Must Read - EARTHLINGS

[Mali]

In regards to natural selection, altruism has been shown to increase the survivability of a species. If we can live in harmony with the environment and each other it will be to our great advantage.

[Mali]

In response to Mya, Africa has not done well due to repeated colonization and genocides that have been perpetrated there by many nations over thousands of years. Romans coveted North africa along with the goths and the vandals as early as 1500 years ago and the reason so many nations wanted parts of Africa is because of how great the land is and how many people it has been able to support.

[mya]

I disagree about Romans and Celts invasions. Europe suffered the same and is fine. In fact Europe was better after the romans came, because of civilization.

Why has China, Japan, Germany, France pick up fast after wars and Africa stays the same ?

[Pali]

I disagree about Romans and Celts invasions. Europe suffered the same and is fine. In fact Europe was better after the romans came' date=' because of civilization.[/quote']

Well, first, the Greeks were the first real European civilization. Give credit where it's due. Second, the Romans did not settle Northern Africa, they exploited the material wealth that was there and brought it back to Rome. And after Rome was destroyed... well, there's a period commonly known as the Dark Ages that Europe fell into.

Why has China, Japan, Germany, France pick up fast after wars and Africa stays the same ?

Which wars are you talking about? Blanket questions like this regarding historical events are very dangerous, as every war in history has had different causes and/or triggers than others and have ended in different results. World War I, for instance, left Germany in shambles and it spent the time until Hitler's rise to power recovering. World War II left it in even worse shape, but because the other nations learned from their mistakes at the end of WWI they assisted German recovery from the war, much as the US assisted Japanese recovery. While more destructive than many of the wars in Africa today, the underlying cause of the World Wars was nationalism. These wars were not nations tearing themselves apart, but wars between nations. The nations themselves didn't need to reunify socially and culturally after the war, just to rebuild. The causes of the various African wars are far more numerous and varied... you'd need to pick a specific one and study it to find the answer for that one, and repeat for each one you ask the question about.

[Quigt]

Exactly. Providing "humanitarian aid" just prolongs the problem.

Okay, realizing that our own species will eventually follow a successive process does not give anyone a reason to discard total altruism. "Humanitarian Aid" means giving money. Or at least that's what it means to the general public. I don't support that. I do not think that you should give your money to somebody else, who will put it into a big pot and give it to somebody else - that's too unreliable and confusing. Instead, go yourself to a third-world country and ask the people what they need. I'll bet you they won't say "money."

Point is, is that saying that you shouldn't do your best to solve a problem because all it will do is prolong it, is like saying that all you should do is eat fast food and chainsmoke cigarettes while shooting intravenous drugs, because anything else will just drag out the inevitable.

Our greatest asset as a species toward survivability is our ability to work, act and think as a team.

Until recently, wolves in Yellowstone National Park were on the endangered list and kept in a controlled environment. A pack of wolves also has the ability to work, act, and think as a team. So do chimpanzees, gorillas, and fireants; numerous species have that same ability, but it does nothing to affect survivability. Our greatest strength is not our capacity for intradependence, but our greatest weakness as a species is our inability to work interdependently.

[Pali]

Point is' date=' is that saying that you shouldn't do your best to solve a problem because all it will do is prolong it, is like saying that all you should do is eat fast food and chainsmoke cigarettes while shooting intravenous drugs, because anything else will just drag out the inevitable.[/quote']

Good point man. I've been only going two thirds of the way until now... time to start shootin'.

Just kidding.

[Aulian]

I'll get you sources shortly. However anyone who's owned a pet knows what Im talking about.

[Aulian]

Hei Valsgarde' date=' do you have an opinion on why the Africans do so badly even when they have some of the best Climates and resources ?[/quote']

Tribal mentality, its a very difficult thing to describe to someone if they havent lived in Africa. (which I have for 10+ years)

[Valsgarde]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalright, let's see here. *cracks knuckles*

Hei Valsgarde, do you have an opinion on why the Africans do so badly even when they have some of the best Climates and resources ?

Why yes, yes I most certainly do.

Only if you look at humans as a series of independent systems working against each other. I would venture that our "enlightened" nature allows us to assume a unified stance, regardless of the physical, socioeconomic or emotional differences between us. Our greatest asset as a species toward survivability is our ability to work, act and think as a team.

That's exactly what humans are. The history of the entirity of our species should be proof enough for that. And our greatest asset towards survivability I'd think would be our ability to adapt, create, invent, and having opposable thumbs.

When it comes to discussions on Social Darwinism, I believe it fallacious to argue that one segment of humanity will/has advance(d) beyond another, without also admitting that humanity as a whole can not advance because of this.

In other words, the greatest opposition to the success of any team is refusing to admit you're on a team.

Your belief that it is fallacious does not change the fact that that's how it is.

The greatest opposition to your team is people refusing to be on your team. Same thing - but how I word it is a little more honest.

Central/Western/Northern Europe are not where civilization began and flourished. The area surrounding the Mediterranean is, and technology spread from there to the rest of Europe (after it spread out of the Fertile Crescent into the Mediterranean). This only strengthens my argument.

The Hell it does, it strengthens my argument. People of Central, Western, and Northern Europe had LESS time to adapt and develop in a LESS hospitable place, and their descendants rule the world.

These places you mention lacked native animals and plants that were very useful.

See my previous comment.

The vast majority of large mammals have never been domesticated because they lack the temperament for it, or because it's just not economical to do so. To grow an elephant to maturity takes nearly as long as growing a human to maturity, and a LOT more food is needed along the way. Elephants have been tamed plenty of times, but domesticating them and using them for regular labor is simply not practical (Sub-Saharan Africans may have never domesticated them, but neither have the Europeans that conquered the Sub-Saharan Africans).

Every ethnicity that had elephants in their native region domesticated the elephant except for Sub-Saharan Africans. North Africans. Indians. Persians. Cambodians. EVERYONE except for Sub-Saharan Africans.

They lacked beasts of burden. The wheel's a far more useful invention with them around.

Then you domesticate some.

The point I've been making is that they didn't HAVE worthwhile resources to do things with.

Sub-Saharan Africa and Central America are among the most resource-rich places on the entire planet.

The development of steel was a crucial advantage of Europeans over these peoples, and steel was a technology that required centuries of development.

The Central American civilizations had intimate knowledge of metals and ore, but utterly failed to develop metallurgy or past the effin' stone age, and had just as much time as anyone else on the planet.

They're also starving to death and being decimated by disease because of centuries of Western control and exploitation of them that continues to this day. Not because of their genetic differences from us. Darwinism deals with genes, not with individuals.

Exactly, Darwinism deals with genes, species and subspecies, not individuals. Every ethnicity is a completely different subdivision of Homo Sapien Sapien. The most basic of anthropology can tell you that. The fact that they're "also" starving to death for any reason means that they'd be starving and suffering anyway. Look at them. Even in areas with no European/American influence at all, they just butcher and genocide one another. They've been doing it since time began and all they got from us are better weapons and communications to do it with. They'd do it whether we made our presence known in that corner of the world or not.

No, you're not. Evolutionary theory deals with changing allele frequencies within a population. There is no evidence I've seen that any group is genetically predisposed to be mentally inferior to other humans. If there is no genetic basis, then it has nothing to do with evolution.

Yes, I am. There is PLENTY of genetic basis, you are just arrogantly, altruistically, and politically correctly assuming there isn't and denying the validity of anything that doesn't fit the all-humans-are-humans-and-there's-no-difference-between-us cookie cutter worldview.

In regards to natural selection, altruism has been shown to increase the survivability of a species. If we can live in harmony with the environment and each other it will be to our great advantage.

Altruism is also the bane of the mind and the individual. Thanks to the altruism that was brought about by the advent of Christianity, more people have been killed in the name of God than any other reason. How much more altruism do you want to put our species through?

I disagree about Romans and Celts invasions. Europe suffered the same and is fine. In fact Europe was better after the romans came, because of civilization.

Why has China, Japan, Germany, France pick up fast after wars and Africa stays the same ?

Because Africans are incapable of progress on the level of those other countries you named. The simple and self-evident fact that they haven't progressed similarly is proof enough of this. Whether it is a genetic or cultural boundary that they haven't hurdled yet is irrelevent; the fact remains is that they haven't.

Point is, is that saying that you shouldn't do your best to solve a problem because all it will do is prolong it, is like saying that all you should do is eat fast food and chainsmoke cigarettes while shooting intravenous drugs, because anything else will just drag out the inevitable.

[Raargant]

Before this goes anywhere else, I just want to give you, Valsgarde, a chance to clear something up.

Are you making the argument that (for example) Africans and/or blacks are mentally inferior to Europeans/Caucasians, due to biological and genetic inferiority, which is why sub-Sahara Africa remains underdeveloped?

I just want to give you a chance to clear this up, because that sounds awfully like what you are arguing.

[Quigt]

I'll have you know that apples and oranges do in fact share numerous similarities. One being that both originate from angiosperms, another being that both are matured versions of plant ovaries, which act as vessels for nourishing and carrying fertilized seeds. The only differences are superficial. So if you're saying that comparing apathy towards self-destruction is grossly different from apathy towards the destruction of others, then I would say that you're slightly mistaken.

I reiterate:

...realizing that our own species will eventually follow a successive process does not give anyone a reason to discard total altruism.

On a biological scale, this is even more true when you take into account other species that show altruism. For example, baboons are known to help each other in fights, especially when they show no social link. Wolves often offer food to other wolves, even though they aren't from the same pack. Or when some species of wild squirrels will let out certain calls when a predator iis near, depending on the type of the predator.

[Pali]

The Hell it does' date=' it strengthens [b']my argument. People of Central, Western, and Northern Europe had LESS time to adapt and develop in a LESS hospitable place, and their descendants rule the world.

Except that they had the advantage of interactions with very close (geographically) people who had already developed the technologies and had refined agricultural techniques (this is very important, because just starting agriculture from scratch without knowing advanced techniques is very difficult and for many groups simply not worth the effort... to expect them to look forward and see the benefits a thousand years down the line of switching to agriculture is ludicrous). Until this happened, mostly because of the Roman Empire's imperialism, Central, Western, and Northern Europe remained just as undeveloped as North America and sub-Saharan Africa.

Every ethnicity that had elephants in their native region domesticated the elephant except for Sub-Saharan Africans. North Africans. Indians. Persians. Cambodians. EVERYONE except for Sub-Saharan Africans.

They TAMED elephants. They did not domesticate (read: mass breeding under controlled conditions for purposes of labor or food). This is a crucial difference. EDIT: Also, if I recall correctly, African elephants have a fair bit harsher temperament than a lot of other elephants.

Then you domesticate some.

You're missing my point that the Americas were lacking in useful animals suitable for domestication until those animals were brought over from Europe. Not every animal can be domesticated, and of those that can, not all are WORTH domesticating, especially thousands of years ago.

Sub-Saharan Africa and Central America are among the most resource-rich places on the entire planet.

But not in the resources required for rapid agricultural growth, which is what allowed civilization to begin and expand.

The Central American civilizations had intimate knowledge of metals and ore, but utterly failed to develop metallurgy or past the effin' stone age, and had just as much time as anyone else on the planet.

They did not have beasts of burden capable of high-stress work. They did not have the kind of agricultural surplus Europe did.

Exactly, Darwinism deals with genes, species and subspecies, not individuals. Every ethnicity is a completely different subdivision of Homo Sapien Sapien. The most basic of anthropology can tell you that. The fact that they're "also" starving to death for any reason means that they'd be starving and suffering anyway.

Except that people from those genetic backgrounds, when placed from birth in other circumstances, show identical aptitudes and abilities that Europeans do. And Europeans in their circumstances show the aptitudes and abilities they do. It's circumstance, not genetics, that is screwing these people over.

Look at them. Even in areas with no European/American influence at all, they just butcher and genocide one another. They've been doing it since time began and all they got from us are better weapons and communications to do it with. They'd do it whether we made our presence known in that corner of the world or not.

And until very recently, Europeans were very good at butchering and committing genocide as well. I'm not at all arguing that the tribal culture is a superior one from a humanistic standpoint. I'm arguing that the tribal culture is not a result of lower intelligence resulting from a genetic cause.

Yes, I am. There is PLENTY of genetic basis, you are just arrogantly, altruistically, and politically correctly assuming there isn't and denying the validity of anything that doesn't fit the all-humans-are-humans-and-there's-no-difference-between-us cookie cutter worldview.

No, I'm not. I'm not accepting your premise because you have presented no evidence to support it that I do not think is better explained by alternate theories. There's a difference. If there turns up solid evidence that some ethnicities are more intelligent or what have you than others, I'll accept it. I do not think all human beings are genetically equal in the area of intelligence, but I also do not think that it is a line divided by ethnicity; every group has dumb members and smart members.

Altruism is also the bane of the mind and the individual. Thanks to the altruism that was brought about by the advent of Christianity, more people have been killed in the name of God than any other reason. How much more altruism do you want to put our species through?

First, altruism has existed long before and outside of Christianity. Second, altruism is what allows a social species such as ours to function... without cooperation, we'd not have gotten out of the hunter/gatherer phase at any point in our development.

Because Africans are incapable of progress on the level of those other countries you named. The simple and self-evident fact that they haven't progressed similarly is proof enough of this. Whether it is a genetic or cultural boundary that they haven't hurdled yet is irrelevent; the fact remains is that they haven't.

Yes, the fact remains that they haven't. But the sole existence of this fact does not necessarily imply inferiority in them. There are numerous possible causes, the trouble is figuring out which ones fit the facts. I think the explanations I've given do. I do not think your explanation fits the facts that people from these areas consistently match or exceed Westerners in the area of intelligence testing (which, while a rough science that needs serious refinement, is still the best we've got at the moment) and that when living in more "civilized" places they adapt to it readily.

[Grappler]

If you dont want us to eat animals then dont make them out of meat.

[Pali]

...where'd that come from?

[Quigt]

I believe it was on-topic. Which would explain why we don't know anything about it.

[Pali]

The topic of this thread's been different for a while now... but you're right, that does go back to the original.

[Mali]

Mya, I did not say anything about Celts invading North Africa. I mentioned that the Romans, Goths, and also Vandals were there at least 1500 years ago; but in all cases you will find they were there much earlier than that messing things up. Both the Goths and the Vandals were of Germanic origin, and the Romans were not a positive force in Africa by any measure. Obviously it didn't stop there, since European nations divided up Africa piecemeal many times over many periods until quite recently. For example the 1884 berlin conference set the stage for modern exploitation of the continent. The Belgians did some work in Rwanda which directly led to the Rwandan genocides. However these two recent examples, as I have already shown, were not the beginning.

Africans had metalworking practices way before anyone in Europe did, but never developed the means for mass production of raw materials. Of course after the continent had been decimated by Europeans and Americans looking not only for food and profit but human slaves as well, these nations took care to make sure that much of the native population remained ignorant and squashed down anything beyond the most basic of local technologies.

Valsgarde, frankly the notion concerning groups of people and suffering that you put forward is ridiculous: there is no genetic predisposition to that kind of thing. The people in the world that are suffering in general are doing so as a result of greed and politics. This is not just politically correct, it is scientifically correct and evidenced by the fact that some of the worlds most brilliant minds in all fields come from areas that are plagued with this type of suffering. I would check the history books and re-examine your views on genetics and anthropology before making more glaringly erroneous statements.

For my part, I believe things can change with positive action and look forward to the day when we can move forward as a global community to tackle the unnecessary problems facing groups and individuals today.

[Imoutgoodbye]

CONSPIRACY THEORY ALERT!

While ignorance is easy to overcome by finding the truth, there are "those" who would keep us ignorant of more than the truth, deceiving us infinitely. To discover such secrets will get you branded a nut by society, thereby making social class/prestige a fair portion of this speciest problem. It could, in certain cases, cost you your life.

And as such, I'm going back to hiding under my bed. :eek:

[L-A]

Exactly - they weren't up to snuff.

You seem very willing to sit back and talk about civilisations and how they kill each other or should be allowed to or shouldn't help each other an its just natural selection.

My screwdriver simply takes this (your) principal and applies it to a more personal level ie you and me.

When I'm looking down at you with my screwdriver in the side of your neck I'm going to think 'Its OK, he wasn't up to snuff. He couldn't sotp me so its just natural selection.'

Apart from the fact that this example personally involves you, explain to me the difference? You had the same amount of time as me and you didn't develop your instincts and/or body and mind to a level where you could stop me putting the screwdriver in your neck. I'm clearly 'more evolved' than you so I have the right to eliminate you from the gene pool because you are weak?

Right? Wrong.

I'm sorry you missed the point about aliens - it is this:

If you look at the human species as a whole we are a barbaric race who has enough food to feed everyone but won't. We have enough resources to give everyone on the planet a basic standard of living but we won't.

Over our long history we have constantly found better ways to kill and maim each other going back thousands of years BC right up until the current day.

From this point of view all humans seem to want to do is kill and/or hurt each other and/or other life on the planet we inhabit.

1) That's a prety sad state of affairs for as an 'advanced' species as we seem to think we are.

2) Who would want to make contact or let us off this planet when we are just so so sodamn good and finding ways to kill, subjugates and maim (this point is slightly off topic)?

L-A

[a-guitarist]

a

I keep hearing this, "African's are genetically inferior." bullcrap all the time. It's really pathetic anyone would buy into that. It's usually spouted off by the same people who romanticize anarchy and blindly believe it is a system that works.

Regardless, Mali seems to know exactly what he's talking about. I could read his thoughts on these topics until my eyes fell out. Pali is well versed in it too. If I've understood what they've said, this is what I take from it: What all this comes down to is Culture and history, not genetics.

Aulian is probably the one person here who can actually speak for what African culture is like... as he's lived there.

Oh well. I'll do my best to stay away from this thread, as the last time I was involved in one of these I got banned for a week for calling someone a bigot. However, I'm pleased that it's gone this far without someone getting banned, and this thread may just prove the FL playerbase has matured.

a-g

[Pali]

Regardless' date=' Mali seems to know exactly what he's talking about. I could read his thoughts on these topics until my eyes fell out. Pali is well versed in it too. If I've understood what they've said, this is what I take from it: What all this comes down to is Culture and history, not genetics. [/quote']

Add in geography and you've got it.

[Valsgarde]

Before this goes anywhere else, I just want to give you, Valsgarde, a chance to clear something up.

Are you making the argument that (for example) Africans and/or blacks are mentally inferior to Europeans/Caucasians, due to biological and genetic inferiority, which is why sub-Sahara Africa remains underdeveloped?

I just want to give you a chance to clear this up, because that sounds awfully like what you are arguing.

Whether it is a genetic or cultural boundary that they haven't hurdled yet is irrelevent

Doesn't really bother me, but it's not the point I'm arguing. My point(s) is/are that humanity hasn't ever been some cohesive fairy tale happy-thing, isn't, and won't ever be, because that's not how it works, folks. You and I exist because our ancestors stomped the crap out of weaker peoples and built their homes on the graves of their cultures.

My opinions regarding your query, Raargant, however, are another matter entirely. I've been following forum rules this far; espousing an "offensive" worldview and blurting it out "insensitively" are totally different things, and I have done the first but not the latter. I've kept a leash on the beast.

On a biological scale, this is even more true when you take into account other species that show altruism.

Primal instinct != Altruism.

Except that they had the advantage of interactions with very close (geographically) people who had already developed the technologies and had refined agricultural techniques

So? They still had less time and a less hospitable environment and had to learn 2nd hand how to develop it.

They TAMED elephants. They did not domesticate (read: mass breeding under controlled conditions for purposes of labor or food). This is a crucial difference. EDIT: Also, if I recall correctly, African elephants have a fair bit harsher temperament than a lot of other elephants.

No dearie, they bred them. The Cambodians foi instance even to this day still have a special subcaste of Elephant breeders that breeds and takes care of elephants exclusively for the king.

You're missing my point that the Americas were lacking in useful animals suitable for domestication until those animals were brought over from Europe. Not every animal can be domesticated, and of those that can, not all are WORTH domesticating, especially thousands of years ago.

I'm not missing any point at all. There are plenty of suitable animals for domestication native to the Americas. Even if there aren't ones suitable by all standards, the Central Americans irrigating technique was way leet, and they made up for the fact that they had no domesticated beasts of burden - and still, they got crushed under the boot of Europe.

But not in the resources required for rapid agricultural growth, which is what allowed civilization to begin and expand.

Are you serious? It's nothing but fertile land, water, and plenty of dung from various animals to fertilize with. Sub-Saharan Africa is a flora and fauna explosion, it has all the ready-made elements for civilization - except for a people able to make one.

They did not have beasts of burden capable of high-stress work. They did not have the kind of agricultural surplus Europe did.

Yes they did. Aztec/Mayan/Incan empires were just as big as European ones, and that means they had trade and commerce - and without the Horse, no less.

Except that people from those genetic backgrounds, when placed from birth in other circumstances, show identical aptitudes and abilities that Europeans do. And Europeans in their circumstances show the aptitudes and abilities they do.

100% incorrect. There is no scratch of truth to this statement whatsoever at all. At. All. The fact that there is no truth to that is even 9 times out of 10 the grounds that egalitarians use to just try and dismiss the validity of IQ tests altogether.

No, I'm not. I'm not accepting your premise because you have presented no evidence to support it that I do not think is better explained by alternate theories. There's a difference. If there turns up solid evidence that some ethnicities are more intelligent or what have you than others, I'll accept it.

Is that so? Well hold onto your butt, this ride might be a bit scary.

Acclaim for Professor J. Phillipe Rushton's Race, Evolution, and Behavior:

"(An) incendiary thesis...that separate races of human beings evolved different reproductive strategies to cope with different environments and that these strategies led to physical differences in brain size and hence in intelligence. Human beings who evolved in the warm but highly unpredictable environment of Africa adopted a strategy of high reproduction, while human beings who migrated to the hostile cold of Europe and northern Asia took to producting fewer children but nurturing them more carefully."

- Malcolm W. Browne, New York Times Book Review

"Rushton is a serious scholar who has assembled serious data. Consider just one example: brain size. The empirical reality, verified by numerous modern studies, including several based on magnetic resonance imaging, is that a significant and substantial relationship does exist between brain size and measured intelligence after body size is taken into a ccount and that the races do have different distributions in brain size."

- Charles Murray, Afterword to The Bell Curve

"Describes hundreds of studies worldwide that show a consistent pattern of human racial differences in such characteristics as intelligence, brain size, gential size, strength of sex drive, reproductive potency, industriousness, sociability, and rule following. On each of these cariables, the groups are aligned in the order: Orientals, Caucasians, Blacks."

- Mark Snyderman, National Review

"Rushton's Race, Evolution, and Behavior is an attempt to understand race differences in terms of life-history evolution...Perhaps there ultimately will be some serious contribution from the traditional smoke-and-mirrors social science treatment of IQ, but for now Rushton's framework is essentially the only game in town."

- Henry Harpending, Evolutionary Anthropology

"This brilliant book is the most impressive theory-based study...of the psychological and behavioral differences between the major racial groups that I have encountered in the world literature on this subject."

- Arthur R. Jensen, University of California, Berkeley

"The only acceptable explanation of race differences in behavior allowed in public discourse is an entirely environmental one...Professor Rushton deserves our gratitude for having the courage to declare that 'this emperor has no clothes,' and that a more satisfactory explanation might be sought."

- Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr., University of Minnesota

"The remarkable resistance to racial science in our times has led to comparisons with the inquisition of Rome, active during the Renaissance...Astronomy and the physical sciences had their Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo a few centuries ago; society and the welfare of humanity is better for it today. In a directly analogous fashion, psychology and the social science today have their Darwin, Galton, and Rushton."

- Glayde Whitney, Contemporary Psychology

"The data are startling to the uninitiated...Race, Evolution, and Behavior confronts us as few books have with the dilemmas wrought in a democratic society by individual and group differences in key human traits."

- Linda Gottfredson, Politics and the Life Sciences

"Professor Rushton is widely known and respected for the unusual combination of rigour and originality in his work...Few concerned with understanding the problems associated with race can afford to disregard this storehouse of well-integrated information which gives rise to a remarkable synthesis."

- Hans J. Eysenck, University of London

"Should, if there is any justice, receive a Nobel Prize."

-Richard Lynn, Spectator

"CHAPTER 4: Intelligence and Brain Size

Psychologists use Iq tests to measure what we call "intelligence" or "mental ability." Brighter people score higher on IQ tests than most people. Less bright people score lower. IQ tests are not perfect, but they are useful and tell us a lot.

IQ tests are made to have an average of 100. The "normal" range goes from "dull" (IQ around 85) to "bright" (IQ around 115). IQs of 70 suggest handicap, while IQs of 130 and above predict giftedness. The average Oriental IQ is about 106, the White IQ about 100, and the Black IQ about 85. This pattern is found from around the world, with Blacks in Africa having lower IQ than Blacks in America.

The 1994 best seller The Bell Curve shows how IQ predicts success in education, jobs, and training. Low IQ predicts child abuse, crime and delinquency, health, accident proneness, having a child out of wedlock, getting a divorce before five years of marriage, and even smoking during pregnancy. Groups with higher IQs have more gifted people. While Orientals developed complex societies in sia, and Whites produced complex civilizations in Europe, Black Africans did not.

The Black-White difference in IQ appears as early as three years of age. If the races are matched for education and income, the gap only goes down by 4 IQ points. So, Black-White differences are not due only to social class. It is less well known that Orientals have higher IQs than Whites.

The Bell Curve highlighted British psychologist Richard Lynn's 20 year survery of the global pattern of IQ scores. He found Orientals in the Pacific Rim have IQS in the 101-111 range, Whites in Europe have IQs of 100-103, and Blacks in Africa to have IQS around 70 (see Chart 6).

The average IQ of 70 for Blacks living in Africa is the lowest ever recorded. The Raven's Progressive Matrices measures reasoning, not culturally specific information. Using this test, Kenneth Owen found a Black African IQ of 70 for 13-year olds in the South African school system. So did Fred Zindi, a Black Zimbabwean, in a study of 12 to 14 year olds in his country. Interestingly, the Mixed-Race students in South Africa had an IQ of 85, the same as Blacks in the United States, Britain, and the Caribbean. Genetic methods (like those used in paternity tests) show that Mixed-Race Blacks have about 25% White ancestry. Their IQs fall half way between pure Blacks (70) and pure Whites (100).

Culture Fair Tests:

Is it fair to compare race and IQ? Yes. First, IQ tests predict achievement in school and on the job just as well for Blacks as for Whites and Orientals. Second, the very same race differences show up on tests made to be "culture-free" as well as on standard IQ tests. In fact, Blacks score slightly higher on standard IQ tests than they do on these "culture free" tests. This is the opposite of what culture theory predicts.

Blacks score higher on verbal tests than they do on nonverbal tests, and they do better on tests of school knowledge than they do on tests of reasoning ability. From grades 1-12, Blacks fall just as far below Whites in school work as they do on IQ tests. Blacks score below even more disadvantaged groups, such as American Indians. Again, this is not what culture theory predicts.

Black-White differences are greatest on tests of reasoning and logic. Blacks do best on tests of simple memory. For example, Blacks do almost as well as Whites on tests of Forward Digit Span, in which people repeat a series of digits in the same order as they have heard them. Blacks do much poorer than whites, however, on tests of Backward Digit Span, in which people repeat the digits back in reverse-order. Hundreds of studies reviewed in Arthur Jensen's book The g Factor show how hard it is to explain race differences in IQ just in terms of cultural bias.

Probably reaction time is the simplest culture free mental test. In the "odd man out" test, 9 to 12 year old children look at a set of lights. They have to decide which one goes on, and then press the button closest to that light.

The test is so easy that all children can do it in less than one second. Even there, children with higher IQ scores are faster than lower IQ children. Around the world, Oriental children are faster than White children who are faster than Black children.

Intelligence and Brain Size:

My article with C.D. Ankney "Brain Size and Cognitive Ability" in the 1996 issue of the journal Psychonomic Bulletin and Review surveyed all the published research on this topic. It included studies that used the state of the art technique known as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) which gives a very good imagine of the human brain. There were eight of these studies with a total sample size of 381 adults. The overall correlation between IQ and brain size measured by MRI is 0.44. This is much higher than the 0.20 correlation found in earlier research using simple head size measurements (although 0.20 is still significant). The MRI brain size/IQ correlation of 0.44 is as high as the correlation between social class at birth and adult IQ.

Race Differences in Brain Size:

Chart 7 shows that there are race differences inbrain size. Orientals average 1 cubic inch more brain matter than Whites, and Whites average a very large 5 cubic inches more than Blacks. Since one cubic inch of brain matter contains millions of brain cells and hundreds of millions of connections, brain size differences help to explain why the races differ in IQ.

The rest of this chapter documents that four different methods used to measure brain size all produce the same results. The methods are MRI, weighing the brain at autopsy, measuring the volume of an empty skull, and measuring the outside of the head. Note that race differences in brain size remain even after you adjust for body size.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging:

One MRI study of race differences in brain size looked at over 100 people in Britain. (It was published in the 1994 issue of Psychological Medicine). The Black Africans and West Indians in the study averaged smaller brains than did the Whites. Unfortunately, the study did not give much information on the age, sex, and body size of the people tested.

Brain Weight at Autopsy:

In the 19th century, the famous neurologist Paul Broca found that Orientals had larger and heavier brains than did Whites, while Whites had larger and heavier brains that did Blacks. Broca also found that White brains had more surface folding than Black brains. (The more folded the surface of the brain, the more brains cells it can contain.) White brains also had larger frontal lobes which are used in self control and planning.

By the early 20th century, anatomists had reported brain weights at autopsy in journals such as Science and the American Journal of Physical Anthropology. These early studies found the brain weights of Japanese and Koreans were about the same as those of Europeans, even though the Orientals were shorter in height and lighter in weight.

In 1906, Robert Bean reported on 150 brains of autopsied Blacks and Whites in the American Journal of Anatomy. Brain weight varied with the amount of white ancestry from no White ancestry - 1,157 grams to half-White ancestry - 1,347 grams. He found the brains of Blacks were less folded than those of Whites and had fewer fibers leading to the frontal lobes.

Many other studies followed. In 1934, Vint noted the results of an autopsy study of brain weights from Black Africans in the Journal of Anatomy. He found that the brains of Africans were 10% lighter than those of Whites. In the 1934 issue of Science, Raymond Pearl reviewed autopsy results from Black and White soldiers who had died in the American Civil War (1861-1865). He found the brains of Whites weighed about 100 grams more than the brains of the Blacks. And among Blacks, Pearl also found that brain weight increased with the amount of White ancestry.

In a 1970 article in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Phillip V. Tobias claimed that all these early studies were wrong. He said they ignored factors like "sex, body size, age of death, child nutrition, origin of sample, occupation, and cause of death." However, when I myself averaged all the data in Tobias' review, I found it still showed that Orientals and Whites have heavier brains than Blacks. Even Tobias finally had to agree than Orientals have "millions" more extra neurons than Whites who have "millions" more than Blacks.

In 1980, Kenneth Ho's team confirmed the Black-White differences. Their autopsy study was published in the Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. It avoided the possible errors claimed by Tobias. Original brain weight data for 1,261 American adults showed that Whites averaged 100 grams more brain weight than did Blacks. Because the Blacks in the study were similar in body size to the Whites, differences in body size do not explain away these race differences in brain size.

Measuring Skull Size:

Another way to measure brain size is by filling skulls with packing material. In the 19th century, over 1,000 skulls were studied by American anthropologist Samuel George Morton. He found that Blacks had skulls about 5 cubic inches smaller than Whites.

In 1942, anatomist Katherine Simmons reported on over 2,000 skulls in the journal Human Biology. She confirmed Morton's earlier work finding that Whites have larger skulls than Blacks. Because the Blacks in her sample her taller than the Whites, the skull size differewnces could not be due to body size.

Kenneth Beals and his team further confirmed these findings in the 1984 issue of Current Anthropology. They reported the measurements of up to 20,000 skulls from around the world. Skull sizes varied with place of origin. Skulls from East Asia were 3 cubic inches larger than those from Europe which were 5 cubic inches larget than skulls from Africa.

Measuring Living Heads:

Brain size can be measured by taking outside head measurements. These results confirm the findings based on the method if weighing brains and filling skulls.

I reported (in the journal Intelligence, 1992) on a sample of thousands of U.S. Army personnel. Even after correcting for body size, Orientals had a larger head size than Whites, who had a larger head size than Blacks (see Char 2, page 23). In 2994, I reported (also in Intelligence) a study of tens of thousands of men and women collected by the International Labour Office in Geneva, Switzerland. Head sizes (corrected for body size) were larger for East Asians than for Europeans. Europeans had larger heads than Blacks.

In another study (in the 1997 issue of Intelligence), I reported the measurements for 35,000 children followed from birth to age 7 by the famous Collaborative Perinatal Study. At birth, four months, one year, and seven years, Oriental children had larger cranial sizes than White children, who had larger cranial sizes than Black children (see Chart 2, p. 23). These differences were not due to body size because the Black children were taller and heavier than the White and Oriental children.

Summarizing Brain Size Differences:

Chart 7 shows average brain size for the three races using all four measurement techniques also (where possible) correcting for body size. Orientals averaged 1,364 cubic centimeters, Whites averaged 1,347 cubic centimeters, and Blacks averaged 1,267 cubic centimeters. Naturally the averages vary between sampls and the races do overlap. But the results from different methods on different samples show the same average pattern - Orientals > Whites > Blacks.

Conclusion:

Studies of race differences in brain size use a number of methods, including MRI. All methods produce the same results. Orientals have the largest brains (on average), Blacks have the smallest, and Whites in between. These differences in brain size are not due to body size. Adjusting for body size still results in the same pattern. The three-way pattern is also true for IQ. These race differences in brain size mean that Orientals average about 102 million more brain cells than Whites, and that Whites have about 480 million more than Blacks. These differences in brain size probably explain the racial differences in IQ and cultural achievement."

First, altruism has existed long before and outside of Christianity.

You're right, in Judaism, the prequel to Christianity.

Second, altruism is what allows a social species such as ours to function...

Poppycock.

I do not think your explanation fits the facts that people from these areas consistently match or exceed Westerners in the area of intelligence testing (which, while a rough science that needs serious refinement, is still the best we've got at the moment) and that when living in more "civilized" places they adapt to it readily.

I smell White Guilt LOL! And this quote got preowned by me transcribing chapter 4 from Race, Evolution, and Behavior earlier in this post.

I think you better stop talkin' that ****, punk

So come and get it.

[Pali]

So? They still had less time and a less hospitable environment and had to learn 2nd hand how to develop it.

They did not develop it. They obtained it from others.

I'm not missing any point at all. There are plenty of suitable animals for domestication native to the Americas.

Suitable for domestication while simultaneously useful as beasts of burden? Name one.

Are you serious? It's nothing but fertile land, water, and plenty of dung from various animals to fertilize with. Sub-Saharan Africa is a flora and fauna explosion, it has all the ready-made elements for civilization - except for a people able to make one.

And yet it lacked native grains useful for agriculture.

Is that so? Well hold onto your butt, this ride might be a bit scary... etc.

Very, very interesting. I'm going to have to study this a bit more.

You're right, in Judaism, the prequel to Christianity.

Uh, no, all over the place. Altruistic behavior's pretty much a human universal... it's found in every culture on the planet.

Poppycock.

Saying something is wrong does not make it so. You finally gave solid evidence to back your claims of mental inferiority. Don't stop this trend now.

I smell White Guilt LOL!

Please. I do not care at all about trying to prove that people are all equal. I care about what the evidence indicates. You just gave me a ton of information I'd not seen before. I'm not entirely sober at the moment, and I'd like to look up information regarding the work you cited before making serious judgements on it, but if it's convincing then so be it.

That being said, this does not mean that we should turn a blind eye to suffering and just write it off as natural selection even if there IS proven to be a mental gap. We don't let people just kill off mentally retarded Americans as natural selection, nor do we usually judge an individual's worth purely by their intelligence. If we're the smarter ones, it just makes it more important that we use those smarts to help them instead of exploit them. If we're not the smarter ones, then we should STILL try to help them and not exploit them because violence and political destabilization in a global economy has world-wide effects that are often negative for all.

[Quigt]

Chart 7 shows that there are race differences inbrain size. Orientals average 1 cubic inch more brain matter than Whites, and Whites average a very large 5 cubic inches more than Blacks. Since one cubic inch of brain matter contains millions of brain cells and hundreds of millions of connections, brain size differences help to explain why the races differ in IQ.

Difference in IQ is not resultant of race or supremacy. It isn't. It is NOT impossible for a black person to be born with a brain that is larger than any white man who ever lived. Moreso, there is no direct correlation between IQ and brain size. Evolutionarily, there isn't even a difference in race at all, in any way. Since you're such a strong proponent of natural selection and evolution, then I'm assuming you already realize that the theory of evolution (which is indeed still a theory), is based on the hypothesis that all species, including homo sapiens, share a common ancestor. The word "race" refers to a sharing of heredity or ancestry. So what you're really saying, is that some people are smarter than others, which I'm sure everyone already knows. There's nothing wrong with being a racist if that's where your ideals lie. However, don't be false in your ideals by calling blacks, whites, and asians different "races," because on a very real level, we are all the same race.

Primal instinct != Altruism.

You're under the disposition that all other animals function ONLY under primal instinct, and that no animal other than humans have a consciousness. Which is entirely false. In fact, that entire idea is about as false as you can get. I'd be worried if that's what you really thought.

Suitable for domestication while simultaneously useful as beasts of burden? Name one.

I will. Llamas in the south, and buffalo in the north. However, the African elephant is hardly able to domesticate considering that all it gives you is: meat, bones, and fat. Even so, the Native Americans as well as the Africans still made great use out of only that. The entire Native American life revolved around the buffalo. And then they were demolished by the Europeans. Why? Because they're inferior? Because they're stupid? No. Because the EU had stronger and more effective weapons. Why? Because the EU were able to mine for them. List of things that the Native Americans could have mined for: Coal and Iron. But wait! Coal + Iron = Steel! We've all played Runescape. But why didn't the Natives harvest their natural resources? By golly, I'll tell you why (and I'll do it without inserting an offensive .gif and stupid quote afterwards!), because they, as a people, were from the start able to live in harmony with what was around them. That does NOT make them inferior for thinking a different way than a group of people thousands of miles away from them. In fact, even comparing Native American, African, and European cultures is like (wait for it...) comparing APPLES TO ORANGES. =O

[Imoutgoodbye]

ROFLMAO!

I may not agree with what Valsgarde is saying (such studies do not include enough information for me, especially autopsies and to fit the total calculations of backgrounds in education to the races and the genetics of previous generation's educations, etc...simply too big and time consuming of a process and too large of a book to produce) but...

He's oozing machismo! Throw that tooth pick!