I started this blog in 2008 (I think…) but since then it hasn’t quite developed as I would have liked it to. The problem is that I do not have enough time to make the articles as ‘scientific’ as I would like to. What I mean by this is that I wanted all of the articles to be fully referenced with relatively reliable sources. However, this creates several problems. The first, as I mentioned, is time. It takes a lot of time to find the sources and it significantly slows down the whole article writing process. Meanwhile, the world keeps spinning, time flies by and the problems I discuss continue to worsen. I have come to the conclusion that I simply do not have enough time to source the articles as I would like and as perhaps I should. Also, I don’t recall Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto containing a bibliography. If he didn’t source, then why should I? Newspaper articles are rarely referenced either. Also, sometimes the evidence is not actually available; for example, if I want to write that Chinese people have more neotenous faces that German people, while I am highly confident from personal observations that this is true, I cannot find a reliable source to confirm it. What do I do? Sometimes reliable sources either do not exist or are very difficult, if not impossible, for me to obtain. I also do not have the capability to perform scientific studies myself to prove or disprove such things. I have therefore decided to start writing this blog again whilst abandoning the referencing standards I had set myself. I apologize for this.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Friday, May 22, 2009
Race and intelligence: an even more inconvenient truth
What do IQ tests tell us about race and intelligence?
The most widely used method for testing racial differences in intelligence has been IQ tests and when IQ tests have been performed the average IQ of various racial/ethnic groups tends to look something like the table below:
Race/Ethnic group : Average IQ score
Ashkenazi Jew : 107-115
East Asians : 105
Whites : 100
Blacks : 85
The Ashkenazi Jewish IQ advantage has been observed ever since the first IQ tests were administered. As has the Black-White IQ gap which, whilst narrowing during the 20th century, has remained at about 15 IQ points since the 1970s.
This IQ score pattern, with Ashkenazi Jews at the top, followed by East Asian, then Whites, and with Blacks at the bottom is observable across the globe in a wide range of countries.
In the book IQ and the wealth of nations Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen calculated the average IQ score for 81 countries and found that average IQ is correlated with national GDP per capita to 0.82:
For 104 nations were no studies were available Lynn and Vanhanen estimated national average IQ by using the average IQ of surrounding countries, compiling their results into the following map: 
IQ tests are also known to correlate with reaction times (p. 244) with high IQ individuals tending to also have faster reaction times. The explanation for this being that reaction time tests measure the brain’s efficiency and ability to process information accurately and quickly.
Are IQ tests culturally fair?
Some argue that with IQ tests being the product of White men they are culturally biased in their favour. However, IQ tests may have been designed by Whites but East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews score higher. Also, IQ tests are equally able to predict the academic achievement, job performance, and reaction times (p. 245) of Blacks.
Are IQ differences caused by genetics or environmental factors?
The heritability of IQ is usually given as somewhere between 0.4 and 0.8 (p. 325), although studies of twins raised apart, and therefore in different environments, have found a heritability of IQ at 0.70 and sometimes higher.
To begin, studies have found that the brain has been evolving since humans left Africa, with genes involved in brain functioning and size having been strongly selected for.
Studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have measured the human brain and found a correlation between brain size and IQ of 0.40 with the explanation for this being that larger brains have, on average, more neurons and synapses which in turn make them more efficient. Estimates from twin studies indicate that genes contribute from 50 to 90 percent of the variances in brain size. Racial differences in brain size are observable from birth: a study in the US found that Asian American children have, on average, the greatest cranial capacity, followed by whites, and then blacks. Supporting this, studies on cranial volume from the 1840’s to the 1990’s have all found the same thing, East Asians have on average the largest brains, followed by whites, followed by blacks (Rushton and Jenson 2005 p. 253).
The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study examined the IQ scores of 130 black and mixed half-black half-white children adopted by white families. With the aim of trying to determine the role of genetics in poor Black test scores the study found that the degree of African admixture was linked to test results. On average, children with 2 White parents scored highest, children with 2 Black parents scored lowest, and the mixed raced children scored in-between the two.
Regression to the mean is a phenomenon whereby children of high IQ parents tend to average higher IQ scores than the general population, but lower than their parents. Likewise children of low IQ parents tend to average lower IQ scores than the general population, but higher than their parents. This is because whilst parents pass on their genes to their children, the chance of them also passing on the specific combinations of genes which cause their own exceptional intelligence (or lack of) is low. Relating this to race, under this regression to the mean principle we can predict that Black children will regress towards the Black population average of 85 whilst White children will regress towards the White population average of 100. Studies have found this prediction to be true with Black children born to high IQ, wealthy Black parents averaging IQ scores 2 to 4 points lower than White children born to low IQ, poor White parents (Rushton and Jenson 2005 p. 263).
Challenging the genetic view, many claim that when Jews first migrated to the United States they scored very low on IQ tests. According to Charles Murray this is simply untrue.
Others point to a study of half-black half-white children born to German mothers after World War II which found the half-black children had an average IQ of 97, very close to the White average. In challenging this study Rushton and Jenson (p. 261) argue that firstly, 20-25% of the ‘Black’ fathers were actually North African who have higher average IQ’s, and secondly that at the time the US army enforced strict IQ entry requirements, with the rejection rate being 3% for Whites and 30% for Blacks.
Some argue that poor IQ scores are not caused by lack of intelligence but rather by certain groups having a lower status or caste position in society. To illuminate this Wikipedia provides a table showing that in the US for example, Whites score above Blacks, Asians above Latinos and East Asians above Southeast Asian. However, oddly, the table omits the fact that Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians score above Whites in White societies.
Why have certain groups adapted to be, on average, more intelligent?
In Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis Richard Lynn argues that when humans left Africa they encountered areas of the world at higher latitudes which had cold winters. With no plant foods available during winter humans were forced to hunt, often big game, and also overcome the task of keeping warm, all of which selected for intelligence.
Supporting this, another study by Lynn found that Northern Europeans tend to be more intelligent and have larger brains that Southern Europeans, with cold weather being given as the reason for this.
Concluding notes – Personal thoughts
This article has not and could not cover every study, issue or argument regarding this topic. There are contradicting studies and counter arguments with some saying there is not enough evidence to judge either way. However, logically speaking the principles of evolutionary biology tell us that when organisms adapt to environments they develop differences in all characteristics for which there is genetic variation. Why would the human races evolve different hair, skin colour, facial features, height, musculoskeletal traits, susceptibility and resistance to various diseases and so on, but not evolve different brains or levels of intelligence?
Average differences in intelligence should not lead to certain races being discriminated against. Everyone should be treated as an individual. I am a white person, I do not expect Ashkenazi Jews to discriminate against me because the average IQ of a white person is up to 15 points lower than that of an Ashkenazi Jew. Likewise, I would not discriminate against a Black person for the same reasons.
Finally, often racially realistic arguments get caught up in debates over racism, nationalism and immigration and people like to shrug these arguments off as coming from ‘racists’, but such discussion on ‘values’ distracts us from the scientific endeavour to determine the ‘facts’. In my opinion (and if compelling new evidence comes to light in future I will gladly accept I am wrong and change my mind) the argument over racial differences in intelligence is over and whatever your values you must accept the facts. Be you a liberal, marxist, socialist, nationalist, or other, you must work with the world as it is, not how it ought to be.
References and further reading
Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability - J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur R. Jensen:
The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life - Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray:
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/bell_curve_10yr.htm
http://vdare.com/pb/bell_curve_10yrs.htm
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf
IQ and the Wealth of Nations - Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations
http://www.amazon.com/IQ-Wealth-Nations-Richard-Lynn/dp/027597510X
http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/wealth_of_nations.htm
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/lynn_and_flynn.htm
The Global Bell Curve: Race, IQ, and Inequality Worldwide: Richard Lynn:
http://www.vdare.com/rushton/080616_lynn.htm
Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis - Richard Lynn:
http://www.amazon.com/Race-Differences-Intelligence-Evolutionary-Analysis/dp/159368021X
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/060423_lynn.htm
http://www.vdare.com/rushton/060322_iq.htm
Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective - J. Phillipe Rushton:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race,_Evolution,_and_Behavior
Jewish genius:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_intelligence
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/jewish-genius-10855
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr5Qmj-OUCM
http://www.forward.com/articles/10505/
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/03/science/03gene.html?ex=1275451200&en=efcc603583e17b54&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/070408_genius.htm
Evolution of Human brain:
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/060507_wade.htm
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002987.html
Northern Europeans more intelligent that Southern Europeans:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-381057/European-IQ-map-proves-Brits-brainy.html
Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study
Race and Intelligence - general:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/the-iq-controversy--by-mark-snyderman-and-stanley-rothman-7538
http://www.reason.com/news/show/116991.html
Vdare.com:
http://www.isteve.com/realityofrace.htm
http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/071216_race_faq.htm
http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/cavalli-sforza_ii.htm
http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/sarich_miele.htm
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050320_leroi.htm
http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/050424_freakonomics.htm
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Why White people must remain a majority in Britain
As of 2007 the majority of children in London classrooms were 'non-White' and by 2100 'Whites' as a group will be a minority in Britain. In the US 'whites' are set to become an ethnic minority by 2050 and I strongly suspect the same process is occurring in Western Europe, and perhaps even in Eastern Europe. But what will minority status hold for us 'Whites'? Despite very little public discussion on the process, I consider this to be a major event and one which will leave us very much worse off.
Being an ethnic minority is a precarious situation to be in because conflicts often emerge between different ethnic groups. If White British people were to constitute 90% of the British population then ethnic conflict wouldn't pose a mortal risk to us. However, as the number of Whites drops below 50% to perhaps 40%, 30%, 20% or even lower we face two problems. The first is that in a democratic society we would be ruled by those who do not share our values and see us as the 'other'; there would be nothing to stop Muslims voting for the introduction of Sharia law for example. Secondly, should a violent ethnic conflict occur we would naturally lose due to our numerical inferiority. If this were to happen then we would be at the mercy of the victors and risk becoming, at best victims of general persecution, and at worst victims of ethnic cleansing or genocide.
To begin, it's worth discussing the view held by some that inter-ethnic marriage will lead to new immigrants being assimilated with White Britons to form some sort of mestizo race, for if new immigrants could be assimilated into British society in the same way as has been done in the past then inter-ethnic conflicts could not take place because different groups would not exist. Proponents of this view have rightly pointed out that 'Whites' in Britain are actually a mixture of Celts, Angles, Irish, Saxons and Jutes and that in the US Irish and German immigrants have been assimilated with Anglo Americans to form one 'White American' ethnicity.
There are several problems with this, the first being that for various reasons mixed race children often grow up to adopt the identity of their non-White ancestors, which in turn maintains racial divisions. Lewis Hamilton and Barack Obama may be referred to as the first 'black' Formula One champion and US president respectively, but in reality both of them are half-white. On a grander scale it is estimated that the average 'African American' is in fact 17-25% White yet this hasn't led to the assimilation of Blacks and Whites in America. One reason for this could be that it is harder to assimilate non-White ethnic groups into a White ethnicity. If Barrack Obama had a German-born father no one would notice, Barrack would be just as much a 'White' American as Eminem or Elvis Presley. However, because Barrack has an obvious marker of his ethnic 'otherness', his skin, he is considered 'Black' by most 'Black' and 'White' Americans. His children, who I imagine are 1/4 White, will in turn no doubt consider themselves as being 'Black' as well and so the racial division continues.
A second problem the UK faces is that inter-ethnic marriages, despite being the highest in the Western world, actually only constitute 2% of all UK marriages. In Bosnia, prior to the ethnic war in the 1990's, between 30 and 40 percent of marriages were inter-ethnic. If intermarriage levels of 30% and above weren't enough to stop the massacres and mass rapes that plagued the Balkans in the 1990's, then intermarriage levels of 2% wont be enough to stop the same in Britain.
A Third problem is that ethnic assimilation in Britain would not just have to involve the assimilation of different races and cultures, but also of different religions. If an African moved to Britain and inter-married, his/her children would be 1/2 black, his grandchildren potentially 1/4 Black, and his great grandchildren as little as 1/8 Black. Should this happen it's highly likely his/her grandchildren, and certainly his great grandchildren, would be physically 'white' enough to be accepted as being '100% English' and so assimilation would have occurred. If a Muslim moves to Britain and inter-marries his/her children cannot be 1/2 Muslim, they will have to choose between religions and naturally some, and more probably most, will choose to be Muslims. If this process continues with each generation then Muslims will never be assimilated into an English ethnicity and will continue to constitute a separate group in society.
A final problem is that when Irish and Germans emigrated to the US there was no policy of multiculturalism which actively encourages people to segregate themselves, define themselves as an 'other' and live separate lives. In fact the Germans were forced to learn English and drop German street names, and talk of a US 'melting pot' also neglects the fact that during the second world war Japanese-Americans were actually sent to concentration camps; or 'internment' camps as they were affectionately called.
On these grounds we can only presume that different ethnic groups are likely to continue to exist in our society which will in turn lead to a risk, but not a certainty of ethnic conflicts developing.
The causes of ethnic conflict, like the causes of war in general, are widely contested and I don't have the time to discuss each argument here. That said however, some contributing factors have more widespread acceptance than others.
Firstly, it is widely accepted that inter-ethnic tensions increase during economic difficulties. The logic being that when resources become scarce, humans are less likely to want to share them with those whom they do not share an identity. For example, a major contributing factor in the rise of Fascism and Nazism was the economic hardship of the 1930's.
At the time of writing Britain is in recession but the economy is expected to recover, the future however, is not so certain. Global population and economic growth is already causing inflation due to increasing demand for, amongst other things, raw materials and oil. Whilst technological innovation and changes in methods of production and patterns of consumption may alleviate future inflation or resource shortages, there are no guarantees and increasing demand for finite natural resources may well lead to higher prices and lower standards of living.
Another potential problem for economic stability is global warming. The Stern report predicted that global warming could cause a contraction of global GDP of up to 20%: as bad as the great depression. A warmer world will also lead to changes in regional climates, and changes in rainfall patterns and the declining fertility of arable land will follow. The Middle East and Africa are expected to be badly affected and some predict 'resource wars' over water and fertile land, further adding to instability and no doubt damaging the global economy.
Should Britain and the world avoid major economic hardship a second widely accepted cause of ethnic conflict is the presence of discrimination. It has been observed that in most ethnic conflicts long standing and frustrating discrimination is involved, often in the form of socio-economic problems which show no prospects of a solution. The conclusion here is therefore surely: if we don't discriminate then everything will be fine? Well maybe, but maybe not...
The first problem is that many non-Whites like to think they are being discriminated against even when they are not. In fact just about every non-White ethnic group has a story of 'what the white man has done to us'; It could be East Asians proclaiming that the media portrays them negatively or that we are plotting to keep China in poverty; it could be Muslims who believe we discriminate against them by supporting Israel, arresting terror suspects, or insulting the Prophet Mohamed; Or we could talk about the undying accusations from Blacks, that we are 'racists' in charge of a 'global apartheid'.
Adding to the imagined discrimination of today is a history of actual discrimination. Whilst Whites have given much to the world, they have also done great harm: massacres, slavery and colonialism the most obvious examples. Some go so far as to say that slavery and colonialism is the basis of White wealth and White history has already been used to justify anti-White discrimination in the US in the form of affirmative action.
What further exasperates the problem of imagined discrimination is the different distribution of cognitive abilities amongst different ethnic groups which heavily influences the relationship between ethnic groups within a society.
Take the Jews for example. The Jews were not just a minority in Germany and Europe, they were a high IQ minority. For various and debated reasons; self selection, natural selection, discrimination, and undoubtably in part, culture, Ashkenazi Jews have on average IQ's which are somewhere between 7 to 15 points higher than the average White person. An IQ advantage which most visibly manifests itself in the disproportionate number of Nobel prizes awarded to Jews: 0.2% of the worlds population, 20% of the worlds Nobel prizes, including 26% of all physics Nobel prizes and 42% of all economics Nobel prizes. The Jewish IQ advantage has also enabled Jews to gain a disproportionate influence in society and Jews are subsequently over represented in many of the more influential occupations; politics, law, the media, academia... In turn the natural over-achievement of Jews has caused resentment and out-right hatred of them by ethnic groups with lower average IQ's: especially Whites. The high point of this hatred came in the form of Nazism, an ideology which scapegoated, despised, and in turn slaughtered the Jews due to the belief that Jews controlled the media and finance against the interests of Germany.
The Chinese of South East Asia find themselves in a similar position. The average IQ of a Chinese person is somewhere around 105 whilst the average IQ of South East Asians is perhaps as low as 85. Subsequently the Chinese have also gained disproportionate wealth and influence in South East Asian societies and with it, a lot of resentment, with them even fittingly being referred to as the 'Jews of the East'. In turn South East Asia has seen anti-Chinese riots and in 2008 a senior Malaysian politician called the Chinese 'squatters' and warned them not try to take control of the Malaysian state in the same way that the Jews have taken control of the USA.
In relation to British society, should we allow ourselves to become a minority then we will find ourselves in the same position. The average IQ of a white British person is 100, the average IQ of a south Asian is about 89 and the average IQ of a black person in the UK is about 85 with these two ethnic groups being those likely to dominate our society in the future. Whilst many like to deny that genetic factors play a role in the well observed IQ gap, this argument is perhaps pointless; the fact that the racial IQ gap has remained more or less constant since testing began tells me that regardless of the role played by nature or nurture it wont soon disappear. The future for Whites in British society is therefore likely to look very much like that of the Jews in Germany and Chinese in Malaysia. Culture permitting, the IQ advantage we have will in turn lead to us being, on average, more wealthy and more influential than Blacks and Asians, pair this with our racist history and the belief that we are discriminating against them, it is likely that future relations between White Britons and non-Whites will be highly antagonistic.
There is a very big difference between wanting an 'all white' Britain, and not wanting to be an ethnic minority. there will always be mixing, but slow and steady is the way forward. After 2000 years of persecution the Jews realised that they wanted a country. We are lucky, we have one. I don't want to learn the hard way, what its like to be a stateless person.
Are White voters racist? Apparently not say Whites.
However, Obama won. White racism didn't spoil the day and everyone was happy.
But was Obama's victory ever really that close to being spoilt by the evil White racist? Have White people had anything to say on the matter?
Well, a poll published in January 2008 found that 72% of White Americans thought America was ready for a Black president. The poll also found that for 22% of White voters race was a factor in their voting choice. So surely that means their racist? Well, perhaps, but the poll found that race was also a factor in voting choice for 24% of Black voters. So does that mean blacks are more racist than whites?
Lets look at little more. The following poll conducted by CBS and the New York Times in 2008 found that 5% of Whites would not vote for a Black president. So large and disturbing was this five percent that in an article titled; "If Obama Loses: Racism is the only reason McCain might beat him", Jacob Weisbery proclaimed; "Five percent surely understates the reality". He then went on to say that he based this view on the fact that "In the Pennsylvania primary, one in six white voters told exit pollsters race was a factor in his or her decision". As noted above this is probably true, but the same is also true for Blacks and so on these grounds surely his article could just have easily read: "If McCain Loses: Racism is the only reason Obama might beat him".
Another interesting finding in the CBS poll was that whilst only 5% of Whites said they would not vote for a Black president, 19% of Whites and 16% of Blacks said they believed most of the people they knew wouldn't vote for a Black president, implying that people think White racism is more widespread than it actually is.
Further to this, a 2007 Gallup poll also found that 5% of Americans would not vote for a black president. Racist? Maybe, but 11% said they wouldn't vote for a woman, 24% said they wouldn't vote for a Mormon, 43% said they wouldn't vote for a Homosexual, and a whopping 53% of Americans said they would not vote for an Atheist to be president. It would also appear from this that Americans will be very open to pollsters about who they discriminate against, they just aren't discriminating against blacks.
In fact Gallup have been asking people if they would vote for a Black president for over 50 years now and the results, listed below, would appear to show a consistent pattern: Americans have become more and more willing to vote for a Black president.
Year asked : Percentage who said they wouldn't vote for a Black president
1958 : 53
1961 : 41
1963 : 45
1967 : 41
1969 : 24
1971 : 23
1978 : 18
1984 : 16
1987 : 13
1997 : 4
2003 : 6
2007 : 5
The Gallup polls also show us that over the past fifty years voter discrimination against Jews, Blacks, Catholics and women has dropped significantly. However, for Atheists and homosexuals the no vote remains around the 50% mark.
The polls support the view that racism towards Blacks by Whites has diminished drastically over the last 50 years and whilst White voters have been racist in the past, it would appear that voter racism is no longer prevalent amongst White Americans. Saying that white people are racist on the grounds that 5% of them won't vote Black is unfair. The overwhelming majority of White people will vote for a Black president and this is one of the reasons why Obama won.
Although he's not really Black is he? he's mixed-race.
