The Mis-portrayal of Darwin as a Racist.

[Tyrannical]

The amount of difference in intelligence in different ethnic groups due to genetics is almost completely negligible

All the scientific and statistical evidence points to the contrary, even when socioeconomic factors are considered.
The list of non-genetic ridiculous and disproven excuses is seemingly endless, yet different ethnic groups in the same poor situation still show vast statistical differences. Under no circumstances of equal socioeconomic background could African Pygmies or Australian Aborigines ever be near equal to Ashkenazim Jews score on an IQ test.

IQ test matter, because in the Western Civilization that we all enjoy, there is a high though not exclusive correlation between successfully contributing to society and IQ. So, it should be no surprise how and why low IQ groups drag down Western societies.

[apophenia]

The amount of difference in intelligence in different ethnic groups due to genetics is almost completely negligible

All the scientific and statistical evidence points to the contrary, even when socioeconomic factors are considered.
The list of non-genetic ridiculous and disproven excuses is seemingly endless, yet different ethnic groups in the same poor situation still show vast statistical differences. Under no circumstances of equal socioeconomic background could African Pygmies or Australian Aborigines ever be near equal to Ashkenazim Jews score on an IQ test.

IQ test matter, because in the Western Civilization that we all enjoy, there is a high though not exclusive correlation between successfully contributing to society and IQ. So, it should be no surprise how and why low IQ groups drag down Western societies.

Can you cite such evidence, preferably on the net (citations in abstracts will do), or at least commonly available via library. I never paid much attention to The Bell Curve controversy, but my impression was that no such differences were demonstrated. If you know of such work demonstrating significant genetic differences between races, that's landmark science. Please share it.

Much of the controversy concerned the parts of the book in which the authors wrote about racial differences in intelligence and discuss the implications of those differences. The authors were reported throughout the popular press as arguing that these IQ differences are genetic; however, they wrote in chapter 13: "It seems highly likely to us that both genes and the environment have something to do with racial differences." The introduction to the chapter more cautiously states, "The debate about whether and how much genes and environment have to do with ethnic differences remains unresolved."

[Thumpalumpacus]

Not nonsense as it is testable and provable given effort and an "open" mind. Just pick a criteria and design a test to objectively measure that criteria.

... you neglected to mention, "take care that you avoid the post hoc fallacy."

There are many possible reasons for differences in racial behavior or metrics that have little or nothing to do with genetics.

Other animals may develop stronger claws, sharper teeth, or faster legs as their "technology" But humans as tool makers mainly rely on their brain for adaptability and competitive advantage.

When you mistake cultural for biological evolution, all manner of mischief is caused.

[Tyrannical]

The amount of difference in intelligence in different ethnic groups due to genetics is almost completely negligible

All the scientific and statistical evidence points to the contrary, even when socioeconomic factors are considered.
The list of non-genetic ridiculous and disproven excuses is seemingly endless, yet different ethnic groups in the same poor situation still show vast statistical differences. Under no circumstances of equal socioeconomic background could African Pygmies or Australian Aborigines ever be near equal to Ashkenazim Jews score on an IQ test.

IQ test matter, because in the Western Civilization that we all enjoy, there is a high though not exclusive correlation between successfully contributing to society and IQ. So, it should be no surprise how and why low IQ groups drag down Western societies.

Can you cite such evidence, preferably on the net (citations in abstracts will do), or at least commonly available via library. I never paid much attention to The Bell Curve controversy, but my impression was that no such differences were demonstrated. If you know of such work demonstrating significant genetic differences between races, that's landmark science. Please share it.

Much of the controversy concerned the parts of the book in which the authors wrote about racial differences in intelligence and discuss the implications of those differences. The authors were reported throughout the popular press as arguing that these IQ differences are genetic; however, they wrote in chapter 13: "It seems highly likely to us that both genes and the environment have something to do with racial differences." The introduction to the chapter more cautiously states, "The debate about whether and how much genes and environment have to do with ethnic differences remains unresolved."

If you are more specific on exactly what questions you want answered by evidence I can probably find it.

The big controversy with The Bell Curve is there have not been extensive population representative IQ tests in undeveloped countries because they lack the educational infrastructure to accomplish it. The test sample sizes were small, and there were arguments on whether to include disease victims, those with no formal education, or those that suffered from childhood malnutrition. Those environmental factors may contribute to towards lower IQ, but neglecting them could disqualify a majority of the population and it would no longer be representative. Giving the tests in educational settings that only a small percentage of the population attends may give you the IQ of only the intellectual elite.

But in the US, we have a long record of IQ and standardized test scores broken down by ethnic groups and there are significant differences. Of course the reason for the differences is the real question. It is some combination of nature and nurture, but various studies have shown that IQ heritability by adulthood is around 70%-80%.

[apophenia]

If you are more specific on exactly what questions you want answered by evidence I can probably find it.

The big controversy with The Bell Curve is there have not been extensive population representative IQ tests in undeveloped countries because they lack the educational infrastructure to accomplish it. The test sample sizes were small, and there were arguments on whether to include disease victims, those with no formal education, or those that suffered from childhood malnutrition. Those environmental factors may contribute to towards lower IQ, but neglecting them could disqualify a majority of the population and it would no longer be representative. Giving the tests in educational settings that only a small percentage of the population attends may give you the IQ of only the intellectual elite.

But in the US, we have a long record of IQ and standardized test scores broken down by ethnic groups and there are significant differences. Of course the reason for the differences is the real question. It is some combination of nature and nurture, but various studies have shown that IQ heritability by adulthood is around 70%-80%.

Intelligence will do for now, as I think you are right in that it plays a large part in determining individual success and happiness. What is the estimated range of variation resulting from that non-heritable 20-30%, and what is the range of difference between races in a single culture or comparable cultures once as many non-heritable confounding factors are controlled for?


(and please provide the sources for the data — I'm not going to hold you to a boast you made about researching your points, but I am curious as to how well read you are on this specific topic [genetic heritability and race, not this last specific question] and what your typical sources are for information [and here I'm as interested in secondary sources as primary, as most non-professionals rely to a great extent on secondary sources])

[JimC]

The fact that a significant proportion of intelligence is inheritable has no bearing on whether there is any significant differences between the mean values of the inheritable elements of various races (which are only loosely defined in any case)

[apophenia]

The fact that a significant proportion of intelligence is inheritable has no bearing on whether there is any significant differences between the mean values of the inheritable elements of various races (which are only loosely defined in any case)

It does when you're trying to determine what those values actually are. I'm not a statistician, but I would expect the presence of overwhelming confounding variables affects how you perform your regressions and what one sets for bounds on Type I and Type II errors. Am I mistaken?

[JimC]

The fact that a significant proportion of intelligence is inheritable has no bearing on whether there is any significant differences between the mean values of the inheritable elements of various races (which are only loosely defined in any case)

It does when you're trying to determine what those values actually are. I'm not a statistician, but I would expect the presence of overwhelming confounding variables affects how you perform your regressions and what one sets for bounds on Type I and Type II errors. Am I mistaken?

What I mean is that having an inheritable component of the differences between individuals in some measurable intelligence quotient says nothing either way as to whether there is a significant racial difference attributable to genetic factors.

[Tyrannical]

The fact that a significant proportion of intelligence is inheritable has no bearing on whether there is any significant differences between the mean values of the inheritable elements of various races (which are only loosely defined in any case)

It does when you're trying to determine what those values actually are. I'm not a statistician, but I would expect the presence of overwhelming confounding variables affects how you perform your regressions and what one sets for bounds on Type I and Type II errors. Am I mistaken?

What I mean is that having an inheritable component of the differences between individuals in some measurable intelligence quotient says nothing either way as to whether there is a significant racial difference attributable to genetic factors.

Well JimC, what imagined experiment would prove that the difference is genetic and not nurture

[Tyrannical]

Intelligence will do for now, as I think you are right in that it plays a large part in determining individual success and happiness. What is the estimated range of variation resulting from that non-heritable 20-30%, and what is the range of difference between races in a single culture or comparable cultures once as many non-heritable confounding factors are controlled for?


(and please provide the sources for the data — I'm not going to hold you to a boast you made about researching your points, but I am curious as to how well read you are on this specific topic [genetic heritability and race, not this last specific question] and what your typical sources are for information [and here I'm as interested in secondary sources as primary, as most non-professionals rely to a great extent on secondary sources])

I think Rushton's abridged book should answer most of your immediate questions

Jean Philippe Rushton is a Canadian psychology professor at the University of Western Ontario.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Philippe_Rushton

RACE, EVOLUTION,
AND BEHAVIOR:
A Life History Perspective
2nd Special Abridged Edition
Professor J. Philippe Rushton
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Ra ... havior.pdf

You can read the book from the pdf linked above. Specifically check out chapters 4 and 5.

Preface 6
1. Race is More Than Skin Deep 7
2. Maturation, Crime, and Parenting 13
3. Sex, Hormones, and AIDS 18
4. Intelligence and Brain Size 22
5. Genes, Environment, or Both? 28
6. Life History Theory 34
7. Out of Africa 39
8. Questions and Answers 42

[apophenia]

Intelligence will do for now, as I think you are right in that it plays a large part in determining individual success and happiness. What is the estimated range of variation resulting from that non-heritable 20-30%, and what is the range of difference between races in a single culture or comparable cultures once as many non-heritable confounding factors are controlled for?


(and please provide the sources for the data — I'm not going to hold you to a boast you made about researching your points, but I am curious as to how well read you are on this specific topic [genetic heritability and race, not this last specific question] and what your typical sources are for information [and here I'm as interested in secondary sources as primary, as most non-professionals rely to a great extent on secondary sources])

I think Rushton's abridged book should answer most of your immediate questions

Jean Philippe Rushton is a Canadian psychology professor at the University of Western Ontario.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Philippe_Rushton

RACE, EVOLUTION,
AND BEHAVIOR:
A Life History Perspective
2nd Special Abridged Edition
Professor J. Philippe Rushton
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Ra ... havior.pdf

You can read the book from the pdf linked above. Specifically check out chapters 4 and 5.

Preface 6
1. Race is More Than Skin Deep 7
2. Maturation, Crime, and Parenting 13
3. Sex, Hormones, and AIDS 18
4. Intelligence and Brain Size 22
5. Genes, Environment, or Both? 28
6. Life History Theory 34
7. Out of Africa 39
8. Questions and Answers 42

Thank you. I don't intend to work on the information immediately, but I appreciate the sources.

[FBM]

...
RACE, EVOLUTION,
AND BEHAVIOR:
A Life History Perspective
2nd Special Abridged Edition
Professor J. Philippe Rushton
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Ra ... havior.pdf

You can read the book from the pdf linked above. Specifically check out chapters 4 and 5.

Preface 6
1. Race is More Than Skin Deep 7
2. Maturation, Crime, and Parenting 13
3. Sex, Hormones, and AIDS 18
4. Intelligence and Brain Size 22
5. Genes, Environment, or Both? 28
6. Life History Theory 34
7. Out of Africa 39
8. Questions and Answers 42

I had a quick look at this one, and I must say that what I've read so far makes me want to read further. However, even if all the (bio)metrics were done correctly (to eliminate, for example, cultural bias on IQ tests) and peer reviewed, it would still be an inductive fallacy to try to apply those results to any particular individual.

[Tyrannical]

The fact that a significant proportion of intelligence is inheritable has no bearing on whether there is any significant differences between the mean values of the inheritable elements of various races (which are only loosely defined in any case)

It does when you're trying to determine what those values actually are. I'm not a statistician, but I would expect the presence of overwhelming confounding variables affects how you perform your regressions and what one sets for bounds on Type I and Type II errors. Am I mistaken?

What I mean is that having an inheritable component of the differences between individuals in some measurable intelligence quotient says nothing either way as to whether there is a significant racial difference attributable to genetic factors.

It does when you look at averages across racial groups.

And racial differences are not limited to just IQ either. Sexual promiscuity, aggressiveness, impulsiveness, criminality, lack of planning are all important characteristics to a modern society that we've grown accustomed. A genetic cause is the simplest answer for why Blacks world wide are so lacking in comparison in these characteristics.

Every possible social solution has been examined and ruled out about a hundred years ago. They did some of the earliest IQ tests on pure Negro, 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 admixed White. They all lived on the Negro side of town and went to Negro schools. Unsurprisingly, the more White admixture the higher the IQ score.

[apophenia]

Intelligence will do for now, as I think you are right in that it plays a large part in determining individual success and happiness. What is the estimated range of variation resulting from that non-heritable 20-30%, and what is the range of difference between races in a single culture or comparable cultures once as many non-heritable confounding factors are controlled for?


(and please provide the sources for the data — I'm not going to hold you to a boast you made about researching your points, but I am curious as to how well read you are on this specific topic [genetic heritability and race, not this last specific question] and what your typical sources are for information [and here I'm as interested in secondary sources as primary, as most non-professionals rely to a great extent on secondary sources])

I think Rushton's abridged book should answer most of your immediate questions

Jean Philippe Rushton is a Canadian psychology professor at the University of Western Ontario.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Philippe_Rushton

I have taken a summary glance at the material you have provided and found it to be useless. None of the material in Rushton's abridged book contains proper scientific references so it is impossible to assess the validity of his claims (e.g. early on he notes that black babies in America come to term sooner than other racial groups. However, it does not say if this is after controlling for things like socio-economic background and health of the mother, and since it isn't properly referenced to the actual research it is based on, it must be thrown out. The same applies to the rest of the "book".) I also note that Rushton is a rather controversial figure. This in itself doesn't invalidate his science, but it does mean that his results need to be examined carefully. Particularly seeing that your claim was that, "All the scientific and statistical evidence points to the contrary, even when socioeconomic factors are considered," I find an unsourced paper from a scientist outside the mainstream to be inadequate support for your earlier claim. I'm rendered even more skeptical when that one scientist has been reported to cite non-scientific books and Penthouse magazine as scholarly sources.

I'm not ruling out Rushton as an acceptable source, even if he is a crank, he still needs to be evaluated on his merits. However a paper without references to the literature from someone whose views are far from mainstream is insufficient backing for your earlier claim.

Do you have anything else?

[Coito ergo sum]

Got into a major discussion about Darwinism on Facebook and found this excellent page while doing some digging: http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/ ... nazism.htm

Result; one pseudo-creationist arse was kicked

I find it hard to believe that Darwin wasn't a racist. Most everyone in the Anglo-Saxon world in the mid-19th century were racist. They weren't Nazis or murderers or that sort of thing, by and large, but even those who were abolitionists and humanists in the 19th century still saw a hierarchy among the races, and Africans were not generally considered equal human beings, even among the enlightened. Quote in the article: "'The fact is that essentially all Europeans were racist in the 1800s by today's standards." I would be willing to bet that Darwin was not immune from the general ideas of the day.