid ” does not mean they have to score as a biracial african-average European or this 40% need to be european. Not to mention that over time the selective pressures will modifying the characteristics of the population. And we have many examples such as the irish travelers who show us that racial proportion and especially for mixed race populations or more phenotypically randomized, may says little about its potential intellects, although it can not also be said to have an effect.

For example, in Brazil, despite the enormous racial mix that we have here, it is still possible to see clearly that the darker, tend to belong to the lower social classes, in greater proportion than the less dark, even among african descent phenotypically explicit.

From what little I know, it seems there are some cultural evidence of the presence of Semitic people there who founded the predominant religion in Ethiopia or the most common religions there as some frescoes by white men.

There are two black African groups that stand out: the Igbos in Nigeria and Kikuyus in Kenya.

Please see my rely to Pumpkinperson at #222

And by what mechanism would he hypothesize “high IQ genes” to have been excluded?

Perhaps the Ethiopian caucasoids are those that spent several generations trying to make a go of it but, when credentialism became rife, those who failed entry to the professional schools of the University of Caucasia just migrated back to East Africa and bred. You see imagination can make it happen but what is SantoCulto’s theory…. (Mind you – where does that 40 per cent figure come from? And what other East Africans does it apply to? Luo? Tutsi?..)

As I think you Peter raised the question of the extent to which GCSE scores might be a proxy for IQ I hope you will consider my response to JayMan on the subject at #219.

I spent years wondering why my Nigerian (and similar – eg Ghanaian) postgraduate students did better than students of any other nationality except the Germans. This seemed a major contradiction to Lynn’s IQ data. Finding out about the Igbo has been very enlightening. I do sometimes see some very intelligent students from non-Igo African populations also – I suspect the Igbo are not the only high-IQ black African group.

I am interested in the GCSE – IQ question because a nephew of mine has just got 10 A*s at a selective private day school where they all work hard, get tutored in weak subjects, do the Mock exams a few months earlier and take part in a wide range of extra curricular activities. Apparently 68% of his 160+ cohorts results were A*s (more than 90% As) and 1 out of six got the coveted 10 straight A*s.

I’ve done a bit of searching and find confusingly different assertions. E.g. that an IQ of 100 should be enough for an A at GCSE; but also a table which suggested that, with some laborious adjustments, an A meant an 80 per cent mark and A* 90 per cent. As the overall percentage of A*s amongst all candidates is about 6.2 per cent I would guess that even a single A* would suggest an IQ of >110 and three probably > 120 or so unless there were also four Cs and a couple if Ds as well.

So how would 10A*s (including maths and a couple of languages) translate? I recall Eysenck’s saying the 11 plus test was fine provided you coached and practice tested all candidates adequately. At a selective academic school with ambitious parents might one not expect to get something like the same form of accuracy? But maybe the results still have to be discounted a little as IQ proxies because most candidates nationwide would not have been as rigorously prepared.

Thanks for the links which worked perfectly. Now I know the guy Aunt Maisy meant to send a cheque to so she could get the share he offered of $25 million in Nigerian oil money stuck in some bank account. But he must be really dumb. She sent an invoice by mistake and…..

“There is no evidence….” means you are claiming familiarity with the evidence – the research papers for example – that allow you to make that confident assertion. Also you imply something about your expertise when you disparage Helena’s. So….

Please give us the benefit of your knowledge with quotes, references and citations. I for one am really interested because I have been vaguely willing to believe in some lower group SDs, especially East Asian, just as I do believe that women’s IQs are probably distributed with lower SD than for men, at least amongst Europeans. (It doesn’t matter to me but it seems probable that natural selection would favour potential mothers not being too dumb. And that could, just possibly, be causally connected to something which limited the variation on the upside. Could it be a heterozygotic good-homozygotic bad phenomenon…?)

Back to your point. Links or quotes please.

Ah, one more thing: a clarification. It would be foolish to deny that there are scientists who try to undermine results of all the research done during last century. In that sense, yes, the debate is ongoing. But, after rereading carefully Burt and Simons, and the Wright et al (if you read both, you have to see that it seems that Burt&Simons answered Barnes et al, Wright et al answered them, and Burt&Simons then had the chance to modify their answer to react to Wright et al), my personal impression is that Burt&Simons do not have much ammo in their artillery. Wright, Barnes et al first addresses their claims about methodological errors (in 2014 paper) and now have addressed “conceptual flaw” argument in quite a convincing, at least for a layperson, manner.

I am of course just an amateur with no claim to expertise in this particular domain. However I think I have a knack for recognising good and bad arguments in a debate. And after reading both papers (and also paper by Moffitt about epigenetics, a reaction to earlier Burt&Simons paper) I think that B&S have weaker arguments.

Moreover, HBD does not rely on twin studies. Nor HBD needs that genetic and environmental effects to be separatable on population level. B&S is not an argument against HBD in a general sense, at least in this layman opinion.

Though I’d be glad to see people more versatile and known in HDB world to answer (Jayman, Chuck, Peter Frost?)

No, the idea the british have seen something like a 15 point drop in IQ in 150 years is crazy. The claims of IQ dysgenics within european populations in modern times have born little real evidence. I’ve gotten the impression this is based heavily on the wordy, haughty writing styles that were more prominent in the Victorian era, and the original proponents of this claim (mainly Bruce Charleton, who is now a convert to mormonism, really hilarious given how he came up with “clever sillies”) have taken this as evidence they were as smart as old figures given for ashkenazi jews. It’s nuts. And that would mean the British were smarter than they are still even several decades ago. Does anybody really believe that?

I mean, why hasn’t this been extended to anywhere else in europe or east asia? People have found it difficult to believe the behavior selection for adaption to modern ecomonies/society could have happened not just in Britain, but in many other places we call the developed world, but that seems to have overwhelmingly (if not entirely) concerned personality traits, and not IQ. And you’re telling me that the British alone were dramatically smarter than they were 150 years ago? Not even likely.

This experiment demonstrated a different point: that natural selection for these flies favored the original number of bristles in the population. When artificial selection for a higher number was removed, the progeny returned to the previous average.

Regression to the mean, in the current discussion, is supposing that selection does not play a role in the outcome.

I think issues can be discussed without intemperate language and that is the best way to discuss them, if you are trying to change anyone’s mind. Unfortunately, people like to show off, but the governments of Western countries don’t accept a principle of untramelled democracy at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law_for_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany The authors of the Basic Law sought to ensure that a potential dictator would never again have the chance to come into power in the country. Although some of the Basic Law is based on the Weimar republic constitution, the authors also ensured that human rights and human dignity was made the central and core part of the Basic Law. The principles of democracy, republicanism, social responsibility, and federalism are key components of the Basic Law; these principles are constitutionally entrenched, and they cannot be removed or repealed by the normal amendment process.

Other Western states consider similar values to be paramount. At the peak of the Pegida demonstrations in January this year they never had more that 18,000 marchers, and were outnumbered 10:1 by counter demonstrations, but the sight of Pegida’s much publicised events was enough to provoke an extreme reaction.

There was immigration, but the sudden flip in German opinion to a consensus for immigration at swift replacement level of about ten times higher was the Pegida demonstrations. The Germans dread anything associated with war and react very strongly against it. The German nuclear policy is a clear example, while there was a kind of understanding that nuclear power would be phased out long term, In After Fukushima Chancellor Merkel made a political U-turn. From being a strong supporter of nuclear power, she began saying it should be phased out as soon as practicable. Germany — Insane Or Just Plain Stupid?. If you are dealing with a traumatised insane force that can destroy you, tread carefully. Stomping through the streets of Nuremberg, made the government decide that a mass influx of non Europeans was necessary to eliminate the possibility of Pegida being seen as authentically representative German movement.

The Pegida protests were about a “record” annual 200,000 asylum-seekers, 40% from the Balkans. The German government took the demonstrations as an indication stronger measures were needed. At the beginning of this year this year the Pegida leader tried to mock fear of the past, and stirred the deep dread of war that motivates most of German policies. Just as she had in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster, Merkel altered policy and just as there was a consensus over atomic energy, the Germanmasses agreed with Merkel over immigration (she is known for not moving without strong public support).

So not toning down the debate is a mistake unless you are in control of events. The Pegida people should have tried to make their point another, much less confrontational way. If they had, their country might have escaped the population replacement that has already afflicted the British and French.

Could you point me to any HBD blog which would deny the role of gene-environment interaction, please?

I’ve read through both articles. The defence of twin studies reads like a more mature and knowledgeable piece. I don’t like the constant re-branding that sociologists do – there’s no need for the term ‘postgenomic’. It’s clearly meant to be perjorative and it is a silly notion to imagine that science is ‘so over‘ genetic research.

Somewhere in the article defending sociology, the authors refer to needing more kinship studies. A kinship study of the criminal grooming gangs in the UK would indeed be interesting. Most gangs had at least one pair of brothers and mostly the kinship links were more than that. I’m sure sociologists would be able to identify ‘problematic’ ‘low self-esteem’ resulting from ‘marginalisation’ from ‘the community’.

But equally, someone could do a very nice piece of research looking at coefficient of relationship in that particular criminal business model.

I never said anybody was an environmentalist nor did I say that genes have no effect.

Let me make this situation very simple, because it is, in point form:

1: HBD is foundationally based on some gene centric, fixed, genetic model of independent effect, that can be separated from the environment, aka Heritability studies, GWAS and GCTA. That is why you get so many random nobodies and quacks becoming “experts” on it. They know who they are.

2: What HBD thought about genes was proven wrong in the last decade. Burt and Simons simply pointed it out multiple times via DIRECT biological experiments EG: epigenetic studies. Which is not simple GxE or rGE.

3: Your argument of weather Turkheimer being slightly mischaracterized is frankly irrelevant. I will agree with you that it was if it makes you feel better, it makes no real difference. The point is that Turkheimer and his stance was a small non vital part of Burt and Simons argument, which is what the final article was about. IE: Showing that their argument is about the entire core concept of the gene and environment, not so much the methods/flaws of heritability studies, which is what Barnes tried to misrepresent it as. Even though that debate is still going on too.

“They were both in the same issue, because they are part of ongoing debate.”
4: Thank you, its good that you at least accepted that its not settled.

I assume this means that you are offering your services pro bono to Mr. Frost. It would also need to include providing financial support for any legal or familial obligations that he has and which he might not be able to fulfill if he becomes entrapped in the legal system.

?

Have you at least read the paper I’ve posted? The paper by Wright et al discusses. amongst the other, the paper you have quoted. They were both in the same issue, because they are part of ongoing debate.

Wright et al (the paper you posted as the “first”) discuss Burt’s and Simons’ arguments (the paper you posed as the “second”), and vice versa. They attack each other.

First, Burt and Simons themselves said that, in the paper you quoted, they are not environmentalists, i.e. their paper is not anti-HBD in any sense (as HBD is not based on twin studies). If you think otherwise, I’d glad to see the quotes. I am not native speaker and only amateur, so I know I may be wrong. I don’t like to be wrong. However, also in Burt’s response to Turkheimer it seems that they acknowledge role of genes. He said that right now, because we have better tools, there is no point in making studies which concentrate solely on heritability.

This is Turkheimer position:

“if you want to cite me as a critic of some general version of BG, the citation should be limited to the idea that numerical heritabilities aren’t very important per se, and that studies that do nothing other than estimate them are __no longer__ very important. The next sentence should be something about how I do maintain that __nonzero heritability is important methodologically__, and that there are many scientifically useful things to do with twins other than just estimating heritabilities.”

Seems to me Wright et al were right when they said that Turkheimer position was a bit mischaracterised.

http://ericturkheimer.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2015-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2016-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=3

In the same place you will find links to reply wrt to epigenetics and GCTA (I admit I got lost in GCTA thing – others on this site will know more and can comment more).

Dear Dipwill:
The links you have provided worked perfectly for me. Thank you.

Although I probably don’t agree with anything else this poster says, I have to agree with woodNfish regarding “toning down” discussions to comply with antidemocratic laws. When you urge restraint and argue that it’s necessary because of political persecution, you become the unwilling agent of the censors. It really is a matter of principle for anyone who supports democracy on principle (which I realize excludes some posters here).

If the risk is excessive for having a public forum without assuming the role of accomplice to censorship, if you’re a principled democrat, you have to find ways alternative to public forums to conduct your struggle.

My comments aren’t off topic. And I don’t know anything about any of the other commenters or even the author of the post. Anyway, you aren’t going to change my mind, and I am not going to change yours so I’m going to end this discussion. Nice chatting with you.

30 million igbos are a greater population. We go compare ashkenazis in US and Igbos in USA. 5 millions in 320 million people, 30 million in 176 million. Huge population.

– They tend to have good quality and standard of life*
– They tend to have lower criminality*
– They tend to have lower corruption rates*
– They tend to have greater intellectual/scientific/cultural acomplishment*
etc etc

But we don’t know that you are not “associated with it” or playing a role for your own entertainment, because you don’t dare reveal your true identity and there is nothing at stake for you. That is the problem with OT anon commenters on the internet.

Nigeria has a big population and the Igbo are not that many so it seems likely they or a group within the Igbo and passing for them are well above the sub Saharan African average. It should be easy to understand that some black African groups are cleverer that others maybe even cleverer that average Europeans, because some white European groups such as the Irish Travellers are of surprisingly high intelligence relative to the bulk of the population (according to Richard Lynn).

Well done, you quoted the heading and link of the very article the one I posted was attacking as if it proves anything.

I will post the two links for people to read in order of response.

HBD defence:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9125.12059/pdf

Anti HBD:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9125.12060/full

Now I know most of you are biased and will do mental gymnastics, appeal to authority and as the anti HBD publication proved Barnes did that you will misrepresent the argument itself. However you will now know that HBD isn’t settled science at all and is scientifically under attack right now at the highest level.

I can’t believe people here are still taking seriously Emeagwali. The man is a pathological liar and a colossal fraud. There is no verifiable evidence his IQ is that high, although he is arguably quite intelligent to get where he’s at on so little. His actual scientific accomplishments are meager and he has seemingly done virtually no scientific work since his part in winning the Gordon Bell prize in 1989. All he’s done since then is lie his way into relevance: https://www.facebook.com/notes/nigeriansfornigeriaorg/how-philip-emeagwali-lied-his-way-to-fame/445140555810

Original article link is here, but it’s not working for me and I’m not sure if it will for others: http://saharareporters.com/2010/10/18/how-philip-emeagwali-lied-his-way-fame

The article towards the end details other Nigerians of genuine scientific/intellectual accomplishment, and while I can’t identify the ethnicity of most, John Dabiri, Pius Adesanmi and Wole Soyinka (a nobelist in literature) are all of Yoruba descent, which doesn’t readily add credence to Peter’s fixation on the Igbo being the african supermen.

Dear Kat:
Here they are:
https://www.unz.com/pfrost/no-blacks-arent-all-alike-who-said-they-were/#comment-1182495

Yes where are their Newtons and Galileos lurking?

It isn’t going to happen, so stop wasting your time asking. The HR court in canada should be shut down and everyone associated with it, including the legislators that created it should be prosecuted and sentenced to prison for violating the rights of all canadians. That is what should happen; it won’t because the West has a severe case of collective insanity.

“MATHEMATICAL PROOF IS NOT MINUTIAE AND
IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY IS NOT A THEORY:
A FINAL RESPONSE TO BURT AND SIMONS AND A
CALL TO CRIMINOLOGISTS”

JOHN PAUL WRIGHT,
J. C. BARNES, BRIAN B. BOUTWELL, JOSEPH A. SCHWARTZ, ERIC J. CONNOLLY,
JOSEPH L. NEDELEC, and KEVIN M. BEAVER

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9125.12059/pdf

In short: Burt and Simons are completely wrong and moreover, they were dishonest; they cherrypicked the “evidence”, misquoted scientists and so on.

What is your risk if you will not tone down? Do you live in country where there are “hate speech” laws? You are anonymous; do you face the same risk as Peter?

You are exercising your rights because you do not want to surrender to tyrannical laws. Fine. But you are risking nothing; you are risking Peter Frost’s future, not your own. Do you get it?

It’s like you would come to my country in 1954, meet some opposition leaders, and when they would urge you that you should watch your speech because you may endanger their safety, you would start to scream at them that they are wrong and they submit to tyranny; then you would start scream “down with communism!”. Finally, satisfied with your brave act of disobeyance, you go back to the west, while your friends are captured by UB and disappear in mysterious circumstances.

Whilst you argue about what the black average IQ might be, HBD is being attacked at its core right now.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9125.12060/full

This is one of the flag ship journals for HBD related research that have published this. Its no joke.

Your combativeness seems to go nowhere. And please don’t prove me right with another inane response. You’ve already done that. To go back to the origins of this problem with Frost, view it this way: you’re absolutely correct that it’s wrong that the Canadian courts think and rule the way they do on free speech matters. I agree. But I’m guessing Frost is, metaphorically speaking, trying to fight a war, not a battle. Legal problems with Canadian courts (that originate with his reader’s comments) would be a battle and an obstruction to a greater goal.

Considering that the government is the biggest violator of rights and laws – good luck with that.

A right is something that you can have enforced by the law.

Defy the law and you are going to provoke stronger enforcement of the law, rely on it.

You can say it, and I can sue you for slander. It still has nothing to do with culture.

Your quivering surrender of your right to speak freely does nothing to help Peter Frost. It just hands a victory to the fascists. It is truly disturbing that you don’t understand that. But maybe a question will help: When the Jews non-violently surrendered to the Nazis and allowed themselves to be delivered to the death camps, did that help them? There is no difference between this court and the Nazis.

No. “Freedom of speech� means exactly what it says whether you like it or not.

Oh, so that’s why you have all that child pornography and copies of letters to your friends about assassinating President Obama in your basement.

(Oh, and the lies I just said about you are also not allowed under freedom of speech.)

Culture is embedded in everything, even government.

The laws won’t change unless someone challenges them. I don’t know your situation but you could man up and stand up to your communist state.

What makes you think they can? Or even want to?

Re. 2 Reproductive isolation is not the only way to separate groups. If they have different modes of existence the genes relevant to a particular type of selection will be less viable in another environment. For instance shyness was regarded as a serious personality defect among traditional Gypsies because they had to be able importune and embarrass non Gypsies.

It is being conceded that a subset of blacks can match and possibly exceed the white average IQ. I have difficulty believing that the Igbo who historically have been/ are mainly farmers and who number over 20 million have had their IQ raised. The Osu are subset within the Igbo that claims to be Igbo but was reproductively isolated and did not farm as much. They would have had an additional incentive to emigrate.

I think all of this weird type always exist (i’m one them, less ”rich”) , the difference is that in the past other people were those who would create laws and organize society. The ”past” is not so surprisingly superior than today, in the truth, world change little in philosophical terms, ”panis et circenses”, ”enormous inequality”, exploitation of men and women… the farmer -social model-
For example, why people would retire with 60-65 years** Why we cannot have a partial/ gradual retirement in parallel with work during our lives**

In my country, during the nineteenth century, before the end of slavery, some laws were granted to mitigate slavery and also to prepare the Brazilian economy to changes in their guidelines, such as the creation of an internal market for consumers and the end of the huge dependence by slave labor.

One was the ” law of the sixties ”. Any slave could reach that age could become free. Of course, the percentage of black slaves who managed to reach 60 years in the nineteenth century was insignificant.

In all, I found that this law seemed to be a good analogy with the labor laws for retirement.

I agree fully that all they want is a functioning society should work, but the idea that one should work for 40 years of his life to be able to retire seems a deliberate holdover from the days when there were no laws to protect the worker. Nowadays we have laws, but they do not seem to be much better than before. It’s better, but could be much better.

Missing work these ideas now, but makes some sense.

By agreeing to tone down you are not helping Peter Frost’s government; you are helping Peter Frost. By refusing to tone down you are not fighting against his government; you are rather trying to harm Peter Frost. Do you get it?

Peter Frost is most likely already under a risk of an attack from leftist ideologues. He is acting bravely under his own name, risking his career and reputation. You, on the other hand, you are risking nothing. Instead it seems like you want to help “fascist” government to get a pretext to destroy people like Peter Frost.

1. When a sub-population splits off from a parent group – Amish, possibly Igbo – the sub-group takes with it a sub-set of all the alleles that were in circulation in the parent group at the time of splitting-off.

Once the two populations no longer inter-breed, changes can take place in the frequency and expression of alleles in both groups.

2. Unless a population is 100% isolated, defining the population for genetic statistics is problematic.

3. Since HBDers seem to think that statistics can be rigorously applied, maybe the Breeders Equation renders the use of statistics valid?

*****************************

@Sam
large scale Monte Carlo models with external shocks – hmm I wonder if external shocks can cause an allele to start multi-tasking; molecular-level crisis management!

@Santo – or add another D for diligent or decadent – the label DREWID would be less perjorative?

I understand Unz’s wish to keep the columnist comment sections as absolute free speech zones, while at the same time I see the benefits of a curated discussion, even apart from any possible legal problems (regarding the likelihood of which I am doubtful). Unz already allows the bloggers to moderate their comment sections, indeed Razib Khan rules his comment section like a petulant toddler with an iron fist. While you do fit more into the columnist mold, if you wish to moderate your comments maybe you could ask Unz to move you to the blogger section. That way you can both be happy; you can avoid legal problems and he can keep the columnist comment sections as a free speech zone.

antifas will outnumber you

This is getting at the main problem.

I don’t take my facts from lard-assed, pill-popping blowhards or the people that appear in their charades.

Urbanized, ”educated” and western people, supposedly.

Bizarre and frightening. Here in Germany, many of the antifas are paid by the government. The way it works is, the government does not actually say, here is fifty euros, now go and throw rocks at anti-immigration protesters.

Instead, the government pours many millions into “Gegen rechts” (against the right) projects ostensibly designed to combat extreme-right activities (such as throwing incendiary devices at asylee housing). These projects usually produce nothing more than paper reports that no one reads, but they subsidize the antifas’ lifestyle. Of course, no public funds exist for any “Gegen links” (against the left) projects even though the extreme left commit just as many acts of violence as their counterparts on the right.

Unless you have a “critical mass” of people getting together for a demonstration, say, against millions of immigrants from the middle east, the antifas will outnumber you, try to beat you up, take your photo and spread it on social media, shout you down with bullhorns, falsely accuse you of assault, etc. So far, the only town that has consistently mustered thousands of demonstrators is Dresden with the Pegida rallies.

The police are no help, they get no backing from the politicians.

Here is a video of the antifa “protests” several months ago in Frankfurt. You can see them smashing the windows of police cars and setting them on fire. The video was taken from inside the police precinct. The cops had orders not to interfere.

Video Link

My guess is that you have pinpointed a facet of anarcho-tyranny…and the answer is nothing, which explains the craziest of the commenters quite well.

I mean this entirely seriously. A number of the commenters at this site are either very ill or agent provocateurs. A prosecution based on theirs words, in either case, is not only the result of a poor law, that limiting speech, but also its terrible application.

Mark Steyn has got to be a key SME on this subject. What has befallen him is grossly unjustifiable even by the logic of his prosecutors. And yes, they have tried to use the idiot words of their own stupid sock puppets against him!

My only recourse to the prosecutors in this context is that with every prosecution they make alternative civilizations more attractive and so reduce their own power base. Were I forced to choose between the Muslim Brotherhood and this nonsense I would now find the decision somewhat difficult!

The commenters may have expert knowledge of what is defined as hate speech in Canada because they are agent provocateurs. There are examples of Canadians going on to foreign sites and eliciting conversations that were then used to bring a case against other Canadians. If commenters are sincerely interested in the post and what Peter has to say they will take their cue on how to discuss issues from him, and not be mistaken for those intent on using this site for hate speech, or agent provocateurs with ulterior motives.

What is to prevent your antifas from trolling the sites that they don’t like and bringing it down by massive numbers of comments that are clearly offensive and racist?

You misunderstood.

I am not saying that race does not exist and that sub-groups within each race do not exist.

I am saying that if you want to see the IQ Bell Curve for a group then you have to define the group and give the group or a statistically valid sample of the group an IQ test.

Thanks for the explanation. I have read about the laws in Germany and France. I had no idea that such a tragedy could happen in Canada. It may be true that we (US) are next as some people have already worried about.

Does this only apply in Quebec and not the other provinces?

There is no evidence that east asians have a narrower IQ distributions (despite what people on the internet like to claim), or that genetically homogenous populations have narrower ones outside of small, inbred populations (numbering in the hundreds or a few thousand). This is just baseless, spergy HBD rambling, and why you seem to have a poor time of understanding biology and making these nutty claims about race mixing and genetics.

In short, “hate speech� will be defined by the Quebec Human Rights Commission as it see fits.

Then how are commenters supposed to follow your advice to avoid what could be mistaken for it?

Chanda’s refutation of this post should be quite easy if average black Africans have higher intelligence than Irish Travelers as he claims. He can simply provide examples of such achievement from sub Saharan African populations and individuals who are definitely not Igbo.

thx for the link to the generalized-normal distribution for the longevity study. I suppose I am a bit obsessed with non-Gaussian distributions, which often work rather well with fin-derivatives models.

Ashkenazi Europeans – 😉 as generous a description of the Other as I have encountered in these pages of UR/HBD

as a neophyte in this area (HBD and general Identity by descent), it certainly strikes me as a rich area for study, albeit one which in fact may defy any precise non-statistical quantification in the end. The strings or systems of genes, with the presence/absence of single alleles producing vastly differentiated outcomes reminds me of large scale Monte Carlo models with external shocks and the difficulty of calibrating stable correlation matrix inputs (I could be wildly wrong of course!)

That’s why Galton’s discovery was thrown out in the context of biology and also why liberals refuse to acknowledge race; they say it’s too fuzzy. I think Cochran has the answer with the Breeders Equation but that’s a guess.

Sam,
I really have no idea. But there aren’t many examples of skewed distributions, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3356396/

Ashkenazi Europeans 🙂

As well as IBD (genes inherited together in strings), just one allele, EDAR, v370 A, can cause four massive differences – ‘increased scalp hair thickness, shovel-shaped incisors, an increase in the number of eccrine sweat glands, and smaller breasts’. It beggars belief really; how life evolves.

**************

@ Santo – WEIRD is supposed to refer to countries – Democracies (“Our findings suggest that members of WEIRD societies…” http://www.vdare.com/posts/weirdwestern-educated-industrialized-rich-and-democratic-societies-think-differently ). The Child Poverty rate in the UK is either 1/4 or 1/3; those kids are not ‘rich’. And anyway, democracy has all but left the EU. Who wants to be called weird?

**************

In a comment above I said new gene loci could be introduced. That’s not what I meant – I meant it must at least be possible after enough time that, a population group has switched off alleles to the extent that, all alleles in circulation in the gene pool are different from all alleles in circulation in a different population group. In the example of Amish and Dutch – the two groups are still circulating the same or overlapping sets of alleles albeit with different frequencies. Which is different to Han and Dravidian – are both groups circulating similar alleles for any given trait? But maybe, thinking about EDAR, it isn’t sets of alleles that make the difference, just the presence or not of one allele with dramatic effects.

Any government that would hold a person responsible for someone else’s words should be defied and overthrown. Why should I do anything that helps his fascist government and its appointed thugs suppress him?

The origins of freedom of speech were based on the notion that government needn’t limit our speech because we possess the maturity and ability to limit it ourselves.

No. “Freedom of speech” means exactly what it says whether you like it or not. You’re additions have nothing to do with it and are simply your opinion.

Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech

I think that is pretty clear.

I did not say Peter’s culture was “fascist”, his government is. So is ours. I do not claim to know his culture other than it is Western.

Spoken like a true fascist.

The origins of freedom of speech were based on the notion that government needn’t limit our speech because we possess the maturity and ability to limit it ourselves. “Speech” – as with everything else in life – is within the context of culture. Any culture. Peter Frost’s culture isn’t fascist (do a little research on fascism) but it is overly leftist – way too much – and he’s trying his best to function within it. There’s no law that says you have to help him do that…but why wouldn’t you want to? I’m guessing the rewards of his bravery are little enough as it is.

I can read the conversations over at other blogs because idiots and trolls get banned.

Contrast with Razib’s where you can read his post and then just continue straight through all of the comments.

Thank you Peter Frost for your interesting thoughts. Thank you multiple commentators for the continued discussion on regression to the mean. I suggest that the gentlemanly moderator take control of these threads by banning the trolls and the idiots. Readers shouldn’t be having to sift through the “you are a whore” comments to find ones that contribute to the subject originated by Peter Frost.

Regression to the mean works in blog forums just like it works in genetics. Intellectual conversations degenerate into blathering nonsense without firm control by the moderator. I can read the conversations over at other blogs because idiots and trolls get banned. Here I am sad to say it is not worth the time.

What defines the group, Igbo? Can a person self-identify? If a person has only one Igbo parent, is he an Igbo?

If we take anything other than a completely unbiased and random sample from a collection (a collection in this case that is not even precisely defined) we cannot have any confidence in our observations of the sample as reflecting upon the whole.

We do not know the IQ of the group, Igbo.

We do know that the sample in question from this ill-defined group is not random and un-biased.

This makes sense. You are saying that mixture of normal distributions will tend to new normal distributions with changed parameters (mean and std deviation). I was wondering , are you aware at of any studies that might have looked into whether groups such as Ashkenazi Jews, Indian Brahmins etc. might actually be better represented by right skewed and kurtotic distributions at all? (in other words is there any reason to believe that eugenics practised by these groups inherently biases outcomes to non-normal distributions)

“I reckon genes work in ‘systems’ a lot more than we give them credit for. Genes don’t seem to be inherited on an individual ’50:50 chance’ basis.”

Yes!!

I have many ideas about why the leftist liberal think so. But the fact is that zombies do not think, just repeat the mantra without any substance that are led to believe.

The ideology of the modern cultural Marxism has a motivation, world domination, the idea of ​​total control over the entire planet.

” We are all equal ” because we have the same bosses.

leftists are distractions, is not that they have no value, almost every intelligent WEIRD- has at least one or two friends who are leftists. It is that social engineers saw in them a great potential to be EXPLOITED, their ingenuity, their weaknesses, the fact that many of them are really good people who believe in mantras that follow, including because they are mantras that validate themselves, often by example, why 90% of Western homosexuals are leftists ** Indeed, when liberals talk about social constructions, they are talking about themselves because previously did not have an official ideology, which was dominated by the monotheistic religions.

You can blame a leftist but be sure to do the same with other believers. What does the leftist is what Christians have done for centuries.

Lecture someone else Peter. I wasn’t offering any ideas, I was making a comment on the leftwing kanadian human rights court which is an affront to democracy and individual rights.

Dr. Frost after receiving all these comments are you going to make an update post? It’s all pretty confusing and would be nice to have it in a bite sized form.

I have no idea which of my comments you are referring to.

This has nothing to do with “fascism.�

It has everything to do with the decline of the West into fascism, socialism, communism, and stalinism (pick your ism, they are all just shades of gray in difference), which do not respect free speech and other rights and people like you who are too willing to give up those rights for some phony “comfort” and “security”. People like you think that just because you silence a person’s ability to voice their opinions those opinions go away. They don’t. Of ten they find other outlet of expression, sometimes violent ones. It is better to know who those people are and what they have to say. If it makes you uncomfortable, too bad.

You make a decent case for censorship.

Spoken like a true fascist.

The logic of what Chanda Chisala says is that white groups are all the same, and there is no genetic IQ difference between the European nations or the English elite and the English poor Lets get away from IQ for a moment; are all white groups the same in incidence of schizophrenia? I think it is established that the poor have higher rates as do the ethnically Irish, and that must be genetic.

“they would (metaphorically) introduce gene loci that never existed before in English bell curve.”

Because, races have evolved under selection pressures for wholly different environments. That’s the irony, liberals pursue an ideology that falsifies their own ideology.

An observation I’ve made is that mixed race people sometimes have unusual jaw/teeth alignment. That shouldn’t be surprising. Two different ‘systems’ for ‘constructing a jaw’ don’t neccessarily blend 50:50 and make a perfect ‘compromise’. But we don’t know that the same can’t happen with IQ. How do we know Igbo IQ comes from the same gene loci as Euro IQ? Maybe autism is a similar phenomenon. Maybe homosexuality is. I reckon genes work in ‘systems’ a lot more than we give them credit for. Genes don’t seem to be inherited on an individual ’50:50 chance’ basis.

I’m not making an argument against race mixing per se. Simply trying to understand biology.

“Demographic-â€�traitâ€� rarity is likely to cause regression to mean. Less people with similar/ fit phenotype for reproduce it mean higher probability to back to mean. But remember, every group have its own mean. Mean is not universal meaning for mediocrity but for demographic/numerical prevalence.”

I think that’s the same as what I’m saying. Groups that emerge from other groups are like mini-bell curves somewhere on the bigger bell curve.

Amish came from Dutch (?), Dutch came from nEuros, nEuros came from Bronze Age Euros, Bronze Age Euros came from admix of EEF+WHG+ANE and so relate also to Middle-East and Eurasia, Mid-E + Eurasia + Europe = Cauc-Asian. So, a bell curve for Cauc-Asian will have hypothetically smaller bell curves, for each of the component groups, on the curve .

If Amish marry Dutch, they disappear back into the Dutch bell curve. If Dutch marry nEuro, they disappear into a nEuro bell curve. But equally, the mean of the larger bell curve shifts as the smaller population mixes back into it.

If all Pakistanis in UK mate with English, Pakistanis disappear into English bell curve, and change the mean of the English bell curve. Which is exactly what liberals imagine can happen – all world disappears into one big human bell curve. But it can’t happen because populations stay isolated from each other and if anything keep creating new little bell curves by their mating habits, including bell curves for socio-econ within an otherwise homogenous population. Brahmin regress first to mean for Brahmin, then Hindu, then Indian, then S Asian etc.

The difference with ‘race’ is that when bell curves mix, the change in gene pool is much greater because there are more differences between the original gene pools of races. So if all Igbo married English they wouldn’t just ‘melt back’ into the bell curve they would (metaphorically) introduce gene loci that never existed before in English bell curve.

Afro-americans that score higher in cognitive tests are in The right end of bell curve of major afro-American population.
SOME or subgroup of igbos are a endogamic population without greater proportion of cousin marriage, seems, and higher intelligence or specially, similar intelligence bases on ” western standards”.

Lower proportion of smart types in populations reverberates in lower proportion of genes or genetic combination probabilities in the gene pool that increase chance to produce this phenotypes.

Demographic-“trait” rarity is likely to cause regression to mean. Less people with similar/ fit phenotype for reproduce it mean higher probability to back to mean. But remember, every group have its own mean. Mean is not universal meaning for mediocrity but for demographic/numerical prevalence.

You and other Canadians need to do what the gun owners in the western provinces did to scuttle your gun registry. I could be wrong but I remember reading (maybe I hallucinated it) stories of large demonstrations of gun owners carrying signs and shouting that they have not complied with the registration law and demand that they be arrested.

You Canadians need to organize demonstrations against these laws. Carry signs and use language clearly defying these totalitarian laws.

Which part of “In 2011, Ražnatović pleaded guilty to embezzling millions of euros from the transfers of players from the football club FK Obilić, which she inherited from her late husband, and again illegal possession of eleven weapons” didn’t you understand? Morality isn’t just who you have sex with, you dolt.

I am also not “Murican” and big Hollywood stars aren’t mine by any measure.

You have started commenting here yesterday and you’re offending people you don’t even know and showing yourself to be a complete ignorant @$$hole. By your name I guess you’re from Montenegro or Serbia. If you think you’re going to show your tribe in a positive light, or look cool, by acting like a $hithe@d towards strangers, well then you’re sorely mistaken.

There is an outward appearance of sameness when 95% of Afro-blacks vote consistently for the US Democrat party.

I am with you, on this one. Some of us check our own comment list, to see if anyone has replied to us, because we have neither the time nor the inclination to read thousands of comments per day, just to see if someone responded to us, and to who knows whom else, without using the “REPLY” button provided.