40000 Rapes in Congo

[Whaleboy]

I don’t know why you would quote Maslow, considering he refuted his own theories. He considered them to be based on a false premise – that man is inherently good.

The HoN was the theory that Maslow refuted that premise with. It relies on no assumption other than that we are deterministically self-interested beings and that need is a function of supply and demand.

Do you really consider most Blacks in the UK to be successfully integrated? Unfortunately, most majority Black areas in the UK have a problem with crime, which means they are a poor example of successful integration.

I should have clarified. People of African origin have been immigrating to the UK in sizeable numbers since the 18th century. Until the post-WWII immigration which was a very high number (irrespective of colour, that number kicks in this cultures hostility to Johnny Foreigner). Historically, the integration was highly successful, indeed even now second and third generation immigrants are integrating successfully, with crime levels very much split along socio-economic lines. You have shown me nothing to indicate that any of that is to do with the fact that they are black, except the hostile reaction of white people to outsiders.

WRT brain differences, it is well established that average brain size differs from race to race. A study by K. L. Beals, published in Current Anthropology in 1984, reported that a survey of 20,000 skulls shows that the average size of the brain case in Asia is 1380 cc, while in Europe it is 1362 cc and in Africa 1276 cc.

Beals study showed only a relationship between distance from the Equator (climatic conditions) and cranial capacity, with no corresponding evidence for psychological racial characteristics. The equation was this *digs through notes*
cranial capacity = 2.5cm^3 × (degrees latitude) + 1257.3^3; an average increase of 2.5cm^3 in cranial capacity for every 1° increase in latitude. There is NOTHING in there to do with behaviour or intelligence, a larger brain does not mean inferior or superior capabilities, as that is affected solely by the surface area of each cortex. For example, Downs Syndrome sufferers have a large cranial capacity. Are you seriously attempting to use phrenology as the basis for your argument?

You seem to be taking current theories of human origins as being rock-solid. The most honest thing you can say on this is that "we don't know".

But we do. Science must always be prepared to accept that it's theories are wrong, but that's no hindrence to using those theories. Are you basing your argument on the presumption with inferior evidence that they are not true? The reason why they are current theories and increasingly accepted is that they are more consistent than the alternatives. If and when a more consistent alternative appears, then it should be taken up. None exists today to my knowledge.

Are you trying to tell me that none of these differences are significant? You’re kidding yourself Whaleboy.

Those differences are all true, but they are insignificant. What bearing do they have on your argument? If we're talking about who with a given origin is going to be a greater runner, then it is significant, but it seems this thread is referring to rapes in the Congo, and I fail to see how your argument addresses that, ignoring the fact that it is about as watertight as a sieve.

The exact OPPOSITE is true. When you deal large numbers, it makes the findings even more statistically solid, accurate, and reproducible.

You clearly didn't read what I wrote. You would need to make a study with millions, not thousands of people to eliminate individual and localised differences.

Case in point: You have a few Blacks that score at the genius level on IQ testing. If one were to only see that information, one could extrapolate that most if not all Blacks are geniuses. We definitely know that is NOT the case and is proven to be incorrect when we take into account the millions of Blacks who have taken one form of IQ test or another.

That's the most ridiculous argument I've seen in my life! Have you even looked at an IQ test? They are designed from a Western, English-speaking, middle class male perspective, hence they are the group that score higher on it. Can you honestly expect to tell me that they are objective and that social and educational differences have no effect. Example...

This is a question from an actual IQ test...
Boat is to water as airplane is to:
SUN - GROUND - WATER - SKY - TREE

What if you've never seen an airplane? What if you don't speak English as a first language?

With spatial logic, if you're brought up with 2-D perception on paper, you're going to fail in an IQ test, indeed that is the case with most societies that have not had exposure to TV or post-Renaissance European art. Indeed, surely you know that you can train yourself to take IQ tests... for example I have taken seven in my life, my results have progressively improved, showing that they are not representative of intelligence or absolute genius.

Secondly, group behaviour and group mentality is alive and well documented. Maybe you should read up on this before making glaringly false blanket statements.

I never said they weren't but they are cultural phenomenons not genetic. If you got 20 sets of identical twins, split them in two... so 20 genetically unique people in each group, and split the two group, putting them in different environments do you think you'd get the same group mentality? Put them in the same environment and give them time and they'd diverge. Genetics has little or nothing to do with group mentality. My point is that you are confusing the two.

Thirdly, ALL Evolutionary Psychologists disagree with you that "minorities are held back because of racism". The most Liberal of the EPs think Black intelligence and productivity is split 50/50 environmental and genetic. The more conservative EPs view genetics as playing a higher role.

Link?

Furthermore, what does evolutionary psychology have to do with the historical and sociological treatment of minorities. That, surprise surprise is a matter for historians and sociologists. Where do these figures of 50% liberal and more conservative come from? They seem like guestimates for me, indeed I can find no supporting evidence indicating the influence of those, indeed, I can find no definition or framework (nor can I conceive of one) for making such a claim.

It is reasonable to argue that nurture probably has at least much influence as nature." (Personality and Psychopathology, edited by C. Robert Cloninger, M.D., The American Psychiatric Press, Inc. 1999; Chapter 12. Psychosocial Factors in the Development of Personality Disorders by Lorna Smith Benjamin, Ph.D., pg 312.)

That's not an argument, that is a hypothetical supposition, not even an assumption, Benjamin does not even base her arguments upon it! .

I’m sorry Whaleboy, but you simply haven’t done your homework.

I think you'll find that a) I have and b) I'm the one actually addressing your arguments, and showing you where they are flawed. In your post not once did you attempt the refute my claims, the closest you came to even addressing them was in the question of the significance of racial differences. But that's easily dealt with.

1.9/10

[Drachasor]

Whaleboy, broadly speaking he is right on the nature/nurture thing from what I have seen. I've looked at a lot of studies and almost all of the time such things are about 50/50.

The key thing is that 50% of intelligence is then nurture, which is a massive environmental component. One clearly cannot say that the environment for all groups is equal.

-Drachasor

[Whaleboy]

Yeh, it just seems to me the 50% figure to be a guestimate, or a presumption. For example, I would consider nature to have more influence at the age of, say, 2, than it would at the age of 60. I can accept 50% if there is evidence for that, otherwise all we can really say is the "environment plays a big part" and give qualitative evidence as to indications of the extent.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Drachasor
The concept of "races" is very silly and innacurrate for humans because genetically we are all too similar. You might as well say that people with blond hair are a race, or people with black hair are a race. All races are is saying that a very small number of overall relatively minor genetic differences somehow make those people so drastically different as to constitute another race.

This is the most absurd of Liberal lies regarding the concept of race. The difference between chimps and humans is equally as small (OK, just a little bit greater), however no one in their right mind would argue that chimps and humans and not different species.

Any two humans are approximately 99.9% identical in their DNA sequences2, but the 0.1% by which they vary contributes to differences in their risk of getting certain diseases and their responses to drugs, infectious agents, toxins and other environmental factors. Finding the genetic variants that influence disease risk and drug response is necessary to understand how genetic and environmental factors interact to influence health. This is being looked into by the HapMap Project and its goal is to develop a tool that will help researchers to discover the genetic contributors to health and disease, a population-sampling strategy was chosen to maximize the downstream benefits of the Project for all populations — both sampled and un-sampled populations. For the purposes of the Project, a 'population' is defined as a group of people with a shared ancestry and therefore a shared history and pattern of geographical migration.

For both scientific and ethical reasons, Project planners recommended choosing one or more populations with ancestry from Africa, Asia and Europe, and at the same time keeping open the possibility of adding populations with ancestry from other parts of the world at a later date. The results of an initial study of samples that had already been collected from the Yoruba people (from Nigeria), Japanese and Chinese individuals, and residents of the United States (Utah residents with ancestry from northern and western Europe, collected in 1980 by the Centre d'Etude du Polymorphisme Humain, and known as the CEPH samples) showed substantial similarities in the haplotype patterns of these populations, but differences in the frequencies and lengths of many haplotypes4. This indicated that a HapMap developed with samples from these populations or from others with similar geographical ancestry would probably include much of the common genetic variation that is present in the world, along with some more regionally specific variation...

http://www.hapmap.org/

Now if researchers from several different countries are looking for differences in the human genome in haplotype patterns, and these pattern variations are similar in the groups involved from the different regions selected, then one has to be a complete idiot to ignore the fact that race is identifiable at the genetic level, AS THE HAPMAP PROJECT WILL SHOW WITHOUT A DOUBT.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I should have clarified. People of African origin have been immigrating to the UK in sizeable numbers since the 18th century. Until the post-WWII immigration which was a very high number (irrespective of colour, that number kicks in this cultures hostility to Johnny Foreigner). Historically, the integration was highly successful, indeed even now second and third generation immigrants are integrating successfully, with crime levels very much split along socio-economic lines. You have shown me nothing to indicate that any of that is to do with the fact that they are black, except the hostile reaction of white people to outsiders.

Oh, so its all whitey's fault eh? I see.

Beals study showed only a relationship between distance from the Equator (climatic conditions) and cranial capacity, with no corresponding evidence for psychological racial characteristics. The equation was this *digs through notes*
cranial capacity = 2.5cm^3 × (degrees latitude) + 1257.3^3; an average increase of 2.5cm^3 in cranial capacity for every 1° increase in latitude. There is NOTHING in there to do with behaviour or intelligence, a larger brain does not mean inferior or superior capabilities, as that is affected solely by the surface area of each cortex. For example, Downs Syndrome sufferers have a large cranial capacity. Are you seriously attempting to use phrenology as the basis for your argument?

MRIs’ have been used to confirm the cranial capacities of the different races so I don’t believe anyone is hedging numbers. As for Down Syndrome, clearly there is something structurally wrong with the brain as brain scans confirm and as you intuitively seem to understand, intelligence has a quantifiable quality by which we see that someone, simply by looking at them, with Down Syndrome is not and never will be a genius.

That's the most ridiculous argument I've seen in my life! Have you even looked at an IQ test?

I invite you to look up “Spearman’s Hypothesis”. This hypothesis says that if the B/W difference on test scores reflects a real underlying difference in the general mental ability, g, then the size of the B/W difference will be related to the degree to which the test is saturated with g. In other words, the better a test measures g, the larger the black white difference will be. In other words…. the better the test…the greater the ethnic difference. So…the more someone removes the “middle class male perspective” the greater the gap in IQ scores. Lets forget all this back and forth non-sense about theories and such……can someone…..ANYONE…..Whaleboy included…. find a documented standardized test where blacks on average score higher then whites??? From kindergarten entrance exams to the SAT….how about the LSAT, MCAT, any graduate school exam will due. Anyone?

A few more comments:
1. IQ tests exist in languages other than English.
2. There are a number of nonverbal measures of IQ, such as Ravens Matrices.
3. Women do as well as men on IQ tests, and East Asians slightly outscore Western, English-speaking peoples.

The racial-bias argument in IQ tests has long since been dismissed. You are correct to say that someone with limited English skills would most likely do poorly than someone born and reared in the dominant language and culture. But with your example, are you really saying that, 50 years after Brown vs. Board of Education, a black child wouldn’t have a basic grasp of what the question was asking and how to answer it? Are you arguing that American black “culture” is so totally, absolutely, completely alien that a black person couldn’t answer that question?

(On a side note about cultural comfort, I remember watching Jeopardy a couple years ago. There was a white man, a white woman, and a black woman. One of the categories was “Black History”. I really thought the producers were giving this one away but it was the white man who cleared the category and answered every question correctly. Even a white man knew more black history than a black woman proving that someone alien to American black culture can transcend alleged cultural barriers.)

I’ve taken three IQ tests in my life. What amazed me was how consistent the numbers were. Most anyone can improve any skill with practice but you can’t go from having the IQ of a moron to the IQ of a genius simply by studying. You may raise your score a couple points but nothing sizable or significant. And if you believe you are correct and that you can, I would invite you to carry out the experiment. Get yourself a group of black kids with average IQs, tutor then, and have them score in the genius percentile. Until you do that and prove to me that it can be done, I see no evidence that IQ can be significantly increased through study.

If it were true that blacks had a lower IQ, then how would the world be different? The answer is it would not be different, -everything that we know and witness regarding blacks is what one would expect from a group with a low mean IQ.

That's not an argument, that is a hypothetical supposition, not even an assumption, Benjamin does not even base her arguments upon it! .

Well, I hope you do realize, that you are taking a direct quote out of context? I did not paraphrase Dr. Benjamin. She goes on in the chapter of that book, to review research that looks at the relationship between nature and nurture, and how they influence psychopathology and personality development. Your above remark is odd; did you find the book and read the chapter she wrote? Otherwise, how do you know what she has based "her arguments upon"? Again, I stress it is generally accepted in psychology today, that both environmental/social and genetic/biological factors play a role in the development of personality and psychopathology!

Whaleboy, you have yet to explain….

1)How White racism has had a detrimental effect on Blacks, a much less effect on Hispanics, no effect on Asians, and the OPPOSITE effect on Jews despite all these groups being in the presence of White racism at the same point in time. And I do hope you don't bring out the tired old whipping boy….”slavery”, as your corpus delicti.

2)How IQ differences between Blacks and Whites have remained constant throughout the decades, throughout all the different researchers, throughout all the different test takers from all over the globe, and despite the billions of dollars spent on “fixing” the racist problems these last 40 years and equalizing Blacks with Whites.

3)How Asians, with embarrassingly poor language skills have managed to consistently score above Whites over the years as well in IQ testing and productivity.

4)How you continue making fallacious arguments when you have no concept of group mentality and its effect by genetics.

5)Why you have no idea how Evolutionary Psychology plays a role in this very topic, namely racial differences in IQ, intelligence, productivity, and the reasons for them. Yet you yammer on about these differences being ONLY environmental. You need to read up on EP and what the scholars of the field think regarding nature vs nurture.

6)Why you want “links” and “proof” when you offer none yourself and only regurgitate already debunked Marxist mantra, if only you had the inclination to do a simple Google search.

7)Why you are a believer of Gould and Boas when they have been proven to be fraudulent scholars, at best.

You need to come up with well documented facts and if some facts do not exist, such a controlled trials etc, you need to explain WHY these trials do not exist. You need to start thinking for yourself and not be a typical Marxist foot soldier repeating lies without ever once questioning the validity of the information you present me with.

[Caligastia]

Sadly Whaleboy doesn't offer anymore than you would expect from your typical deluded egalitarian who continues to missunderstand the facts. The fact that IQ measures mental ability and that this measured mental ability correlates to economic success has behind it not only common sense(the idea that smart people tend to be successfull) but also the body of scientific literature. Whaleboy says that IQ tests don't measure innate ability because on successive tests he has taken he notices that his scores improved. This is in fact to be expected since IQ does not just measure innate ability but mental age. The IQ score of an individual will be lower when they are a child and increase as they grow into adulthood. Their score will however eventually reach a platue at which point it will not continue to rise. Keep taking IQ tests whaleboy you will find that your score will not increase without bound. People who are not genuises will not achieve a genuis level IQ simply by practicing enough. I suspect that your score ceased improving well before you took you 7th test. What is true however is that the rank order of individuals remains the same over time. That is to say children that got higher scores while younger also get higher scores as adults and this is definately suggestive of differences in innate ability.

The way you speak of IQ suggests you are not very knowlegable of the basic facts otherwise you would know that IQ differences start to emerge when children are very young(at around pre-school age at least) and this IQ difference starting at a young age has consistenly held between whites and blacks. This is well before children are exposed to "rennaisance art" or many other products of cultural environment. Your assertion that culture influences the most G-loaded tests have been widley disproven. Reading the archived back issues of AR can get you up to speed on this matter.

Your claim that there has not been enough time for the races to evolve meaningfull differences is also a specious argument. Steven Jay Gould was very fond of trumpeting this erroneous logic. This claim is simply spoken as true without any justification. The fact of the matter is is that we can't go back in time and watch evolution happen but we can study things as they exist now and observing the races now shows that meaningful biological differences exist. First of all there is the very obvious pyhsical differences in appearance. There are also very meaningful differences in physiology and ranging from the way that the races organize their fats cells to the way their systems respond to different medications. So obviously there exists meaningful biological differences between the races yet somewhow we are supposed to exempt intelligence from this even in spite of the fact that all mental testing since the begining of its inception has shown a consistent and relatively constant difference in the mental ability of blacks and whites. This is of course in addition to the sheer weight of all of history in which whites have consistently over time, in a very regular and persistent manner demonstrated higher level of excellence in IQ dependant endeavors like science. If something occurrs consistently over very long periods of time there is a cause for it. The pattern is not maintained by accident The unsubstantiated claim that there was not enough time to evolve differences doesn't do anything to change the fact that these differences are measured and detected today. The IQ distribution of the world completely overlaps the wealth distrinbution of the world. This is very powerfull evidence. Liberal egalitarian theories simply can't explain it.

Egalitarian theories simply cannot explain why the world is the way it is and why history happened the way it happened while IQ explains it all very neatly. In terms of a scientific theory that agrees with all of the available evidence it is far superior to egalitarianism and has far more explaintive power. I used to be an egalitarian but eventually became a realist after attending a liberal school and seeing just how reliant egalitarianism is on the mental contortions of Orwellian double-think and started to explore the suppressed truth on my own.

So far we have focused on defending IQ and it is clear that it withstands scrutiny very well but how does your theories of all that phantom "institutional racism" fair when critically examined. Does "institutional racism" really explain persistent black pathological behavior? Is institutional racism forcing blacks to make the free-will choices like having multiple children out of wedlock and dropping out of school? Does it force them to loiter on street corners and other public places and engage in obscene and unruly behavoir? A pattern of behavior that is visible in every American city. How does all this pernicious white racism cause blacks to lack to same levels of sexual and moral restraint that high IQ asians and whites no problems with? Egalitarians have never established legitimate causal links with black-white differences in achievment and racism.

But in the end this isn't about hating blacks or hispanics or any other group. This is just about whites wanting to protect the cultural standards of our nations and this requires admitting the reality of racial differences. Egalitarianism is demonstrably wrong in its belief that race and culture are interchangeable and your fanatic attachment to it and that of other self-rightous liberals is causing great damage to our societies that we wish to preserve by continuing to insist that speaking the truth is racist and wrong.

[Drachasor]

The data you provided supported my statement.

Most of the variation between humans is in all "races" and only a little variation is between "races." And humans are very, very, very, very similar to each other. You yourself cited 99.9% similarity, and somehow said that chimps are only a little bit more disimilar. Yeah, I suppose 50 times the difference is somehow only "slightly more" to you. You seem to take my comment on the timeline out of context; researchers have marveled at the similarity between humans and that has caused them to wonder about when a bottleneck occured in the past; the bottle-neck seems to of been caused by a Super Volcana explosion in our past (much before recorded history).

Here's some data for the above:

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992833

http://www.prodiversitas.bioetica.org/nota76.htm

There *are* differences between "races" but it isn't nearly as large as the differences between individuals.

You also ignore the fact that all attempts to fix racial inequalities still haven't fixed them. When you *do* correct for socio-economic position, those differences you cite disappear in terms of I.Q.

You also have the mistaken belief that I.Q. is somehow "more genetic" at least in your arguements. You seem unwilling to accept that the differences, as far as we can tell, originate in the environmental differences, as the socio-economic viewpoint clearly demonstrates. At best the situation is a little murky, but there is no strong evidence to suggest that your position of the differences in intelligence being largely genetic is true. At best you can't say for sure.

-Drachasor

[problem_child]

Re: 40000 Rapes in Congo

Originally posted by bfg9000
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa...eut/index.html

You know, if I was an African-American, I would get down on my knees every day and thank God that my ancestors were snatched from the motherland and brought over here to America.

Those slaves that established the first black presence in North America paid a huge price in the indignities they suffered. They are just as important to American history as the Founding Fathers of the country. Without slave labor, our economy would have been crap and we never would have been able to support our troops in the Revoultionary War. Those slaves deserve to be held in everyone's memory with the same regard as for martyrs and saints. But I digress..

If I was an African-American, I would realize that if my ancestors had succesfully evaded the slave traders and remained in Africa until the current day, that I might be one of the savages that perpetrated these horrible crimes in the story above. Or that my Mother or sister was one of the women raped.

Africa is the armpit of the world. Raped and exploited by stronger countries, rife with disease, pestilence, hunger, and crimes against humanity. Yes, if I was an African-American I would thank God my ancestors were slaves..

Congratulations, this truly is the largest quantity of typed fecal matter I have come across this year.

[Vince278]

I'd like to know who's standing there counting.

[DinoDoc]

Re: Re: 40000 Rapes in Congo

Originally posted by problem_child
Congratulations, this truly is the largest quantity of typed fecal matter I have come across this year.

Do you ever read the stuff problem_child posts?

[Brundlefly]

Re: Re: 40000 Rapes in Congo

Originally posted by problem_child


Congratulations, this truly is the largest quantity of typed fecal matter I have come across this year.

You've hurt my feelings now. Why do you feel that way?

[Caligastia]

Drachasor:

Concerning the assertion that chips and human genetics are very similar only goes to prove that very small differences in genes can lead to large variations in gene expression.

As for the "bottleneck" theory, I don't believe there are many anthropologists who take the idea seriously. If a volcanic eruption occurred 70,000 to 75,000 years ago, all the people in the world would already have had populations established in every corner of the world. How could a bottleneck occur? At that point, many different "races" would have been established and a world catastrophe would only exacerbate "racial" distinctions.

Originally posted by Drachasor
You also ignore the fact that all attempts to fix racial inequalities still haven't fixed them. When you *do* correct for socio-economic position, those differences you cite disappear in terms of I.Q.

What you fail to grasp is that IQ determines outcomes such as success or failure. You have it backwards. You seem to believe that being successful makes you "smart". No, being smart makes you successful. Smart people make smart choices such as staying in school and not having children until they have established themselves financially. Dumb people make dumb choices and so even if you help them such as by funding failing inner-city schools, you end up with the same results. Low IQ kids will still make the same dumb choices regardless as to how much you spend on enrichment, mentoring, special education, et al programs.

I don't understand what you mean by "when you do correct for socio-economic positions, these differences you cite disappear in terms of IQ". Give me some examples where changing someones social-economic position made IQ differences disappear.

Most of the people who research IQ know the facts and the facts tell us that IQ is largely genetic. You can deny it or dream-up social theories and constructs of historical oppression to explain it away but the facts remain the facts.

You can read about the heredity of IQ here:

http://www.mugu.com/cgibin/Upstream/Issues/psychology/IQ/bouchard-twins.html

Sources of human psychological differences: the Minnesota study of twins reared apart.

Thomas J. Bouchard Jr.; David T. Lykken; Matthew McGue; Nancy L. Segal; Auke Tellegen

In addition, this quote comes from Liberal apologist Abigail Thernstrom, co-author America in Black and White.

One of the most disturbing, I think perhaps the most disturbing fact in our whole book is that black students coming from families earning over 70,000 are doing worse on their SATS, on average--it's always on average--than white students from families in the lowest income group. You want to cry hearing that figure. I mean, it's so terrible.

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001379.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/interviews/thernstrom.html

Originally posted by Drachasor
You yourself cited 99.9% similarity, and somehow said that chimps are only a little bit more disimilar. Yeah, I suppose 50 times the difference is somehow only "slightly more" to you.

Another fallacious argument that appears important but really is not. When you consider that ONE average human cell diameter contains 23 pairs of chromosomes and each chromosome consists of a single linear DNA molecule of 130 million nucleotides, that translates to around 6 billion bases in one human cell. That in turn means that between two humans, there are 6 MILLION different variations in bases in corresponding identical human cells. To me, that is a huge difference and THAT is why no two people are the same. That is also why people say chimps and humans are very similar, however when you take into account the above and multipy it by the difference between chimps and humans, you begin to understand WHY chimps and humans are not more similar. This logic is THE SAME with races, yet the egalitarians cannot seem to make the finally leap in logic, for some "unknown" reason.

Originally posted by Drachasor
There *are* differences between "races" but it isn't nearly as large as the differences between individuals.

You seem to be quoting this verbatim from the PBS show, or should I say fictional propaganda, Race: The Power of an Illusion. Here is an excerpt from Michael Rienzi's retort of this same point:


Most scientists believe humans and chimps are 98.7 percent genetically similar, though recent data suggest the difference may be slightly larger. This close similarity was highlighted in 1975 when Mary-Claire King and Allan Wilson showed that the tiny amount of genetic variation between humans and chimps was not enough to account for the physical differences between the two species. They speculated that the way genes are expressed must be more important than the amount of genetic difference.
New work (Wolfgang Enard et al. Science, 296: 340-343, 2002) has demonstrated that this view-which can be called "the regulatory hypothesis"-is correct. There is a significant difference in human-chimp gene expression patterns, especially in the brain, and it is these differences in expression that mainly account for human-chimp phenotypic differences. Genes are arranged in a hierarchy, with some genes controlling the expression of many others. Thus, a small genetic difference in one or several genes can result in large differences in expression of other genes, even if these other genes are themselves structurally identical between the groups.
Indeed, another recent paper by Dr. Enard has shown that small alterations in a single gene, FOXP2, is probably the main reason humans are capable of speech and apes are not. Small changes have enormous consequences. Even the scientists who make public race-denying statements about how "genetically identical" humans are, also make statements more privately about the genetic similarity between humans, chimps, and other mammals. The parallel to racial differences is obvious: If a less than two percent difference in human and chimp genome can produce such extraordinary physical and mental differences, the small differences between races-differences no scientist denies exist-can likewise have important results. As Dr. Enard points out in his Science paper, "The variation in gene expression between individuals within the [human] species is substantial, relative to the differences between humans and chimpanzee."
As the late Glayde Whitney pointed out in an AR cover story in March, 1997, if we calculate the total, combined genetic variation in the population of Belfast and a troop of macaque monkeys, much more than 50 percent of that variation will be found in both the macaques and the people of Belfast. That is to say, there is more genetic variation within the groups than between them. This does not mean there are not extremely important differences between the two populations or that Irishman are more similar to monkeys than they are to each other-which is exactly the kind of nonsense the Lewontin argument implies about race.
If the "more variation within than between" argument invalidates race, why not species, too? Thus, there is more genetic variation within populations of humans, chimps, and even mice than there is between humans, chimps, and mice. Would Prof. Lewontin argue for equal rights for chimps? Why not? Is there not less genetic variation between chimps and humans than within each group? Can we not say that there are only "superficial" differences between humans and chimps-just as racial differences are superficial?



I can accept many things as long as they are correct. While SES may play a role, and probably does to some degree, it isn't the Holy Grail that leftist apologists are looking for. The data clearly demonstrates this. To further the point, Liberals have no problem separating the races when it comes to some sort of athletic advantage for Blacks and fawn over their achievements, yet kick and scream at the "racists" for identifying inequalities in intelligence. Are you trying to say there are genetic differences for physical prowess but not for mental prowess?

I would like to present you with the following simple challenge:

1) Instead of launching disinegenous attacks on the methodology of research whose conclusion you don't like, why not provide positive evidence for your position? That is, what objective test of intelligence supports the environmental, egalitarian position? Has such a test ever been devised? (Hint: riches, praise and assorted prizes await the psychologist who can devise a legitimate test showing blacks to be as intelligent as whites).

2) Please explain, using the environmental thesis, every last jot and tittle of human history. For instance, white countries put men on the moon, whereas blacks, having been handed completely up-to-date societies in Zimbabwe, South Africa and Detroit, can't keep the water running or the lights on. Assuming equal intelligence, why is this so?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Caligastia?

I notice you've made no mention of the fact that mean IQ results for Downs subjects have risen significantly since the early 1960's. How does that fit in with your theories?

Estimates of the average intelligence of people with Down's syndrome have in fact been trending upward steadily for the last 60 years. Up to the early 1900s, people with Down's Syndrome were typically viewed as being profoundly mentally retarded. Surveys of children and adults during the first half of this century classified most Down's Syndrome people in the severely mentally retarded category. Kirman's (1974) review suggested that the majority of Down's Syndrome children fell in the moderately to severely retarded range, with only a very small minority (2-3%) achieving at the mildly retarded level. In the 1960s there were reports of up to 10% of cases being educable or mildly retarded. By the mid 1970s it was suggested that perhaps as many as 30-50% of older children and adults with Down's Syndrome were in the mild range with a small number even achieving within the normal range. (Clunies-Ross, 1986.)

The pattern has been, in any case, that people with Down's syndrome have tended to approach the level of expectations that their parents and teachers have for them, and these expectations have been based on marginally surmounting the upper limits of professional expectation in each generation. While encouraging, this is a slow and incremental process, and involves no questioning of the basic paradigm.

These developments represent a general shift in the Down's syndrome mean of some 30 IQ points, from an average IQ of approximately 15-20 to an average IQ of, depending on the study, between 40 and 60. The difference remaining after these adjustments between recent estimates of mean IQ scores for people with Down's syndrome and the general population norm is approximately 50 points, not the 15 or 20 points between black and white IQ means. The underlying question in both differences, however, is whether the initial assumption should be

(1) that the underlying cognitive levels of the two groups are similar, but that other factors intervene to prevent equivalent levels of test scores;

(2) that the differing score levels represent different levels of cognitive functioning.

If, for the moment, we accept that the effect of prejudice might be to depress IQ scores by 20 points, we might then look to see whether the particular circumstances of particular people with Down's syndrome might contain other factors that would depress scores. Most people with Down's syndrome have physical disabilities. A 1990 study of children with Down's syndrome found that 38% had heart problems, up to 77% had visual defects and 62% had hearing loss (Turner et al., 1990). Very little work deals with the extent to which level of cognitive functioning can be masked by physical disability. Hearing loss and visual defects can affect test-taking both directly, in that they slow down operations on the actual test and indirectly, in that they handicap the student in acquiring the information needed to take the test successfully. There are no studies of the intelligence of people with Down's syndrome that control for these factors (or, indeed, for racial attribution). Just to open the bidding, one might suggest that these would raise the average score by a further 10 IQ points.

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~borth/DOWN1.HTM

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Caligastia

2) Please explain, using the environmental thesis, every last jot and tittle of human history. For instance, white countries put men on the moon, whereas blacks, having been handed completely up-to-date societies in Zimbabwe, South Africa and Detroit, can't keep the water running or the lights on. Assuming equal intelligence, why is this so?

South Africa and Zimbabwe were very far from "completely up to date", except the white bits. In any event, I note that in recent years the US has had trouble keeping the lights running in certain states. Is this, following your hypotheosis, due to Black control or racial degeneration of the White race?

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Drachasor:

Concerning the assertion that chips and human genetics are very similar only goes to prove that very small differences in genes can lead to large variations in gene expression.

Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem.

Chimps share 95% of their genes with humans.

Humans share 99.9% of their genes.

Between "races" humans share 99.99% of their genes (10% of the overall variation).

The differences between Humans and Chimps are massive compared to the differences between two humans of a different "race."

Originally posted by Caligastia
As for the "bottleneck" theory, I don't believe there are many anthropologists who take the idea seriously. If a volcanic eruption occurred 70,000 to 75,000 years ago, all the people in the world would already have had populations established in every corner of the world. How could a bottleneck occur? At that point, many different "races" would have been established and a world catastrophe would only exacerbate "racial" distinctions.

You don't know your geology. Look up "Super Volcano" on google or even dictionary.com. They are massive things that go off less than once every 100,000 years; they have a massive effect on the environment when they do go off.

In any case, go read the articles I linked to (apparently you didn't bother). Humans have had a lot of genetic intermingling between each other as well, which is another reason there is so much similarity.

Originally posted by Caligastia
What you fail to grasp is that IQ determines outcomes such as success or failure. You have it backwards. You seem to believe that being successful makes you "smart". No, being smart makes you successful. Smart people make smart choices such as staying in school and not having children until they have established themselves financially. Dumb people make dumb choices and so even if you help them such as by funding failing inner-city schools, you end up with the same results.

Many successful businessmen are only of average intelligence or a little better. Most only get average grades in school. Intelligence and socio-economic position are not a cause and effect relationship. Socio-economic position, on the other hand, greatly effects someone's eduction, which, as even you have admitted, has a large effect on intelligence.

Despite your lip-service to the environment, you seem to totally discount its effects on people. Instead you make arguements as though I.Q. is genetic; this patently isn't the case.

Yet you continue with this mistaken view that somehow the environmental factors mean nothing:

Originally posted by Caligastia
Low IQ kids will still make the same dumb choices regardless as to how much you spend on enrichment, mentoring, special education, et al programs.

Originally posted by Caligastia
I don't understand what you mean by "when you do correct for socio-economic positions, these differences you cite disappear in terms of IQ". Give me some examples where changing someones social-economic position made IQ differences disappear.

It means when you do a study that compares people in similar socio-economic positions.

Originally posted by Caligastia
Most of the people who research IQ know the facts and the facts tell us that IQ is largely genetic. You can deny it or dream-up social theories and constructs of historical oppression to explain it away but the facts remain the facts.

http://allpsych.com/journal/iq.html

You are simply wrong about I.Q.

Originally posted by Caligastia
You can read about the heredity of IQ here:

http://www.mugu.com/cgibin/Upstream/Issues/psychology/IQ/bouchard-twins.html

Sources of human psychological differences: the Minnesota study of twins reared apart.

That still showed a 30% factor to the environment, and it cannot take into account variations in the fetal environemnt; because identical twins share the same womb.

Originally posted by Caligastia
In addition, this quote comes from Liberal apologist Abigail Thernstrom, co-author America in Black and White.

One of the most disturbing, I think perhaps the most disturbing fact in our whole book is that black students coming from families earning over 70,000 are doing worse on their SATS, on average--it's always on average--than white students from families in the lowest income group. You want to cry hearing that figure. I mean, it's so terrible.

Note that Blacks do better on the harder questions than Whites do, however.

http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/40_SAT_racia_scoring_gap.html

There is more things going on here than meet the eye.

Note that Blacks also gain more I.Q. than Whites in College:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n22_v92/ai_19916746

Lastly, any gap seems to be environmental in some way, as the gap between Blacks and Whites has been consistently shrinking:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-15point.htm

You seem to be quoting this verbatim from the PBS show, or should I say fictional propaganda, Race: The Power of an Illusion. Here is an excerpt from Michael Rienzi's retort of this same point:

If the "more variation within than between" argument invalidates race, why not species, too? Thus, there is more genetic variation within populations of humans, chimps, and even mice than there is between humans, chimps, and mice. Would Prof. Lewontin argue for equal rights for chimps? Why not? Is there not less genetic variation between chimps and humans than within each group? Can we not say that there are only "superficial" differences between humans and chimps-just as racial differences are superficial?

Umm, that simply isn't the case. Those monkeys are more disimilar to us than Chimps. Chimps share 95% of the genes with us, meaning the overall difference is 5%. Humans have a much smaller difference between each other, much less than 1%. No monkey is more similar to a human than another human would be.

Again, there is no good evidecne that any significant intelligence or other differences exists between the "races". All gaps are disappearing bit by bit and there are more than enough environmental factors to explain this.

I can accept many things as long as they are correct. While SES may play a role, and probably does to some degree, it isn't the Holy Grail that leftist apologists are looking for. The data clearly demonstrates this. To further the point, Liberals have no problem separating the races when it comes to some sort of athletic advantage for Blacks and fawn over their achievements, yet kick and scream at the "racists" for identifying inequalities in intelligence. Are you trying to say there are genetic differences for physical prowess but not for mental prowess?

Athletic Achievement seems to has a very strong environmental influence as well. Culturally we split up races, so culturally there are differences.

You have provided no strong evidence for your position. Even the things you cite indicate strong environmental components. Instead of accepting these environmental factors, you instead act as though they don't exist and that any difference "must be" genetic.

-Drachasor