Does anyone here really believe there are any racial differences?

[JohnEngelman]

In my excerpts from The Atlantic I mentioned Professor Arthur Jensen of Berkeley, and failing efforts by SDS to get him fired. What follows is a statement by the Professor, which illustrates why SDS tried to get him fired:


"Where the differences in basic characteristics are not conspicuous, as in the case of Asians and whites, and when persons can fit in and do the same kinds of jobs and do them as well as anyone else, it may work. See, there are blacks who fit in this way too — who do all right.

"But the black population in this country is in a sense burdened by the large number of persons who are at a level of g that is no longer very relevant to a highly industrialized, technological society. Once you get below IQs of 80 or 75, which is the cut-off for mental retardation in the California School System, children are put into special classes. These persons are not really educable up to a level for which there’s any economic demand. The question is, what do you do about them? They have higher birth-rates than the other end of the distribution.

"People are shocked and disbelieving when you tell them that about one in four blacks in our population are in that category — below 75. Judge Peckham [in a case in which he ruled that black students in California could not be given IQ tests because the tests were biased against blacks] could not believe it when this was explained to him in a trial that lasted a year. He said, 'Well, if there were twice as many blacks in classes for the retarded as whites, maybe that would seem not impossible, but since there are four times as many, there’s got to be something wrong with the tests. There’s got to be something wrong with the way you’re classifying them'.”

 

[JohnEngelman]

[TR]
[TD]“”Anyone who flipped through the footnotes and bibliography of Murray and Herrnstein's book could see that there was something screwy about their sources. And there is hardly a proposition in their book that had not been thoroughly debunked more than a decade ago by Stephen Jay Gould's classic work on the pseudoscience behind eugenics, The Mismeasure of Man.[23][24][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

In The Mismeasure of Man Professor Stephen Jay Gould discussed experiments by Samuel Morton in the nineteenth century to determine how average brain size correlates with race. Morton used white pepper seed in 1839, and bb shot in 1844 to measure brain size in a large number of skulls from different races.

On the basis of his measurements Morton concluded that whites usually have larger brains than blacks. Professor Gold claimed that Morton falsified his results, and that racial differences in brain sizes do not exist.

A nice thing about science is that experiments can be repeated. A number of scientists used Morton's skulls and methods and concluded that it was Gould, rather than Morton, who falsified results. More advanced methods of measuring brain size have again determined that that whites do tend to have larger brains than blacks. Additional research has determined that brain size correlates with intelligence.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

. Additional research has determined that brain size correlates with intelligence.

So you're claiming Neanderthals were smarter than us. Is that what you're saying? I always thought it was the density of neurons per cubic inch that counted....

 

[JohnEngelman]

So you're claiming Neanderthals were smarter than us. Is that what you're saying? I always thought it was the density of neurons per cubic inch that counted....

Neanderthals had larger brains than the Cro Magnons who displaced them. Nevertheless, the parts of the brains that were larger were the parts that determine reflexes and coordination. The frontal lobes, which determine intelligence and conscious thinking were smaller. This can be seen in the fact that modern humans with high foreheads are usually more intelligent than modern humans with low foreheads. This in turn is reflected in the terms "high brow" and "low brow."

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Neanderthals had larger brains than the Cro Magnons who displaced them. Nevertheless, the parts of the brains that were larger were the parts that determine reflexes and coordination. The frontal lobes, which determine intelligence and conscious thinking were smaller. This can be seen in the fact that modern humans with high foreheads are usually more intelligent than modern humans with low foreheads. This in turn is reflected in the terms "high brow" and "low brow."

In The Mismeasure of Man Professor Stephen Jay Gould discussed experiments by Samuel Morton in the nineteenth century to determine how average brain size correlates with race. Morton used white pepper seed in 1839, and bb shot in 1844 to measure brain size in a large number of skulls from different races.

On the basis of his measurements Morton concluded that whites usually have larger brains than blacks. Professor Gold claimed that Morton falsified his results, and that racial differences in brain sizes do not exist.

A nice thing about science is that experiments can be repeated. A number of scientists used Morton's skulls and methods and concluded that it was Gould, rather than Morton, who falsified results. More advanced methods of measuring brain size have again determined that that whites do tend to have larger brains than blacks. Additional research has determined that brain size correlates with intelligence.

Whoa, you just posted a study saying intelligence is related to brain size. Now you're saying that is wrong? It needs to be modified to fit your belief?

Maybe go back and re-read about Craniometry and Phrenology. Then lets bring Georges Vacher de Lapouge back into the discussion...

 

[Politruk]

On the basis of his measurements Morton concluded that whites usually have larger brains than blacks. Professor Gold claimed that Morton falsified his results, and that racial differences in brain sizes do not exist.

Women really do have smaller brains than men -- and smaller hearts, smaller lungs, smaller kidneys, because women's whole bodies are smaller. But it does not make them any stupider. If brain size were everything, the elephants would have cities on the Moon by now.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Women really do have smaller brains than men -- and smaller hearts, smaller lungs, smaller kidneys, because women's whole bodies are smaller. But it does not make them any stupider. If brain size were everything, the elephants would have cities on the Moon by now.

When brain is measured against body size, there is still a correlation between brain size and intelligence. Other factors influence intelligence, but brain size is probably most important. Also, the male IQ bell curve for men is flatter than it is for women. In other words, more men are in the genius range; more men are mentally retarded.

 

[Politruk]

In my excerpts from The Atlantic I mentioned Professor Arthur Jensen of Berkeley

Arthur Jensen:

Arthur Jensen (1923–2012) was an American white nationalist and psychologist who was arguably the father of modern day hereditarianism pseudoscience with the publication of an article in the Harvard Educational Review (1969).[1]

Although presenting himself as a political centrist and "objective scientist", the SPLC classifies Jensen as a white nationalist providing evidence of racist statements he made, as well as his associations with the far-right.[2]

The fake latter-day Galileo[edit]​

As noted by the Southern Poverty Law Center:


[TR]
[TD]“”Jensen worked hard to develop a reputation as an objective scientist who “just never thought along [racial] lines,” and to portray critics of his racist conclusions as politically motivated and unscientific. His followers and allies have continued to push this narrative, presenting Jensen as a latter-day Galileo, unfairly persecuted for his pursuit of scientific truth.[/TD]
[/TR]

They point out though the "mask did occasionally slip" and Jensen exposed his underlying political agenda:

• Jensen in 1992 was interviewed by the white nationalist Jared Taylor for American Renaissance and both of them agreed on numerous things that are common beliefs or goals of white nationalists e.g. the reduction of black birth rates, but non-reduction of white birth rates, support of eugenics and the pseudoscientific idea the black-white IQ gap is predominantly genetic, rather than sociocultural environmental (i.e. what became known as Jensenism) and the right-wing conspiracy theory cultural Marxist "egalitarians" have taken over academia and suppress opposing viewpoints.[3]
• Jensen sat on the Editorial Board of the German neo-Nazi journal Neue Anthropologie (NA) published by the Society for Biological Anthropology, Eugenics and Behavioural Research and also wrote the NA article "Die falschen Anschuldigungen gegen Sir Cyril Burt" (1977).
• Jensen's controversial research on race and intelligence was financially supported by the white supremacist Pioneer Fund.
• Jensen was a racialist who held pseudoscientific views about race; in Intelligence, Race, And Genetics: Conversations With Arthur R. Jensen (2002) he is quoted as arguing there are 6 human races as genetic clusters, i.e. "Negroids", Australian aborigines/Melanesians, Pacific Islanders/Southeast Asians, "Mongoloids", Amerindians/Eskimos and "Caucasoids". Needless to say, Jensen was uneducated about clines and population genetics.
• Jensen in 1973 argued there is possibly a link between skin colour and intelligence, writing "[t]he possibility of a biochemical connection between skin pigmentation and intelligence is not totally unlikely". The SPLC notes: "Jensen’s statement boils down to the claim that dark skin causes stupidity. No biologist would ever take such a statement seriously, and indeed, none has—though it is now a widely accepted belief among white supremacists."

Institute for Mental Chronometry[edit]​

Jensen's legacy lives on through the Institute of Mental Chronometry which was founded by himself and others. Jensen is listed as the director of the organization in the organization's tax records for 2011.[4]

The organization was originally called Institute for the Study of Educational Differences[5] and received funding from the racialist Pioneer Fund.[6]

The Institute is connected to the International Society for Intelligence Research and provides funding for that organization. In August 2023 the University of Minnesota announced that "the Institute of Mental Chronometry has awarded James Lee (PI) and Emily Willoughby (Co-PI) with a grant ($530,129) to study the “Foundations and Implications of Human Cognitive Ability.” The research includes the biological basis of reaction time, the existence and effects of selective placement in adoption studies, and drawing ability and visuomotor task performance."[7] Both Willoughby and Lee are members of the International Society for Intelligence Research: Willoughby is a board member[8] and Lee is a former board member.[9]

 

[Politruk]

It is amazing that in this day and age there is such a network of scholarly organizations dedicated to the old long-debunked racial pseudoscience.

 

[JohnEngelman]

k

Arthur Jensen:

Arthur Jensen (1923–2012) was an American white nationalist and psychologist who was arguably the father of modern day hereditarianism pseudoscience with the publication of an article in the Harvard Educational Review (1969).[1]

I do not know this for a fact, but I am confident that Professor Arthur Jensen recognized that East Asins tend to be more intelligent than whites. No one who recognizes that can be called a white nationalist.

After his article was published in the Harvard Educational Review in 1969 new left thugs interrupted his classes at Barkeley. He received hate mail and death threats. He often required police protection. Anti racists are like that. They are unable to prove their theories scientifically, so they try to suppress those who challenge their theories.

In his article Professor Jensen claimed that little could be done to improve academic performance and scores on mental aptitude tests. The following chart demonstrates that little has been achieved, despite the increase in money spent on public education.

 

[Politruk]

k

I do not know this for a fact, but I am confident that Professor Arthur Jensen recognized that East Asins tend to be more intelligent than whites. No one who recognizes that can be called a white nationalist.

After his article was published in the Harvard Educational Review in 1969 new left thugs interrupted his classes at Barkeley. He received hate mail and death threats. He often required police protection. Anti racists are like that. They are unable to prove their theories scientifically, so they try to suppress those who challenge their theories.

In his article Professor Jensen claimed that little could be done to improve academic performance and scores on mental aptitude tests. The following chart demonstrates that little has been achieved, despite the increase in money spent on public education.


View attachment 2530770

More interestingly, why is it that cost per student has risen faster than number of teachers and employees?

 

[JohnEngelman]

It is amazing that in this day and age there is such a network of scholarly organizations dedicated to the old long-debunked racial pseudoscience.

The reason there are so many scholarly organizations dedicated to the importance of genes over environment is because of the growing scientific evidence that they are correct in what they maintain. What is being debunked is the assertion that social reform and social welfare spending makes people better and more intelligent. Nothing increases intelligence but eugenics. Crime rates have been reduced by making punishment more likely and severe, and by making abortions easier to have. Because of the Roe vs Wade decision of 1973 millions of potential criminals have been destroyed in the womb.

 

[JohnEngelman]

More interestingly, why is it that cost per student has risen faster than number of teachers and employees?

The chart does not say this, but I suspect that the number of teachers and school officials has been increasing.

 

[Politruk]

The chart does not say this, but I suspect that the number of teachers and school officials has been increasing.

That is exactly what it does say. But cost per student has increased faster. Why?

 

[Politruk]

Nothing increases intelligence but eugenics.

The absurdity of eugenics:

Whilst eugenics depends, in theory, on the perfectly valid science of genetics and appeals to the practice of animal husbandry, historically, its application has always been far from scientific. Whereas it is (relatively) easy to, for example, breed cattle for higher milk yield, defining what is meant by a "better" human being becomes a very difficult question. At this point, eugenics stops being scientific and starts being normative and political, and a rather nasty type of politics at that; Eugenics drew heavily from various racist and racialist tracts of its heyday. To say nothing of the fact that any form of experimentation, well, let's just say that ethics boards exist for a reason.

The most obvious flaw with the application of eugenics is that its proponents have tended to conflate phenotypical (read: superficial) traits with genotypical traits. Any species that looks fit on the outside may carry recessive traits which don't exhibit themselves but which will be passed on, and vice versa. The development of the field of epigenetics,https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Wikipedia%27s_W.svg/20px-Wikipedia%27s_W.svg.png i.e. heritable environmental factors in genetic expression that occur without change to underlying DNA structures, poses further problems for eugenics.

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins claimed in a tweet that:

It's one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds. It's quite another to conclude that it wouldn't work in practice. Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn't it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology."[30]

It may be true that a selective breeding plan to encourage certain physical traits in humans could achieve some results that plant- and animal-breeders (who were without specific knowledge of the genes they were selecting in and out) have achieved over the centuries. But the odds are that the purebred humans with distinguishing features would be less healthy than the offspring of unconstrained mating would be, for the same reason that kennel-club purebred dogs are often less healthy than mutts. This concept of "purity" is flawed in that it gives rise to many of the same problems as inbreeding — a loss of genetic biodiversity can in fact lead to increased susceptibility to a common concentrated weakness. A classic example of concentration is haemophilia,https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Wikipedia%27s_W.svg/20px-Wikipedia%27s_W.svg.png which became the plague of the European royal families. (Ironically, a common element in eugenicist works was that "inferior races" and or "race mixing" would produce an overall correlation with genetic disorders.) Furthermore, changes in the environment can cause traits that were once advantageous to become liabilities virtually overnight. An example of this occurred in deer populations. For millions of years, natural selection favored male deer with large antlers as fitter specimens, as they could use those antlers to protect themselves and to fight other males for access to females. However, upon the rise of sport hunting, bucks with large antlers suddenly found themselves targeted specifically because of those antlers, as they made great trophies with which to establish the human hunter's prowess. The size of antlers among deer populations plunged down fast. Among humans, being a carrier for sickle-cell anemia would normally result in fewer surviving offspring and eventually cause the genes to die off... except that being a carrier grants resistance to malaria, the deadliest disease in human history.

The extreme reductionism of eugenics often crossed into what is now comical territory. Nearly every social behavior, including things such as "pauperism" and the vaguely defined "feeble-mindedness", could be traced back to a single genetic disorder according to eugenicists, while we now know that the bulk of the 19th-century disorders were the result of poor sanitation, nutrition, and healthcare.[note 1] Many works of eugenics recall the similar trend evident in phrenology (indeed, there was some overlap between eugenics and phrenology).[31]

In short, eugenics could become a legitimate science... if virtually everything about how it has been applied were changed. Any "ubermensch" would need the widest possible selection of "superior" genes, meaning that any resulting super-human would be very much mixed race, something most self-proclaimed Eugenicists would abhor. It's also important to remember that as humans are a social species, the most productive society would be one where the humans all have a strong sense of empathy, something that does have a genetic component[32] and is probably lacking in anyone that would openly advocate for the forcible sterilization and/or murder of others. This means that a proper eugenics program would begin with the sterilization of the eugenicists themselves.

While eugenics gained widespread support in the early 20th century (even within the scientific communityhttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Wikipedia%27s_W.svg/20px-Wikipedia%27s_W.svg.png) in a number of countries, there was also strong opposition during this period.[33]

• The biologist Raymond Pearl,https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Wikipedia%27s_W.svg/20px-Wikipedia%27s_W.svg.png once a supporter of the eugenics movement, turned against it in the late 1920s.[34]
• G. K. Chesterton (1874–1936) who went on to pen the essay Eugenics and Other Evils during the height of eugenics' popularity in Britain during the early 20th century.[35]
• The geneticist Lancelot Hogbenhttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Wikipedia%27s_W.svg/20px-Wikipedia%27s_W.svg.png argued that eugenics relied on a false dichotomy of "nature vs. nurture" and that it infected science with political value judgments.[36] William Beveridgehttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Wikipedia%27s_W.svg/20px-Wikipedia%27s_W.svg.png (the director of the London School of Economics from 1919 to 1937) asked Hogben to promote eugenics on campus; Hogben gave Beveridge the finger and prevented any of his eugenic ideas from being taken seriously in the formation of the British welfare state.[37]
• Clarence Darrow (1857–1938) famously denounced eugenics as a "cult."[38]
• The Carnegie Institute, which initially funded the Eugenics Record Office, withdrew its funding after a review of its research, leading to its closing in 1939 (before the Holocaust).[39]

 

[Politruk]

Nothing increases intelligence but eugenics.

As you may know, the average tested IQs of many Third World countries have increased by a full standard deviation since WWII -- and not because of any changes in their gene pools. This can only be explained by improvements in nutrition, health care, and early childhood education.

See the Flynn effect.

 

[JohnEngelman]

As you may know, the average tested IQs of many Third World countries have increased by a full standard deviation since WWII -- and not because of any changes in their gene pools. This can only be explained by improvements in nutrition, health care, and early childhood education.

See the Flynn effect.

The Flynn effect is true of the older IQ tests. It is easier to measure what has been learned, than the ability to learn. Many of the questions on the older tests were of general knowledge, with the assumption that an intelligent person would know the answers, and an unintelligent person would not. As education has become more widespread, general knowledge has improved, so scores on the old tests have improved.

There are new tests that require no knowledge of reading, no knowledge of mathematics, and that can be explained without use of English. A space alien could take one of those tests. I suspect the space alien would get a perfect score in record time.

 

[JohnEngelman]

The absurdity of eugenics:

Whilst eugenics depends, in theory, on the perfectly valid science of genetics and appeals to the practice of animal husbandry, historically, its application has always been far from scientific. Whereas it is (relatively) easy to, for example, breed cattle for higher milk yield, defining what is meant by a "better" human being becomes a very difficult question. At this point, eugenics stops being scientific and starts being normative and political, and a rather nasty type of politics at that; Eugenics drew heavily from various racist and racialist tracts of its heyday. To say nothing of the fact that any form of experimentation, well, let's just say that ethics boards exist for a reason.

The most obvious flaw with the application of eugenics is that its proponents have tended to conflate phenotypical (read: superficial) traits with genotypical traits. Any species that looks fit on the outside may carry recessive traits which don't exhibit themselves but which will be passed on, and vice versa. The development of the field of epigenetics,https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Wikipedia%27s_W.svg/20px-Wikipedia%27s_W.svg.png i.e. heritable environmental factors in genetic expression that occur without change to underlying DNA structures, poses further problems for eugenics.

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins claimed in a tweet that:


It may be true that a selective breeding plan to encourage certain physical traits in humans could achieve some results that plant- and animal-breeders (who were without specific knowledge of the genes they were selecting in and out) have achieved over the centuries. But the odds are that the purebred humans with distinguishing features would be less healthy than the offspring of unconstrained mating would be, for the same reason that kennel-club purebred dogs are often less healthy than mutts. This concept of "purity" is flawed in that it gives rise to many of the same problems as inbreeding — a loss of genetic biodiversity can in fact lead to increased susceptibility to a common concentrated weakness. A classic example of concentration is haemophilia,https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Wikipedia%27s_W.svg/20px-Wikipedia%27s_W.svg.png which became the plague of the European royal families. (Ironically, a common element in eugenicist works was that "inferior races" and or "race mixing" would produce an overall correlation with genetic disorders.) Furthermore, changes in the environment can cause traits that were once advantageous to become liabilities virtually overnight. An example of this occurred in deer populations. For millions of years, natural selection favored male deer with large antlers as fitter specimens, as they could use those antlers to protect themselves and to fight other males for access to females. However, upon the rise of sport hunting, bucks with large antlers suddenly found themselves targeted specifically because of those antlers, as they made great trophies with which to establish the human hunter's prowess. The size of antlers among deer populations plunged down fast. Among humans, being a carrier for sickle-cell anemia would normally result in fewer surviving offspring and eventually cause the genes to die off... except that being a carrier grants resistance to malaria, the deadliest disease in human history.

The extreme reductionism of eugenics often crossed into what is now comical territory. Nearly every social behavior, including things such as "pauperism" and the vaguely defined "feeble-mindedness", could be traced back to a single genetic disorder according to eugenicists, while we now know that the bulk of the 19th-century disorders were the result of poor sanitation, nutrition, and healthcare.[note 1] Many works of eugenics recall the similar trend evident in phrenology (indeed, there was some overlap between eugenics and phrenology).[31]

In short, eugenics could become a legitimate science... if virtually everything about how it has been applied were changed. Any "ubermensch" would need the widest possible selection of "superior" genes, meaning that any resulting super-human would be very much mixed race, something most self-proclaimed Eugenicists would abhor. It's also important to remember that as humans are a social species, the most productive society would be one where the humans all have a strong sense of empathy, something that does have a genetic component[32] and is probably lacking in anyone that would openly advocate for the forcible sterilization and/or murder of others. This means that a proper eugenics program would begin with the sterilization of the eugenicists themselves.

While eugenics gained widespread support in the early 20th century (even within the scientific communityhttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Wikipedia%27s_W.svg/20px-Wikipedia%27s_W.svg.png) in a number of countries, there was also strong opposition during this period.[33]

• The biologist Raymond Pearl,https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Wikipedia%27s_W.svg/20px-Wikipedia%27s_W.svg.png once a supporter of the eugenics movement, turned against it in the late 1920s.[34]
• G. K. Chesterton (1874–1936) who went on to pen the essay Eugenics and Other Evils during the height of eugenics' popularity in Britain during the early 20th century.[35]
• The geneticist Lancelot Hogbenhttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Wikipedia%27s_W.svg/20px-Wikipedia%27s_W.svg.png argued that eugenics relied on a false dichotomy of "nature vs. nurture" and that it infected science with political value judgments.[36] William Beveridgehttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Wikipedia%27s_W.svg/20px-Wikipedia%27s_W.svg.png (the director of the London School of Economics from 1919 to 1937) asked Hogben to promote eugenics on campus; Hogben gave Beveridge the finger and prevented any of his eugenic ideas from being taken seriously in the formation of the British welfare state.[37]
• Clarence Darrow (1857–1938) famously denounced eugenics as a "cult."[38]
• The Carnegie Institute, which initially funded the Eugenics Record Office, withdrew its funding after a review of its research, leading to its closing in 1939 (before the Holocaust).[39]

Eugenics is not a science, but a movement that lost prestige when the existence of the Holocaust was discovered. That is ironic, because Jews are the most accomplished 0.2 percent of the human population. A mild form of eugenics would not require the killing of those deemed unfit. It would require sterilization as a requirement for receiving welfare checks.

 

[JohnEngelman]

That is exactly what it does say. But cost per student has increased faster. Why?

That is a good question. The chart does not tell, and I do not know.

Perhaps more money has been spent on newer textbooks and repairs to old buildings.

 

[YDB95]

View attachment 2530548

As I tell you every time you post that meme, he is condemning your attitude!

 

[Politruk]

And here you go. Well first IQ isn't a measure of intelligence

So what is?

 

[JohnEngelman]

As I tell you every time you post that meme, he is condemning your attitude!

He is not condemning my attitude. He is condemning the black criminals who threaten him with crime.

 

[YDB95]

He is not condemning my attitude. He is condemning the black criminals who threaten him with crime.

It is nowhere near that simple.

 

[JohnEngelman]

It is nowhere near that simple.

Then what is it?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

So what is?

And here you go. Well first IQ isn't a measure of intelligence ( and no I'm not re-posting citations, you don't fucking believe them anyhow) but a gauge on how quickly an individual grasps a subject and the measure of comprehension they grasp. That's it nothing more, except people who take IQ tests more often, score better.

For example, if you can pick out a sequence in 10 seconds, and it takes another 20 seconds, but you're both correct; which is the more intelligent of the two?

That is an IQ test in a nut shell.