Unz评论•另类媒体选择$
美国主流媒体大都排除了有趣,重要和有争议的观点
 博客浏览詹姆斯·汤普森档案馆
游戏中没有皮肤
基因占智力差异的50-70%吗?
通过电子邮件将此页面发送给其他人

 记住我的信息



=>

书签 全部切换总目录添加到图书馆从图书馆中删除 • B
显示评论下一个新评论下一个新回复了解更多
回复同意/不同意/等等 更多... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
同意不同意谢谢LOL轮唱
这些按钮可将您的公开协议,异议,感谢,LOL或巨魔与所选注释一起注册。 仅对最近使用“记住我的信息”复选框保存姓名和电子邮件的频繁评论者可用,并且在任何八个小时的时间内也只能使用三次。
忽略评论者 关注评论者
搜寻文字 区分大小写  确切的词  包括评论
列表 书签

评论家经常问,是否有任何工作表明基因对遗传群体之间的智力差异做出了贡献,这是完全合理的。 我认为基因在基因组中发挥作用是可以接受的,只有在比较基因组时才会出现这种无生命状态。

一种方法是首先提到上个世纪研究的主要发现,这为辩论奠定了基础。 尽管合理,但所涉及的阅读对于那些想要立即得到答案的人来说似乎是不合理的。 一个简短的总结是,尽管在过去的七十年中进行了许多干预,但非洲裔美国人仍然仅比欧美人差一个标准差。 不管造成能力差距的原因是什么,都没有证明是可延展的。

另一种方法是讨论一些最新论文。 这应该受到欢迎,但不幸的是,对于那些希望略过阅读内容的人,有必要回到一些古老的辩论中来。

例如,尽管种族群体之间的智力差异可能是由不同的遗传因素引起的,但它们也可能是由种族的琐碎方面(例如肤色)引起的,然后触发了其他种族的非琐碎不良待遇。 该论点认为,这种恶劣的待遇可能会导致智力低下,表现为拒绝接受教育和素质,职业机会,充分的鼓励和指导,或者导致其他广泛,不公平的行为。 因此,如果要相信一项研究发现,就必须区分深层的内在原因和表面的社会原因。

此外,如果某些祖先背景确实在后代中创造了更高的智力,那么那些拥有较少有利遗传材料的人的智力就会逐渐降低。 也就是说,必须存在线性的剂量反应关系。 纯粹欧洲的孩子必须比那些遗传在欧洲的孩子少一些的孩子聪明。 而且它们必须比那些血统更少的欧洲人还要明亮。 不允许任何借口。

全球祖先和认知能力。
Jordan Lasker,Bryan J.Pesta,John GR Fuerst和Emil OW Kirkegaard
心理研究2019,1(1),431-459; https://doi.org/10.3390/psych1010034
30 2019月

https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/34/

这是一篇非常详细的论文,它利用了自然实验。 由于欧洲人,非裔美国人以及欧洲/非裔美国人父母的子女具有不同的欧洲血统,因此应该有可能检查遗传组合是否可以预测智力,并且是否比肤色等表面特征更好。

本文是通过一系列逻辑步骤提出的,每个步骤都针对通常反对遗传主义假设的反对意见。

他们说:

本工作使用人口代表性的费城样本,费城神经发育队列(PNC),也称为复杂表型研究轨迹(TCP)。 由于位置的原因,其结果可直接与Scarr等人[52]的结果相媲美。 与早期的混合物研究相比,我们的分析具有许多优势。

首先,所有参与者都来自同一位置,因此地理混杂不是问题。

其次,我们使用多组验证性因子分析(MGCFA; [64])评估了认知测试电池的测量不变性(MI)。

第三,已经为该样本估计了g因子和子测验分数的遗传力。 具体来说,Mollon等人[65] 报告的样本中非西班牙裔非洲人和欧洲裔美国人的g遗传力分别为0.61(标准误(SE)= 0.14)和0.72(SE = 0.07)。

第四,我们包括了对皮肤,头发和眼睛颜色的估计,以评估观察到的差异的表型歧视(即色彩主义)模型。

第五,我们验证了非洲裔美国人和欧美人样本与认知能力相关的多基因评分(PGS),并研究了认知能力和与教育相关的PGS(eduPGS)在多大程度上可以解释群体差异。

第六,我们测试了与祖先,遗传性和eduPGS相关的詹森效应。

第七,我们使用局部结构方程模型(LSEM)检查了MI在整个欧洲血统中是否成立。

测量不变性意味着测试正在所有人群中测试相同的事物。 这可以通过对两个人群进行确认性因素分析来完成。 该研究已经对不同种族群体的智力遗传力进行了计算。 第四点是一个很好的补充:他们可以预测人们在种族方面的模样,因此可以测试人们是否因肤色和头发类型的肤浅特性而受到不同待遇。 如果智力受到种族主义的影响,那么这些表面现象将是对智力有害影响程度的有用预测指标。 第五,基于从大多数受试者中提取的DNA,计算了多基因风险评分,该评分显示了每个人智力的遗传估计。 第六和第七点是关于这些不同种族群体的测试成绩的遗传学解释是否成立的进一步测试。

本文有很多内容,因此,我将仅介绍主要功能,并且本文中包含所有技术细节,其中许多内容涉及可能的方法论上的反对意见。

总样本包括9421年至2010年主要评估的2013位基因分型参与者的数据。从人口统计学角度来看,样本为51.7%的女性,55.8%的亚裔,32.9%的非裔美国人和11.4%的其他,平均年龄为14.2(标准年龄)偏差(SD)= 3.7岁)。 参与者是从费城地区招募的。 患有严重认知或医学障碍的人被排除在最终样本之外。 受试者是在测试时年龄为8-21岁的说英语的人。

参与者接受了Penn计算机神经认知电池。 该电池具有高度可靠性,心理上坚固性,并结合了与特定大脑系统相关的任务。 该电池组包含14个测试,分为五个广泛的行为领域:执行控制,情景记忆,复杂认知,社交认知和感觉运动速度。

电池中的测试如下:宾夕法尼亚州有条件排斥测试(旨在评估心理灵活性),宾夕法尼亚州持续表现测试(注意力),字母N向后任务(工作记忆),宾夕法尼亚州单词记忆任务(言语记忆),宾夕法尼亚州人脸记忆任务(面部记忆),视觉对象学习测试(空间记忆),宾州言语推理测试(语言推理),宾州矩阵推理测试(非语言推理),宾州线定向测试(空间能力),宾州情绪识别测试(情绪识别) ),宾州情绪差异测试(情绪差异),运动实践测试(感觉运动速度),手指敲击(感觉运动速度)和宾夕法尼亚州年龄差异测试(年龄差异)。 样本还完成了广泛成就测试,这是一种高度可靠的广泛能力测试。

在参加的参与者中,有5183名欧洲裔美国人,3155名非裔美国人和242名混血儿非裔欧洲裔美国人。

由于我们只关注欧洲和非裔美国人,因此我们以k = 2个遗传簇运行了ADMIXTURE。 一些受试者或者没有可用的基因型,或者他们的数据没有通过质量控制。 因此,最终样本量减少到7399。与先前的研究一致(例如,[59],SIRE与遗传祖先密切相关。这可以在图1中看到,图XNUMX显示了将特定SIRE组识别为SIRE组的可能性)。欧洲外加剂的功能。

如先前发现的那样,美国人民知道他们所处的种族群体,并且这些社会构造的描述与他们的DNA相匹配。

现在,看看此特定游戏中是否有皮肤:

数据不包括外观指标,因此我们选择根据基因型进行估算。 我们使用HIrisPlex-S Web应用程序执行此操作(https://hirisplex.erasmusmc.nl/). 此应用程序是由美国司法部开发的,用于法医调查。 它基于41个SNP(具有重叠变体; 6个代表眼睛颜色,22个代表头发颜色和36个代表肤色),以较高的准确性估算皮肤,头发和眼睛的颜色概率。 该工具已经在世界各地的数千人中得到验证[79]。

我们专注于肤色,因为该特征是色彩理论家(例如[80,81])赋予的首要条件,并且因为我们能够计算出比头发或眼睛的颜色更大的子样本的皮肤颜色分数。
对于组合样本(N = 0.87),我们估算的颜色评分与欧洲血统之间的相关性是-5585(仅非裔美国人)(-N = 0.39),其相关性是-1557。

然后,他们计算了4个认知能力多基因风险评分,以提供基于DNA的智力估计。 当然,目前这些方法仅捕获了基因引起的部分效应,但是人们的兴趣是看这些局部措施是否比肤色更好地预测了智力。 如果哪怕是部分措施都比肤色好或更好,那么导致种族差异智能的遗传原因的理由就更强了。 这些比较将在稍后讨论。

以下是该示例的简单摘要统计信息:

美国非洲人有19%是欧洲人,而机管局与欧洲人结婚时,他们的孩子有80%是欧洲人。

欧洲人的社会经济地位最高,其次是混血儿AA-欧洲人,其次是非洲人。

2010-2013年从这些青少年那里收集的情报数据证实了欧洲人和美洲非洲人之间通常存在1个标准差差异。 尽管通常建议缩小智力鸿沟,但对于最近通过各种智力任务测得的大量样本却并非如此。

这些组的颜色分数不同。 总体而言,混血儿混血儿更像是欧洲人,而不是美洲非洲人。

种族血统会预测智力吗? 作者构建回归方程来检验该假设。 他们因此描述了他们的结果:

在仅包括非裔美国人的模型中,我们发现欧洲血统始终与认知能力密切相关。 肤色(通过高度精确的预测因子进行遗传评估[79,93]与认知能力有关(模型1b,表5),但是当祖先也存在于模型中时,皮肤颜色没有显着的增量贡献(模型2,表5)。

结果可能仍然是由于其他外观变量的表型混淆所致。 为了测试这种可能性,我们安装了许多模型,包括皮肤,头发和眼睛的颜色。 我们发现,除了棕眼睛的颜色与认知能力呈正相关外,这些功能对它们本身都没有显着影响,但标准误差较大。 这些结果显示在R笔记本中。

最后一个单种族的非裔美国人模型(模型3,表5)包括SES,它对认知能力有相当大的影响。 然而,所谓的社会学家的谬论[2,5]可能在这里起作用。 即,控制父母SES也控制对SES的遗传影响,其可以与认知能力共享。

他们还研究了跨基因组使用教育多基因风险评分的作用。

4.2。 eduPGS的发现和以往的研究

我们还评估了eduPGS的跨种族有效性。 我们发现,在非裔美国人和欧洲裔美国人样本中对g的有效性最高的eduPGS是MTAG_EA_10K集。 尽管非裔美国人样本的有效性约为欧美样本的有效性的一半(rAA = 0.1115; rEA = 0.2269),但在两个人群中,这种关系均具有统计学意义(p <0.0001)。 与Piffer [111]一样,我们在这些eduPGS中发现了非裔美国人/欧美人的巨大差异(d = 1.89)。 使用非裔美国人样本中的beta并控制欧洲血统的影响(B = 0.124;模型1b;表10),我们估计已知的eduPGS可以天真地解释多达20%–25%的非裔/欧美情报差距。

去除非洲1000个基因组谱系中次要等位基因频率较低的变异体对MTAG_10K eduPGS在非洲人和欧美人中的有效性影响不大。 因此,与某些论点相反,欧洲特有的等位基因似乎并不偏向eduPGS的预测。 我们的结果证实了Piffer [111]的发现,他们发现MTAG衍生的SNP与种群智商之间存在很强的生态相关性(r = 0.86)。 我们还通过回归分析和路径分析发现,虽然eduPGS介导了欧洲血统和认知能力之间的关联,但肤色评分却没有。

现在,作者们将得出他们的结论,并概述了可以做的进一步工作以检验他们的发现。

根据选择的模型,我们的数据与组间遗传力(欧洲血统解释的方差)在50%到70%之间是兼容的(请参见Scarr等人,第85页)。 群体间遗传力的这一估计与Rushton和Jensen [9]的遗传学模型一致,据此模型,非洲/欧洲/美洲认知差异的50%–80%是由于遗传差异引起的。

虽然PGS评分的统计中介表明,可能涉及遗传因素,正如Kirkegaard等人详细讨论的那样。 我们不能用这种研究设计排除许多类型的混杂环境变量。 全局混合物分析结果具有启发性,应仅视为调查混合物对性状影响的第一步。 我们建议尝试使用具有全国代表性的样本复制当前结果,然后,如果确认了这些发现,则继续进行掺混物作图(局部掺混物分析)。 这是医学流行病学中采用的标准方法。

我们建议两种方法,以进一步减少关于非裔/欧洲裔美国人认知能力差距的原因的不确定性。

首先,应尝试使用其他样本(例如,Add Health研究)复制当前结果。

其次,本地祖先分析/混合物作图来检查与祖先的联系最明显的基因组区域是一个自然的后续项目。

其他人已经解释了这种分析的基本原理(例如[17,24,113,114])。 尝试在美国以外(例如巴西,哥伦比亚等)的混合美国人口中复制这些结果也是值得的。 该研究项目可以并且应该扩展到美国国内外的其他种族。 例如澳大利亚的原住民,南非的彩色海角和墨西哥的混血儿。 对于某些小组来说,检查广义能力(例如空间或数学能力)上的差异而不是像此处所做的一般能力那样有用,因为差异可能不是一般性的。

声称遗传差异是黑白差异的50%至70%,实际上与Rushton和Jensen在2005年所做的结论相同,当时他们对这一主题进行了30年的研究回顾。 测试“添加健康状况”样本中的这一最新发现可能会反驳它,因此应尽快完成。

另外,我强烈赞成在巴西样本上测试这些发现。 与以往相比,巴西对种族的态度一直较宽松,并且婚姻的水平更高。 我清楚地记得1964年读过《时代》杂志,内容是关于美国的种族隔离和民权游行,当时他们乘坐不隔离的公共汽车进入圣保罗市中心,向不隔离的班级教英语,后来在不隔离的酒吧里听巴西歌手的歌唱,夜总会。 如果部分智力差距是由于欧洲人的种族不宽容造成的,那么巴西的研究应显示出对智力的影响较小。

作者总结:

4.4。 一般结论

Rushton和Jensen [9]呼吁现代遗传学研究来检验遗传模型。 他们预测“对于拥有更多白人基因的黑人个体,他们的身体,行为和其他特征将接近白人”([9],第262页)。 在本研究中,我们确认这是一般认知能力的情况。 此外,我们表明,欧洲血统和g之间的关联基本上是由eduPGS而不是由肤色PGS介导的。 这些结果为遗传模式提供了支持。

我们进行了一些分析,旨在检验针对非洲/欧洲/美国认知能力差异的遗传假设。 我们发现,即使在我们的模型中加入了各种控制之后,欧洲血统仍是认知能力的一致预测指标。 所观察到的较大的eduPGS差异能够预测认知能力差距的大部分,这提示了进行调解的可能性。 将来使用跨种族有效的PGS进行评估时,应尝试更清楚地评估这种可能性。 我们基于全球混合物的研究结果表明,混合物对非裔/欧美认知能力差距有所贡献,并应鼓励未来在本地混合物水平上进行研究。

这是一项非常重要的研究。 我不得不总结一下,有关处理精确方法和可能造成混淆的详细信息,请参见本文。 本文是否涵盖了智力种族差异中的遗传因素问题? 很难看到作者还可以做些什么来仔细检验遗传假说。 这似乎是一个可靠的结果。 在其他示例中对其进行测试应该很快进行,因此,如果不进行复制,则可以将其丢弃。 同时,它清楚地表明至少一半的黑白差异可能是遗传来源。

 
• 类别: 种族/民族, 科学 •标签: 遗传, IQ, 种族和智商 
隐藏399条评论发表评论
忽略评论者...跟随Endorsed Only
修剪评论?
    []
  1. Realist 说:

    声称 50% 到 70% 的黑白差异是由遗传引起的,这与 Rushton 和 Jensen 在 2005 年得出的结论几乎相同,当时他们对该主题进行了 30 年的研究回顾。

    最高要求可能至少低 10%。 早在白人参与其中之前,撒哈拉以南黑人的智力就大大低于西北欧白人的水平。 他们缺乏发展证明了这一点。

    • 回复: @Anonymous
    , @Wally
  2. dearieme 说:

    在美国,人们知道他们属于哪个种族群体,这些社会结构描述与他们的 DNA 相匹配。

    细剑比大棒更好,呃,博士?

    美国非洲人有19%是欧洲人,而机管局与欧洲人结婚时,他们的孩子有80%是欧洲人。 我得到 60%:我哪里错了?

    这是医学流行病学中采用的标准方法。

    直到最近,这才是赞美。

    非常有趣:再次感谢博主。

    • 回复: @Nurd
  3. Nurd 说:
    @dearieme

    非裔美国人平均约有 20% 是欧洲人,但差异很大。 混血黑人中 80% 的欧洲混合可能表明,与白人结婚的黑人平均而言往往具有明显更高的欧洲血统。

    因此,研究中的平均“混血”黑人可能有一个黑人父母,平均有 60% 的欧洲血统和 40% 的非洲血统。

    这是一个有趣的结果。 这表明白人倾向于与欧洲混合率高于人口平均水平的黑人交配。

    (我认为这是一个错字的可能性很小。)

  4. Ketter 说:
    @Nurd

    它也在表中(0.796 欧洲血统),怀疑这是一个错字。

  5. 混血儿是一个小样本,标准偏差非常大,几乎是欧洲人的 5 倍。
    非裔美国人的标准差是欧洲人的 2 倍。
    这表明非裔美国人的欧洲混合体差异很大,混血儿更是如此。
    努德提出的选择性交配假说很可能是正确的。

    我坚决否认 Nurd 是一个错字!

    • 回复: @jimla
    , @Anonymous
    , @Sean
  6. @Nurd

    这是正确的。 智力、社会阶层等有多种交配,并且由于这与非裔美国人(黑人)的欧洲血统相关,因此与欧洲人(白人)交配的黑人平均更欧洲化。 据我所知,这个预期的发现还没有经过严格的研究,但可以使用一些现有的数据集来完成。 例如,NLSY 数据集包含配偶种族的数据,因此可以检查更聪明的黑人是否更有可能拥有白人(和亚洲人)配偶。 此外,在其中一个数据集中有欧洲血统的自我报告测量,Add Health 也有肤色评估。 这些都应该预测有一个非黑人配偶。

    美国国家遗传血统和社会地位的元分析
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315818167_Biogeographic_Ancestry_and_Socioeconomic_Outcomes_in_the_Americas_A_Meta-Analysis

    • 回复: @Anonymous
  7. Anonymous[373]• 免责声明 说:

    美国非洲人有19%是欧洲人,而机管局与欧洲人结婚时,他们的孩子有80%是欧洲人。

    那不应该是~60%吗?

  8. dearieme 说:

    谢谢,伙计们:对我来说听起来很有道理。

    学究气:如果美国黑人(平均)有 20% 是欧洲人,他们肯定应该被称为“双种族”吗?

    无论如何,仅当有关的两个种族是黑人和白人时才使用“双种族”似乎是完全不合适的。 我有两个混血朋友——都没有一滴黑色或白色的“血”。

    毫无疑问,“混血儿”很快就会走上混血种姓或混血儿的道路:说话者内心和精神上的邪恶的外在和可见的标志。

  9. jimla 说:
    @James Thompson

    在巴西,Biracial 将是一个非常大的样本。
    在巴西做一个三种族模型会很棒:美洲印第安人,非洲人,东北部,西北部,巴西西南部的欧洲人。 这种分析不仅仅是肤色,而是综合了肤色和头发质地、面部特征等。

  10. Anonymous[373]• 免责声明 说:
    @James Thompson

    那么这句话至少需要澄清一下。 如果你是对的,样本混合儿童的非裔美国人父母的白人基因是陈述的三倍。 在 60/40 时,它们实际上比黑色更白。

  11. 自称为“非裔美国人”的平均智力因亚组/美国州而异,这可以追溯到陆军 Alpha 测试分数。 Kaufman 和 Doppelt (1976) 后来分析了自我认同的非裔美国人的 WISC-R 测试分数,发现南部各州的平均智商为 83(有些低至 80),而西部各州为 87,西部各州为 89中北部各州为 93,东北各州为 94(最高为 2019)。 换句话说,不同州的非裔美国人平均相差几乎一个标准差。 有更多最近的数据显示了类似的结果。 拉斯克等人的作者。 然而,85 年仅对来自美国费城一个州的自称非裔美国人的平均智商为 XNUMX 的样本进行了抽样。

    出于显而易见的原因,遗传主义者似乎忽略了较大社会“种族”(例如“黑人”/“非裔美国人”)中的子群体/美国各州之间平均智商的巨大差异——当存在差距时,遗传主义假设没有意义几乎与假定的“黑人”种族群体内部的平均“黑人-白人”差异一样大,此外,最聪明的“黑人”比“白人”的某些子群体具有更高的智商。 当然,遗传学家很少讨论这种重叠——当他们讨论它时,他们会提出像理查德林恩这样的奇怪的临时假设。

  12. Sean 说:
    @James Thompson

    我怀疑白人 DNA 含量高于平均水平的黑人女性会在白人男性眼中获得吸引力,因为他们的外表倾向于白人,而不是通过智商向白人倾斜。 明尼苏达州的收养研究发现,白人母亲的混血儿比黑人母亲的孩子智商高几个百分点。

    我认为有一个白人而不是黑人母亲在黑人/白人混血儿的孩子中更为常见,因为白人女性对黑人男性的身体吸引力的评价比白人男性对黑人女性的身体吸引力的评价要高得多。 金泽提供了看似客观的数据,表明黑人女性(但不是黑人男性)的吸引力不如白人女性。 事实上,金泽表示,数据显示黑人男性被独立评估为比白人更有吸引力。 但是没有人想听到那种事情,这就是金泽被取消的原因。

    • 回复: @Anon
    , @bob jones
  13. Anonymous[162]• 免责声明 说:
    @Emil O. W. Kirkegaard

    您是否同意这样的评估,即这表明 15 分的 IQ 差距仅是 0.5-0.7 遗传,或者这项研究表明美国黑人和白人的 IQ 差距至少是 0.5-0.7 遗传,并且可能会随着额外的遗传信息而更多?

    由于遗传原因,美国人的体重智商差距仅为 8 分左右,这确实令人惊讶,因为成年人 15 分的差距似乎在 40 年或更长时间内没有改变。

  14. @Oliver D. Smith

    换句话说,不同州的非裔美国人平均相差几乎一个标准差。

    白人也是如此:曾经有一个有用的表格(在 Audacious Epigone 的 blogspot 网站上),但现在链接上写着“博客已被删除”,唯一剩下的痕迹是 JayMan 的一条推文……

    根据记忆,西弗吉尼亚州的白人比 DC 的白人笨约 1 秒。

    当乌鸦飞翔时,从华盛顿特区到 WVa 州边界内部点的最短距离约为 67 公里。

    归根结底,尽管有很多关于他妈的事情。

    如果 70% 的 IQ 变化可以用遗传来解释,那么一种不精确但合适的图形方式来思考它如下:

     • 如果 2 平均 美洲bus 喷出后代,当爸爸在妈妈的前屁股上倾倒热负荷时,〜65 IQ 点得到解释。

     • 之后发生的是 80 和 110 之间的差值。

    这假设即使是最基本的新生儿环境也会增加遗传贡献——即,足够的食物、住所和卫生足以维持生命,足以产生额外的智商,而一个被忽视的遗传潜力智商为 100 的孩子最终会死智商为 80(使他们在现代经济中的任何角色都毫无用处)。

    当然,额外的关注、感情和其他积极的环境刺激并没有让一个“普通”的人活到 140 岁(没有一些超级英雄的“起源故事”,可能涉及大量暴露于辐射)。

    但是把一个潜在智商为 100 的小孩放在一个受污染的粪坑里,环境中含有可测量的铅颗粒、氟化水等等,然后给他们喂标准的美国人 灌胃 (彩色盒子里的含糖狗屎)...... 80 岁左右是对的。

  15. FvS 说:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    遗传主义者不会忽视同一种族国家之间的智商差异。 那为什么你会假设他们忽略了你在说什么? 它被称为 . 此外,我们不能假设美国的所有白人和所有黑人都来自其原籍国或地区的相同种群。 例如,新英格兰白人和阿巴拉契亚白人并非来自同一个亚种族。 白色是指欧洲高加索人种,这是一个广泛的种族类别,包括各种欧洲高加索人种。 黑色一词也是如此,其中包括各种非洲黑人亚种。 奴隶来自西非各地,属于多个民族。 此外,我敢说,随着时间的推移,美国许多更聪明的黑人在获得自由后向北迁移,因为那里有更好的教育和经济机会。 选择偏差等等。
    https://www.unz.com/jman/the-genetics-of-the-american-nations/

  16. TG 说:

    1. 如果白人这么聪明,他们怎么会输?

    2. 没有人比不吸取经验的人更愚蠢。 入侵伊拉克需要多少智商超高的人? 还是摧毁利比亚? 还是将我们所有的产业都运往中国? 你好?

  17. @Oliver D. Smith

    我不确定您所指的“临时假设”究竟指的是什么。 据我所知,聪明的黑人认知阶层(包括非洲精英移民)的存在并没有反驳智力的遗传基础,并可能支持遗传假设。 此外,被称为回归均值的人工制品再次暗示了智力的潜在遗传起源。

    大多数心理测量学家对于他们研究背后的统计方法都是透明的。 主流智能科学有力地概述了这个问题; 此外,贝尔曲线明确指出,黑人和白人之间在功能上的大多数种族差异都在一度控制了智商。 就目前而言,85 的黑人平均 IQ 是白人平均 100 的一个标准偏差,因此有 2% 的黑人为 115 或更高。 这将需要 2% 的黑人比 84% 的白人表现出更高的智商。

    如果阅读《钟形曲线》,那么详细介绍认知分层的前三章将具有洞察力。 我要暗示的是,大量 IQ 为 115 或更高的黑人表现出更高的欧洲血统混合,并表现出内源性交配。 这些多种族精英构成了历史上的“资产阶级黑人”阶级。 目前的研究支持了我的主张,时间只会增加我们目前的理解。

    最后,对黑人之间存在的地理差异进行了详细分析。 以环境发展中的表型差异为基础的五八点差异如何类似于标准偏差 B/W 一个? 您是否没有阅读第一段明确说明黑人/白人智商差异具有可塑性的内容?

    • 回复: @Oliver D. Smith
  18. @Oliver D. Smith

    Jensen 明确讨论了美国不同州的非裔美国人中欧洲血统的不同比率。 这早已为人所知。

    • 回复: @Oliver D. Smith
  19. @Anonymous

    由于遗传原因,美国人的体重智商差距仅为 8 分左右,这确实令人惊讶,因为成年人 15 分的差距似乎在 40 年或更长时间内没有改变。

    它可能有——如果文化不会朝着相反的方向发展。

    Steve Sailer 的估计是,5 IQ 点可能是一个合理的目标,并且可以通过黑人学校/环境中适当的文化(= 纪律,例如)变化来实现。 ——

    – 是比尔盖茨没有得到这个想法,因为他比史蒂夫赛勒更聪明,还是因为他没有史蒂夫赛勒那么聪明? ——

    ——另一方面——如果理解这个文化问题取决于聪明,为什么谦虚的我能理解它? 呵呵。 – 问题重于问题。

  20. Svevlad 说:

    哦,但它是可塑的。 如果你做正确的事情,那就是。 但他们……非常有争议。

  21. @James Thompson

    如果您按州比较 AA 的平均智商,然后按州查看 AA 中平均“欧洲”混合物的百分比 - 它不太符合遗传假设。 例如,华盛顿是平均“欧洲”混合物平均水平最高的州之一,30% 是华盛顿(Bryc 等人,2015 年,表 S3)。 然而,这种状态下AA的智商远不是最高的。 然而,如果遗传假设是真的,人们会期望“欧洲”混合体最高的国家拥有最高的智商。 不是这样。

    尽管阿拉巴马州、南卡罗来纳州和密西西比州等“欧洲”混合物含量最低的南部州的 AA 智商最低——如果你看看这些州的“美国白人”的智商,他们的智商也是最低的。 如果我没记错的话,这可以用这些州的学校质量差来解释。 因此,当您还查看这些州中“美国白人”的较低智商时,它不支持遗传主义。

    • 回复: @ic1000
    , @Realist
    , @Anon
    , @res
  22. ic1000 说:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    > 因此,当您还查看这些州中“美国白人”的较低智商时,它不支持遗传主义。

    在你的评论中,当你写“遗传主义”时,你的意思似乎是“一种群体间遗传几乎可以解释一切的模型”。 但这让我觉得是詹姆斯汤普森写作和拉斯克等人研究的稻草人特征。 拉斯克的一位作者 (Kirkegaard) 参与了这个话题,加强了这种印象。

    在我看来,在汤普森/拉斯克的背景下(以及在该主题的知情评论者的背景下),“遗传主义者”是指允许先天和后天都可能在确定个人智力和心理表型方面发挥重要作用的人(例如 g 和 OCEAN/HEXACO 特征)。

    从进化生物学的角度来看,如果几个世纪以来生殖隔离的群体——并受到不同的选择压力——在数量表型特征上没有一些不同的平均值,那将是不可能的(并非不可能)。 在我看来,了解群体间平均差异的原因和程度是一个有趣的科学问题,具有重要的政策意义。

    • 回复: @dearieme
  23. @Colin Smith

    我不确定您所指的“临时假设”究竟指的是什么。 据我所知,聪明的黑人认知阶层(包括非洲精英移民)的存在并没有反驳智力的遗传基础,并可能支持遗传假设。 此外,被称为回归均值的人工制品再次暗示了智力的潜在遗传起源。

    我指的是你刚刚发布的奇怪的临时假设,例如“非洲精英(移民)”。

    我们知道自称为“非裔美国人”的平均智商测试分数因州而异; 生活在南部各州的人智商最低。 原因是因为南方的教育/社会经济条件较差,因此尽管拥有最高比例的“美国白人”血统,但为什么在同一州自称为“美国白人”的人的智商也较低(遗传学家如何解释这一点) ?)

    相反,遗传主义者声称北部各州的 AA 智商更高,因为这些人是/来自从南部移民的“精英”黑人(因此不是典型的)。 这是一种在种族隔离主义者中流行的论点,被称为 选择性迁移 假设; 它在 1940 年代被 Ashley Montagu 揭穿。 然而,Richard Lynn 仍在使用该论点,以及您在这里似乎在争论的内容。

  24. @Anonymous

    它已经 100 年没有被认真移动过。 也许会。 https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=6519

    这些估计并不那么精确。 采样误差不是这里的主要问题,关注的是在这些数据中,自我识别为混血黑白的影响相当大,这就是为什么遗传斜率没有那么大的原因。 这种解释结果的方式假设这种自我认同不会被智力等的真实多基因分数混淆,这很可能是这种情况。 因此,请谨慎对待这些估计值。 个人认为美国黑人白人差距遗传率在50-100%区间,比100%更接近50%。 看到这个帖子: https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=6774

  25. dearieme 说:
    @ic1000

    一个有趣的科学问题: 那当然是。

    具有重要的政策意义。 我对此表示怀疑。 但也许时代会改变。

    • 同意: Montefrío
  26. Wyatt 说:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    南部的白人也很可能不是因为黑人的平均智商较低。 据我所知,南方白人主要来自英国,而英国有一些欧洲最垃圾、最具侵略性的白人。 如果将其与中西部及其他地区较为平静的日耳曼民族进行对比,将白人差异归结为种族原因而不是社会经济原因是很有意义的。 我真的无法解释东北的白人; 他们很可能来自英国南部的血统,而且他们往往不那么凶猛。

    不过我很好奇。 您如何解释亚洲国家和非洲国家之间的不同结果? 70 年前,他们都在欧洲国家的控制下穷得他妈的穷,但亚洲人的地位远远超过非洲人。

  27. 但是,对于移民到英国的巴基斯坦人、孟加拉国人、次大陆印度人和东非印度人,我们有不同的结果。 他们是同一个种族,有时是同一个宗教,所以他们或多或少都受到肤色的压迫。 然而,他们的成就却大相径庭。 孟加拉国人通常是英国社会中最贫穷的人之一。 印度人,尤其是东非人,以成就着称。 议会中最富有的人是印度财政大臣,他还很年轻。 这是一个强有力的环境论据,表达为一个群体的内部文化,发挥着巨大的作用。

    在非洲人后裔中,最近来自非洲的移民人数超过了非洲裔加勒比人。 作为来自津巴布韦的寻求庇护者,这里的前学校教师热切地寻找就业机会,担任保安,而更成熟的受压迫社区则找不到这些机会。 白人压迫? 其中一个团体抽了太多的 Ganja? 非洲人为了更高的动机而自我选择?

    • 回复: @anon
  28. Pft 说:

    我从贝尔曲线中得出的结论是,任何遗传差异都是微不足道的。 你根本无法通过种族来判断一个人。

    我确实看到了一篇引人入胜的论文,描述了亚洲人、欧洲人和非洲人后裔之间尼安德特人 DNA 的相对数量。

    曾经,许多人类物种在地球上漫游,智人只是其中之一。 正如我们之前所理解的那样,欧洲和亚洲血统的人类并不完全是人类。

    除了撒哈拉以南非洲人之外,每个人的细胞中都有一些尼安德特人的 DNA,平均约为 4%。

    这是因为不同人类物种之间的大部分杂交发生在非洲大陆之外,在第一批人类冒险走出去并开始传播到世界其他地方之后。 

    尼安德特人是我们已知最接近的进化亲属,在地球上与智人共存了 5000 多年,并经常与现代人类杂交。 据研究人员称,至少有五分之一的尼安德特人基因组可能潜伏在现代人体内,影响着人们今天拥有的皮肤和头发的外观以及他们患上的疾病等特征。 这一发现表明尼安德特人的真正“灭绝”可能没有发生,但他们可能已经被智人吸收了。

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4947341/

    与智人相比,尼安德特人的攻击性较低,并且拥有大脑发育,因此具有更高的视力,但后者具有更好的语言处理能力。 一般来说,因为尼安德特人的大脑专注于视觉和空间记忆,所以留给认知和社交互动的区域较少。

    与尼安德特人的第一次杂交发生在现代非非洲人的祖先遍布欧亚大陆之前的中东。 现代欧洲人和亚洲人的祖先随后从这个移民群体中分裂出来,分裂后东亚人的祖先再次与尼安德特人杂交.

    因此,与欧洲人相比,东亚人的尼安德特人混合体更多。 东亚人比欧洲人多继承了 15-30% 的尼安德特人 DNA

    海德堡人的大脑大多比尼安德特人和智人小。 虽然在撒哈拉以南非洲没有发现智人与尼安德特人杂交的痕迹,但遗传研究表明,智人确实在该地区与海德堡人杂交

    如果没有古老的尼安德特人血统,撒哈拉以南非洲人口将更容易受到与侵略或多动相关基因的影响,这些基因仅在智人中发现。 这一发现可能有助于解释当今人类在暴力或侵略方面的差异。

    东亚人的大脑比欧洲人稍大。 更详细地说,东亚人的感知大脑区域更大,而欧洲人的与语言相关的区域更大。 与上述两组相比,撒哈拉以南非洲人的大脑大多较小。

    在多动和攻击性方面,东亚人在当前人群中得分最低,其次是欧洲人,然后是撒哈拉以南非洲人。 与攻击性和多动有关的基因起源于智人,与尼安德特人的杂交导致继承尼安德特人基因的人类行为更加和平。

    环境的差异加上尼安德特人 DNA 数量的不同导致了遗传和表观遗传的差异,后者是跨代的,或多或少是永久性的差异。

    但同样,当涉及到个人关系时,贝尔曲线使这一切都没有实际意义。 我们是一个物种。 在我们大多数人居住的曲线中间,几乎没有区别。

  29. @Oliver D. Smith

    '出于显而易见的原因,遗传主义者似乎忽略了较大社会'种族'(例如“黑人”/“非裔美国人”)中的子群体/美国各州之间平均智商的巨大差异——当存在差距几乎与假定的“黑人”种族群体中的平均“黑人-白人”差异一样大……”

    如果人们假设东北等人的“黑人”比阿拉巴马州等人的黑人拥有更多的白人基因混合,那就很有道理了——正如他们可能会有的那样。

    我也怀疑这也往往是对智力的某种遗传排序; 美国黑人从南方开始,一些向外移民。 不是说移民的人往往比从未移民的人更聪明吗?

    换句话说,试着在阿拉巴马州塔斯基吉这样的小镇开车,研究当地的动物群。 最优秀和最聪明的人没有留在农场的家里。

  30. gotmituns 说:

    基因是否占种族的 50-70%
    ---------------
    不,这是关于野兔的锥子,silkie vs nappie……

  31. 拉斯克等人。 文章是一个非常重要的贡献; 它明确拒绝了种族差距是 100% 环境的传统理论。 很高兴在此处的评论中看到这么多深思熟虑的贡献。

    由于基因型/表型相互作用的存在,承认种族差距的遗传与环境原因的百分比贡献略有歧义是很重要的。 非裔美国人在平均 g 因子分数较低的社区长大,与在不同类型的社区中长大相比,这种环境影响降低了他们自己的 g 因子分数。 因此,这种相互作用效应造成了一点点歧义,因为它既不是纯粹的遗传原因,也不是纯粹的环境原因。 这是一个来自遗传和环境原因相互作用的“非线性”术语。 一些较早的评论忽略了这种歧义。

    考虑以下思想实验。 一群1000名才华横溢的音乐家建立了一个孤立的社区,并在这个孤立的社区内通婚,产生了新一代。 这个社区的孩子们会表现出伟大的音乐天赋,这既是因为遗传,也是因为他们生活在一个大多数人都演奏乐器的社区,并且在人生的每个阶段都有音乐机会。 同样,非裔美国人的 g 因子分数受到在平均 g 因子分数较低的社区中提高的影响。 这种交互作用可能很小,但它是一个潜在的歧义。

    • 回复: @phil
    , @nokangaroos
  32. padre 说:

    为什么这项研究如此重要,因为它“确认”了白人是“超人”,他们应该继续相应地对待非白人?

  33. Anon[191]• 免责声明 说:
    @Sean

    ”事实上,金泽表示,数据显示黑人男性被独立评估为比白人更有吸引力。 但是没有人想听到那种事情,这就是金泽被取消的原因。”

    许多白人男性体育迷(jockstrap sniffer)似乎对黑人有一种同性恋的迷恋,这是因为他们花无数个小时在电视上注视着他们,并且无数金钱收集黑人运动员所穿的衣服,这一事实证明了这一点在他们职业生涯的某个阶段。

    与黑人男性打交道的白人女性通常是那些有虐待父亲的人,并会寻找会虐待他们的任何肤色的男性。 由于讨厌的黑人男性源源不断(甚至有些有钱),因此这种类型的白人女性很可能最终会遇到讨厌的黑人。 由于金钱胜过一切,一个讨厌的有钱的黑人将在这些女人中获得最好的外表。 那里没有真正的“身体吸引力”,只有一个渴望被通缉的精神病女性,而她唯一能与之产生联系的男模特是会虐待她的人,因为黑人男性是虐待女性而不是白人男性的专家系数为 100,这通常是她的结果。

    • 同意: anarchyst, Realist, Thomasina
    • 回复: @Anonymous
  34. anon[191]• 免责声明 说:
    @Philip Owen

    “印度人,尤其是东非人,以成就着称。 议会中最富有的人是印度财政大臣,他还很年轻。 这是一个强有力的环境论据,表现为一个群体的内部文化,发挥着巨大的作用。”

    来自东非的印度人通常是以阿迦汗为首领的以斯梅利穆斯林。 他们是一个比普通印度人更聪明并且在商业上取得成功的子群体。 他们身后有很多钱,而且往往是最自由的穆斯林。 许多人被伊迪·阿明 (Idi Amin) 赶出乌干达,并主要由白人英联邦国家提供庇护。 https://the.ismaili/global/about-us/the-ismaili-community

    • 回复: @Philip Owen
  35. American Citizen 2.0 说:
    @TG

    你正在对新闻项目进行政治化的解释,好像它们表明了一些生物学真相。 问题不在于美国是否在政治上做出了错误的选择。 对于您提到的每个主题所做的选择,都可以提出很好的论据。

    至于入侵伊拉克……想想伊朗和伊拉克打了近10年的战争,损失了数十万士兵,而美国能在几天之内入侵并占领伊拉克,损失的士兵数量只是伊朗的一小部分。丢失。

    最后,失去了什么? 在电视广告中扮演主角?

    你似乎在一场比赛中宣布胜利,而这场比赛只发生在你自己的头脑中。

    • 回复: @Realist
  36. glib 说:

    诚实地? 我对此表示怀疑。 我坚信表观遗传学。 给我一个用大脑和鱼长大的黑人孩子,而不是任何一个白人长大的素食主义者。 如果不是在一代人中,黑人孩子将在两代人中战胜愚蠢的素食主义者。 留在非洲的黑人的问题在于,在那里以植物为主的饮食更容易生存。 你只需要伸伸胳膊就可以采摘木瓜。

    白人是移居北方的黑人。 在那里,您只能靠以肉类为基础的饮食生存(例如,为了保存稀缺的维生素 D),再加上恶劣的环境迫使您开发工具和技术。

  37. 内格罗尼亚人的智慧可以说是无穷无尽的。

    即使是最白的傻瓜也知道,没有哪个州、城市或社区因大量涌入的黑人而有所改善。

    • 回复: @mikemikev
  38. American Citizen 2.0 说:
    @padre

    不。再加上现在在智商较低的暴民中流行的诽谤,即白人对他们的虐待是如此公然错误,以至于真正荒谬。 你愿意被阿兹特克人献祭给太阳神吗? 你愿意被阿拉伯人奴役吗? 你愿意被中国皇帝饿死吗? 除了一些人们在美国经历过的糟糕经历之外,怎么没人知道人类历史的任何方面? 似乎是故意的无知。 基本上,你读了一篇关于美国的糟糕评论,这就是黑人的命也是命,现在你认为它是人类历史上最糟糕的国家。 你愿意出生在印度的“贱民”种姓吗?

    人们关注人口智商这个话题的主要原因之一是它对社会政策有影响。 如果每个人都是白痴(例如无法理解简单的书面解释),那么这些人制定或理解法律的能力非常有限。 举一个具体的例子:他们根本无法理解甚至阅读适用于国际公司的复杂税法。 再举一个例子:他们将无法制定和遵守规则来验证一种化学品在家用清洁产品中使用是否安全。 等等。

    简而言之,对于这样的人,民主是不可能的。

    我们现在才刚刚开始看到美国民主制度的崩溃,这是由于鼓励低智商的非白人生育并移民到这里的结果。 例如,在美国白人占 85% 的旧时代,政治运动围绕评估候选人在税收、外交事务等方面的政策立场展开。普通选民被期望是消息灵通的公民,是利益相关者。正在作出的决定。 快进到今天,请注意,普通选民几乎无法理解两院制立法机构的想法,因此现在我们只讨论最基础的政治话题:你们是种族主义者,而我们不是种族主义者。 人们甚至连一道简单的数学题都几乎无法解决,但他们以某种方式发现美国是“世界上最富有的国家”,因此应该给他们免费的钱。 愚蠢的人就是这样摧毁民主的。 另一个例子是非洲人后裔犯下的大量暴力犯罪,却无法认识到暴力犯罪直接导致贫困、污名化的社区。

    这样的话题有无数的例子。 我只提到了几个。 但我们当然不是在谈论智商,只是因为我们想把它凌驾于不会数学的黑人之上。 如果黑人获得菲尔兹奖,我会很高兴。

    美国是否能够在我们现在被迫对付的白痴的冲击下幸存下来,这是一个悬而未决的问题。 我们需要有能力的公民,而不是福利救济的受益者。

    • 同意: Realist, Bert
    • 回复: @Realist
    , @obwandiyag
    , @Macumazahn
  39. bob jones 说:

    还是这种“拒绝机会”的废话? 哈哈

    聪明的孩子创造他们自己的教育机会(这也被研究过); 给出这种“拒绝机会”的论点,任何空气都只是使它合法化。 没有人教白人阅读或给予他们“机会”。 财富不会导致智慧; 智慧带来财富。

    为什么每个人都对黑白差距如此着迷? 还有4个其他主要种族。 关于亚裔西班牙裔差距的文献在哪里? 还是印度-阿拉伯差距?

    白人和黑人甚至不是同一个物种; 白人是智人/尼安德特人的混合体。

  40. @anon

    我认识的人是印度教徒,在天主教学校接受教育。 所有的东非人都倾向于聪明。

    然而,我原来的观点更广泛。 英国的所有次大陆都有足够的动力来到这里并克服官僚主义的障碍,因此他们都是自我选择的。 即便如此,尽管有共同的“种族”背景和劣势,但某些群体的表现仍优于其他群体。

    拥有正确家庭结构的局外人确实很繁荣。 亚美尼亚人、黎巴嫩基督徒、帕西人、伊博人、上述东非亚洲人,当然还有犹太人都有一些家庭/宗教结构,将他们团结在一起,成为一个相互信任的群体,可以在没有合同的情况下开展业务。 我怀疑接受包办婚姻的倾向是其中的一个特征。

  41. bob jones 说:
    @Sean

    黑人男性并不被认为最具吸引力……有许多 Tinder/OkCupid 和其他约会网站分析表明,白人男性在全球范围内获得的点赞数最多。

    尽管如此,获取关于女性认为有吸引力的数据的数据是似是而非的,因为女性的偏好受到媒体的关注。

    在整个亚洲,黑人男性在很大程度上被认为是令人厌恶的,并且有充分的理由——故意让你的后代退化 DNA 是基因自杀。 然而,女性吸引力的偏好模型完全由社会地位模型驱动。

    在过去,社会地位来自权力、财富、其他人的尊重等。现在,它来自犹太人的广告和体育运动(在西方)。 东南亚没有数十亿美元的美白产品产业,因为黑人男性“更有吸引力”。

    让女性选择配偶是不健康的。 他们将根据睾丸激素水平有效地做出选择。 让犹太人决定女性应该与谁交配甚至更糟,因为他们会为其他种族选择最不合适的候选人。

    请注意犹太媒体如何鼓励每个人与黑人交配(当然,犹太女性除外,她们应该留在部落中)。 没有人会被犹太媒体强迫与亚洲男性或西班牙裔男性交配。 没有这些鼓励是推论性的证据,即实际字面上的“多样性”不是这里的目标。

    犹太人希望获得白人对美丽、创造力和智力有益的 DNA,并为自己单独囤积这些特征。 中国人会用CRISPR达到同样的效果。 与此同时,他们更希望他们的对手在这场进化战争中因次优 DNA 而处于不利地位。

    • 回复: @Mefobills
  42. Tom Verso 说:

    您的图表缺少一个 “文化”盒子 从经验上讲,这是区分欧洲人与世界上所有其他人的最明显和最重要的变量。

  43. opat 说:

    “智能”是一个以社会为中介的概念。 证明? 把智商高的人扔进丛林,让他们活下来。 他们不会持续3个小时。 他们所有的智商都不会为他们做深蹲。

    当然,对此的第一反应将是“这太愚蠢了”。 或者,“这与智力无关。” 如果生存与智力无关,我不知道是什么。

    80 年代末在巴西有一项著名的研究,他们追踪被安置到(主要是白人)中产阶级学校的贫民窟黑人儿童(小学)。 贫民窟的孩子们已经是经验丰富的毒贩和跑步者。

    贫民窟的孩子在数学上占主导地位。 他们当然做到了——他们已经掌握了所有基本算术,理解了百分比、比率、折扣等。“最聪明”的中产阶级孩子跟不上他们。

    然而,贫民窟的孩子在学校表现不佳。 他们缺乏(西方)教育的文化资本——是的,先生,不,女士,谢谢先生,等等。按照这个方向,赶上这个期限,亲吻这个后方,以这种方式安抚这个权威,那种权威,对这样微笑所以当说话时,等等。

    我建议你研究“活动理论”而不是这些废话。 阅读一些 Cole 和 Scribner。

  44. anarchyst 说:
    @glib

    完全不同意你的表观遗传前提。

    一个很好的例子是黑人,他们几乎出生就在白人家庭中长大。

    无论黑人孩子因为他从出生就一直照顾他的白人收养“父母”而在文化上多么丰富,几乎总是在他年满 12 或 13 岁时,他的黑人 DNA 开始彰显自己,他将最终“反对”他的白人父母。

    一句古老的格言,“你可以把黑人带出丛林,但你不能把丛林带出黑人”已经一次又一次地被证明是正确的。

    一个典型的例子是足球运动员科林·卡帕尼克 (Colin Kapaernick),他否认自己在白人家庭和文化中的成长,转而反对他们,拥抱他的黑人 DNA。

    有些东西是无法改变的……

    • 回复: @Dugan
  45. mikemikev 说:
    @Sick of Orcs

    是的,令人沮丧的是,我们需要针对非常明显的现实进行复杂的智力论证。

    • 同意: Sick of Orcs
    • 回复: @Oliver D. Smith
  46. Realist 说:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    然而,如果遗传假设是真的,人们会期望“欧洲”混合体最高的国家拥有最高的智商。 不是这样。

    当然,只有低智商的白人才会有黑人的孩子。

  47. Realist 说:
    @opat

    我注意到您在 Unz Review 上发布了 3 条……算上 3 条评论。 你是个该死的巨魔,奥利弗·D·史密斯和其他许多人也是。 你的一个讨厌白人的混蛋 朋友 联系其他仇恨白人的人,然后蜂拥到亲白人的文章中胡说八道。

    • 同意: Bert
  48. Realist 说:
    @American Citizen 2.0

    优秀的评论。

    简而言之,对于这样的人,民主是不可能的。

    任何允许白痴投票的政府都注定失败。

    如果黑人获得菲尔兹奖,我会很高兴。

    ..合法的。

  49. Realist 说:
    @Pft

    我从贝尔曲线中得出的结论是,任何遗传差异都是微不足道的。 你根本无法通过种族来判断一个人。

    但是你肯定可以通过他们的平均智商来判断一个种族。

    但同样,当涉及到个人关系时,贝尔曲线使这一切都没有实际意义。 我们是一个物种。 在我们大多数人居住的曲线中间,几乎没有区别。

    曲线的中间并不是所有种族的人口都相等……远非如此。 曲线中间缺少黑人人口。

    • 回复: @Peripatetic Commenter
  50. Realist 说:
    @American Citizen 2.0

    至于入侵伊拉克……想想伊朗和伊拉克打了近10年的战争,损失了数十万士兵,而美国能在几天之内入侵并占领伊拉克,损失的士兵数量只是伊朗的一小部分。丢失。

    我大体上同意你的看法,但为入侵和占领伊拉克的决定辩护……对我来说太该死的桥梁了。

    • 同意: ic1000
  51. @glib

    上一次他们用大脑和鱼抚养黑人孩子时,结果并没有令人信服……

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease)

    表观遗传学是流氓最后的避难所。

    • 回复: @Bert
  52. TGD 说:

    整篇文章就是所谓的“统计噪音”,换句话说——胡说八道。

  53. Anonymous[606]• 免责声明 说:
    @Realist

    确切地。 我厌倦了冗长杂乱的文章,这些文章显然是不言而喻的。

    • 同意: Realist
    • 回复: @cassandra
  54. phil 说:
    @Peter Johnson

    收养研究发现,在特定家庭和社区长大不会影响 g。

  55. @Pft

    我知道了。

    愚蠢、暴力和恶心是 One Species ™ 中唯一完全人类部分的专利。

    你想改写一下吗?

    (此外,它是 BS;至少是 Khoisan 和 Ghost 人口的帐户)

  56. @glib

    这还不够解释。 非洲的环境也相当恶劣,有寄生虫病、高温、干旱和大型食肉动物。 同样,还有美国本土部落,与欧洲处于同一季节区域,但在文明建设方面远远落后。 然后是遥远的北美部落,季节性变化极大,但只满足于捕鱼和捕猎鲸鱼和海豹。

    地理隔离和缺乏来自其他人类的竞争阻碍了发展的假设可能有些道理。 但最终我们都在说同样的事情:智力赋予优势,因此进化将以无意识的、随意的方式选择它。 我们都带着普通大脑突然冒出来,只是等待老师、父母和营养物质的正确组合长成 Isaac Newtons 的想法确实没有科学依据。

    • 不同意: Corvinus
    • 回复: @Yupman
  57. Bert 说:
    @glib

    木瓜(番木瓜) 原产于中美洲。

  58. Bert 说:
    @nokangaroos

    天哪,这里的任何人都不能保持地理正直。 库鲁在新几内亚,而不是非洲。

    • 回复: @nokangaroos
  59. 根据选择的模型,我们的数据与组间遗传力(欧洲血统解释的方差)在50%到70%之间是兼容的(请参见Scarr等人,第85页)。 群体间遗传力的这一估计与Rushton和Jensen [9]的遗传学模型一致,据此模型,非洲/欧洲/美洲认知差异的50%–80%是由于遗传差异引起的。

    对于平等主义者和那些坚持种族是一种社会建构的人来说,这是一个相当令人不安的结果。

    这篇论文什么时候会从科学文献中消失?

    我的印象是,即使是公正的科学探究也不允许探索这类主题?

    对 Obwandiyag 这篇论文的优点有什么有意义的反驳吗?

  60. @Peter Johnson

    这实质上是布朗与教育的推理......
    (黑人是愚蠢的,因为他们因黑人的存在而受到创伤)

    后续研究并没有证明这一点——黑人女孩确实有所改善,但几乎不显着,男孩犯罪率只有两倍。
    当然,那只是 skoolz——你提倡强制跨种族收养吗?
    (哎呀,我希望我没有给任何人任何想法😀)

    • 回复: @Dieter Kief
  61. 我想你只见树木不见森林。 首先,欧洲人衡量的“智力”是相对于欧洲文化而言的,它留下了它的实际和文化DNA。 其次,根据最好的科学,大约有十几种或更多不同类型的智力与文化决定的智商测试非常不同。 生活,如果你活得久一点,是一件非常复杂的事情,不同的文化随着时间和地理位置的不同而有所不同。 第三,我认为您低估了 Jane Eliot 蓝眼/棕眼实验中清楚显示的偏见的影响,该实验表明,当您创建一个概念框架时,其中一种颜色的眼睛显示出优劣,学生将逐渐适应这一点,斯坦福监狱实验中的囚犯/狱卒实验也是如此。 在我从事政府工作的这些年里,我亲眼目睹了这种角色决定前景现象,并与拥有法律权力的人互动。

    然而,实际上,当前的文化设置仍然相当僵化,并且无论实际“种族”如何,都使具有智商优势的人比那些没有智商优势的人取得成功。 我们还必须记住,非洲人被选为强壮的身体而不是头脑的奴隶——敏感或书呆子的非洲人要么死在奴隶船上,要么死在种植园里,所以理论上很明显,美国黑人最终会成为更好的运动员。

    • 谢谢: Sya Beerens
  62. Mefobills 说:
    @bob jones

    中国人热衷于优生学,而西方人则专注于Dysgenics。

    中国也采用美国经济体系(工业资本主义),而西方采用犹太/英国金融资本主义模式。

    谁会赢?

    已成定局。 从长远来看,工业资本主义与优生学的结合将使中国无与伦比。

    犹太人希望获得白人对美丽、创造力和智力有益的 DNA,并为自己单独囤积这些特征。

    犹太人狂热成为世界的“债主”阶级,并用 Tikkun Olam 修复世界,在中俄组合中已经不胜枚举。

    犹太人无法继续他们的高利贷、租金、非劳动收入和战争来促进部落利益……长期趋势对他们不利。

    这是一个解释中国优生实践的链接。 我可以保证中国不会收集黑色DNA来改善他们的基因库。

    https://www.edge.org/response-detail/23838

    摘抄:

    鉴于中国对人类精神和身体特征的基因组研究的大量投资,中国优生学将很快变得更加有效。 BGI-Shenzhen 拥有 4,000 多名研究人员。 它拥有比世界其他任何地方都多的“下一代”DNA 测序仪,并且每年对超过 50,000 个基因组进行测序。 它最近收购了加州公司 Complete Genomics,成为 Illumina 的主要竞争对手。

    BGI 认知基因组项目目前正在对全球 1,000 名极高智商的人进行全基因组测序,以寻找可预测智商的等位基因组。 我知道是因为我最近为该项目贡献了我的 DNA,但没有完全理解其中的含义。 这些智商基因组最终会被发现——但可能主要在中国使用,对中国而言。 潜在地,结果将允许所有中国夫妇通过在他们自己的受精卵中选择具有最高智力的可能性最大的一两个来最大限度地提高他们后代的智力。 考虑到孟德尔遗传彩票,任何一对夫妇所生的孩子的智商通常相差 5 到 15 个。 所以这种“植入前胚胎选择”的方法,或许可以让每个中国家庭的智商每代提高5到15个智商点。 几代之后, 西方的全球竞争力将结束。

    比赛结束

    • 回复: @nokangaroos
    , @Anon
  63. Wally 说:
    @Realist

    说过:
    “早在白人参与其中之前,撒哈拉以南黑人的智力就大大低于西北欧白人的水平。 他们缺乏发展证明了这一点。”

    – 不需要研究来证实简单的观察告诉我们什么。

    – 即使在今天,将欧洲白人占多数的大陆、地区、国家、州、县、城市、社区等与黑人和棕色人种的简单比较也揭示了真相。

    – 世界上所有黑人和棕色人种的“移民”都想去哪里?

    • 同意: Realist
  64. @Oliver D. Smith

    它在 1940 年代被 Ashley Montagu 揭穿。 然而,Richard Lynn 仍在使用该论点,以及您在这里似乎在争论的内容。

    这就像被 Snopes 揭穿一样吗?

    • 回复: @Realist
    , @nokangaroos
  65. @Chris Cosmos

    我想你只见树木不见森林。 首先,欧洲人衡量的“智力”是相对于欧洲文化而言的,它留下了它的实际和文化DNA。

    啊,所以我们应该期待非洲人在其他领域表现出色,比如巫医或心灵遥控。

    不。 想的不够大。 瓦坎达居然存在,只是白人技术不够好,检测不到而已!

    • 巨魔: Sya Beerens
  66. 请说出一个因大量来自欧洲拖车公园的“白人”流亡者涌入而得到改善的地方?

    一字两音:

    沃尔玛

    • 回复: @Wally
    , @Franklin Ryckaert
  67. 欢迎。
    你关于多元智能的断言不是我同意的,所以知道你为什么这么认为会很有趣。 一般的心理能力似乎是最重要的。

    https://www.unz.com/jthompson/multiple-emotional-intelligence/

    • 谢谢: ic1000
  68. @Realist

    曲线的中间并不是所有种族的人口都相等……远非如此。 曲线中间缺少黑人人口。

    更准确地说:

    因此,这意味着只有大约 48% 的黑人与占据白人均值周围 68SD 的 2% 的白人重叠。

    然而,更糟糕的是,79% 的黑人占据了低于平均值的 1SD,而在白色平均值周围的 50SD 块中则有 2% 的白人。

    • 同意: Realist
    • 回复: @Orange Man Good
  69. “黑人”不会浪费他们的生命,日复一日地在网上让自己难堪,让全世界阅读对“白人”的牢骚和抱怨。

    智商? 🤭🤐😂🤣

  70. Anselmo 说:

    男人是我们的生物学以及我们的家庭和社会为我们的繁衍而给予的关怀的结果。

    如果你有两个双胞胎宝宝,你把其中一个带到监狱,把他关在一个完全与世隔绝的牢房里,你会发现,二十年后你会在成年人的身体里生下一个年轻人和一个婴儿。

    人是他所在社会的产物。

  71. Anon[260]• 免责声明 说:

    不可能提出一个工作模型来解释人类如何变得比动物更聪明,除非:

    1) 智商是一种可遗传的特征。

    2)它为拥有它的人提供了达尔文式的竞争优势。

  72. obwandiyag 说:

    哦,看。 图表。 他一定是对的。 他有图表。 这说明他是对的。

  73. obwandiyag 说:
    @Sya Beerens

    有趣的一点。

    我注意到当有真实的新闻时,这个网站会变得很沮丧,比如战争或瘟疫之类的,因为它让他们不再抱怨和抱怨黑人。 该死的那些战争和瘟疫。

    • 回复: @Sya Beerens
  74. Yupman 说:
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    我认为理论是在非洲处理寄生虫需要很少的智力。

  75. @nokangaroos

    你提倡强制跨种族收养吗?

    我认识一位白板科学家,他做到了。 显然,他对结果感到失望。 毫不费力地责怪他们 资本主义制度 虽然(不是开玩笑)。 – 顺便说一句,他也是一个科学上的反弗洛伊德主义者,这在这种情况下很好,因为它可以让你——忽视——你的防御机制......并让你不受怀疑的困扰,在晚上到来时安息。

  76. cassandra 说:
    @Anonymous

    我厌倦了冗长杂乱的文章,这些文章显然是不言而喻的。

    我有点理解你的观点,但我不得不承认我实际上尊重这样的痛苦:这不是你想要搞砸的那种结论。 此外,您需要限制所有未解决的问题,因为您知道人们会试图摆脱他们不喜欢的结论(并跳到他们喜欢的结论上)。

    关键是,观察可以为您提供一个假设,无论出于何种原因您都可能希望相信该假设,但只有在获取和分析数据之后,您才能进行实际验证。

    这就是(过去)被认为是科学的东西,尽管我意识到这是一个尖头婴儿潮一代的时代已经过去了。 我们现在好多了,从迪斯尼的创造者比尔·奈(Bill Nye the Science Guy)那里获得关于自然的信息,他不仅权威而且更有趣,最近,我们受益于互联网审查,避免浪费时间学习错误的信息,我的意思是想法。

    • 同意: lavoisier
  77. Anon[252]• 免责声明 说:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    我的意思是,最有竞争力的城市显然会吸引所有种族中最聪明的人,显然黑人会在新罕布什尔州或怀俄明州找到自己的唯一原因是他有一些有利可图的商业机会,弥补了他搬到一个像 2% 黑色的地方。

    我不认为这意味着你认为它所做的一切。 平均值仍然是一个更好的方法。

  78. 黑人在所有标准化测试中都排在最后。 亚裔美国人在所有考试中都做得很好,所以这并不是由于考试中的文化偏见。

    2.迄今为止,非洲是地球上最贫穷,最落后的大陆。 现在,所有非洲黑人都由黑人控制,而且已经存在数十年了,因此这并不是由于种族主义。

    3.除非您在1979年获得经济学的半科学奖项,否则没有黑人会获得科学诺贝尔奖。 他们在非大脑领域(例如和平)和文学界赢得了许多诺贝尔奖,因此这不是由于种族主义。

    4.在世界上1552个国际象棋大师中,只有三个是黑人。

    • 回复: @dearieme
  79. obwandiyag 说:
    @American Citizen 2.0

    你是个白痴,所以你不应该被允许投票。

    你的历史甚至不是7年级。

    中国政府太坏了,他们的人口在第二个千年急剧增加。 仅举个例子。 让我们不要谈论摩尔人西班牙或整个伊斯兰世界的奇迹、荣耀、宽容和对欧洲人的完全优势。

    但是你对福利的评论表明你是一个真正的傻瓜。 所有坐在地下室里试图在键盘上找到 W 的可怜的脑死亡的低智商的人都认为“福利”是一个“问题”。 我敢打赌你甚至不知道有实际头脑的保守派会(私下)自由地承认“福利”不是问题 在所有. 这只是一根棍子,用来激起胸部并用棍棒打自由主义者。 因此,任何提出“福利”的人要么是完全成熟的笨蛋成员,要么是不诚实的骗子、讨好者、操纵者。

    去他妈的,拜托了。

    • 回复: @Donald A Thomson
  80. dearieme 说:
    @Hang All Text Drivers

    世界上1552位国际象棋大师中,只有三位是黑人。

    难怪,一定是那些黑白方块,黑白棋子触发的。

    国际象棋不应该换成红色和黄色吗? 等等,那不行。 紫色和海蓝宝石怎么样? 等等,紫色是帝王色。 那么如何……

  81. Wally 说:
    @Sya Beerens

    问:请说出一个因大量黑人和棕色人种从任何地方涌入而得到改善的地方。

    答:没有。

    推荐的:

    犯罪的色彩: https://www.amren.com/the-color-of-crime/

    什么是“特权”??, 乔治亚州布鲁明代尔市市长 Ben Rozier:

    – 特权是在您从未有过工作时穿着 \$200 的运动鞋。 Privilege 戴着 \$300 的 Beats 耳机,靠公共援助生活。 特权是拥有一部带有数据计划的智能手机,您无需为此付费。

    – 特权是住在公共补贴住房中,您无需支付水费,而不断上涨的财产税、租金和能源成本对您可以放在餐桌上的食物数量完全没有影响。

    – 特权是对任何会触发您的事情进行游行和抗议的能力,而无需担心因这种行为而被解雇和随之而来的后果。

    – 无论您的就业状况如何,您都可以拥有任意数量的孩子,并且可以将他们送到日托中心或无需付费的学校。

    – 特权是让您的孩子早点上学参加课前课程和早餐,然后让他们留在那里参加课后课程……所有这些都无需您承担费用……由必须应对不断上涨的税收和成本的人支付! ……你知道,我们所谓的‘特权’就是那些在你拿取的同时付钱的人!”

    • 回复: @Hang All Text Drivers
  82. Shaman911 说:

    西方心态中的智力和智商归结为这个(到底有多少废话和谎言),称为历史和琐事,你可以保留,然后在被问到时吐出来。 我知道高智商,书聪明的人有蟾蜍的社交技巧。 学习取决于您的星座以及您处理呈现给您的信息的方式。 有些人阅读并保留,有些人边做边学,等等......
    但归根结底,高智商只是意味着你是另一种类型的“笨蛋”

  83. @Chris Cosmos

    “……敏感或书呆子的非洲人要么死在奴隶船上,要么死在种植园……”

    那些“书呆子”的非洲人一开始就已经存在于非洲了吗? 他们是否有一种文化,让这些“书呆子”能够生存和繁衍后代?

  84. @Colin Wright

    如果人们假设东北等人的“黑人”比阿拉巴马州等人的黑人拥有更多的白人基因混合,那就很有道理了——正如他们可能会有的那样。

    为什么要猜? Bryc 等人 2014 年的数据就在那里。是的,他们确实有更高的欧洲血统。 是的,它们在更新的数据(例如 NAEP)中也更聪明。

    https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(14)00476-5

  85. @opat

    你的意思是一个聪明的人——在一个环境中获得了实践经验,在一个非常不同的环境中几乎毫无用处?!

    嗯,当然! 把船长放在厨房里,他们也会搞砸一会的!

    顺便说一句,我的孩子,一个 87.5% 斯拉夫血统的白人男孩,缺乏“文化资本”.. 这个 5 岁的男孩是一个基本的贵族野蛮人——避开刀叉,只要有可能就“威利地出去”,但你给他一个数学问题(包括线性代数方程),他选择解决这些问题是为了自己的乐趣。

    并不是说其他​​种族没有这个,但我会花钱让这个物种的高智商部分更加普遍。

  86. @Sya Beerens

    澳大利亚最初居住的是白人罪犯。 最终,它不仅仅是一个拖车公园。 许多在美国的爱尔兰移民是契约仆人(实际上是奴隶),但他们的发展远远超出了“拖车公园”。 白人创造文明,黑人毁灭文明。 处理它。

    • 回复: @Sya Beerens
  87. @Shaman911

    智商测试不是关于你存储了多少信息(“学习”),而是关于你如何 过程 信息(“理解”)。 那些强烈拒绝智商测试的人,他们的智商总是很低。 QED,就你而言。

    • 回复: @Shaman911
  88. Anonymous[215]• 免责声明 说:
    @Sya Beerens

    我恭敬地表示不同意。 只是他们抱怨的网站比 Unz 要低调得多,但如果你熟悉他们,那里的评论者可能代表了黑人的聪明部分。

    好消息是,如果智力在很大程度上是遗传的,那么这个问题很容易解决,如果你不考虑任何下游影响,也许在一代人之内。

    我只希望 Wakanda 存在于这个地球上。 这将使事情比欧洲人抱怨他们有多强大的典型来回更有趣。 让他们有一些真正的竞争,让他们回到现实。

    • 回复: @Sya Beerens
  89. Anonymous[339]• 免责声明 说:
    @padre

    为什么这项研究如此重要,因为它“确认”了白人是“超人”,他们应该继续相应地对待非白人?

    不,更多是因为它可以消灭敌人和骗子。

  90. Anonymous[339]• 免责声明 说:
    @Anon

    那里没有真正的“身体吸引力”,只有一个渴望被通缉的精神病女性,而唯一能与之产生共鸣的男模特会虐待她。 . .

    发生。 女人有一个问题——要孩子,她们需要某种男人。 一个女人对自己出生在什么样的社会没有天生的想法,但确实有一个天生的想法,那就是她必须要孩子,因此需要一个男人。 女性根据早年的经验来判断,假设她们在孩提时代看到的东西长大后就能得到。
    所以不是 相当 精神疾病,但很接近。 这是一种错误的自适应机制。

  91. @obwandiyag

    “真正的新闻”是指任何不会通过贬低他人来提升“自己”的机会。

    像:“黑人、穆斯林、犹太平民和/或古代历史”并没有通过资助支持同意支付 24/7 高收视率关注,在全球范围内实现系统性种族灭绝,即“宗派暴力”“革命”“自由”

    不同于:自称盎格鲁撒克逊白种人白种人西方优越文明

    纳税人

    这是唯一的消息

    • 回复: @lavoisier
  92. cassandra 说:
    @Shaman911

    这可能是一个发布关于 IQ 重要性的想法的好地方。

    但归根结底,高智商只是意味着你是另一种类型的“笨蛋”

    如果你想说智力应该不仅仅是“当被问到”时“吐出”某些东西的能力,我同意,尽管我还没有准备好取消书本学习以支持占星术。

    [更多]

    在我的研究生教育期间,我遇到了很多书呆子的“高智商”人。 吐出来的琐事 很常见,但也有很多努力来掌握困难的想法,有时涉及比健康压力更大的精神斗争。 有几件事变得显而易见。 个人倾向于以不同的模式思考,很明显,我们每个人都需要承担非常不同的心理技能,即使我们在同一个狭窄的学科中研究同一个问题。 让我印象深刻的是它的核心“智商”是多维的。 而且很明显,有时一些非常聪明的人会陷入我们其他人可以通过的地方。

    我认为你所说的“学习”是一种元能力,可以带来你必须承担的关于手头问题的能力。 这就像您不知道备用轮胎下面有备用螺丝刀一样,因为您没有想到或没有得到提示进行检查。 我不认为这是在智商测试中衡量的,但我也不知道如何解释它。

    这种非常人性化的特征的反面也让我对我们不仅对智商而且对人工智能的信任非常矛盾。 我们将看到(实际上可能现在已经拥有)机器足够智能以具有可优化的 IQ。 但这并没有解决人类的天赋,即让好的想法以自由形式出现在你的脑海中,没有特别的原因。 (例如,想看看轮胎下面。)其中一些本身就非常重要,或者引发一系列其他想法; 其他人只是分心。 这方面的一个例子是洞察力问题,在这种情况下,注意观察问题的简单方法可能比解决方案更重要(阿基米德的尤里卡!)。 有时,洞察力会以一种超越您正在处理的工作的方式将注意力吸引到您没有想到的其他问题上。

    尽管存在这一缺陷,但人工智能世界可能运行良好。 所以我不太担心改进人工智能和专注于智商可能会导致什么,就像我们可能会留下的未实现潜力一样,因为我们还没有完全理解我们还没有完全注意到的事情。

    没有必要过度自信到我们认为我们的知识是完整的地步。

  93. @Sya Beerens

    “……在我看来,人就是人……”

    是的,就我而言,A = A,但这不是问题。

    • 回复: @Sya Beerens
  94. Larry 说:
    @glib

    正如我所说,纵向数据是存在的。 没有必要幻想。

  95. 智商和种族是解释几乎所有关于人类行为的相当准确的方法。

    左派仅仅将种族和智商视为将非白人的失败归咎于白人的一种手段。

    就是这么简单和透明。

    种族和智商造就了文化,因为文化反映了任何特定群体的能力。

    犹太人因为他们妖魔化白人的议程而带头摒弃种族和智商。

    如果可以公开讨论和辩论有关种族和智商的真相,那么也许可以为人类面临的一些问题找到一些现实生活中的政治解决方案。

    但只要犹太人试图主宰和统治全人类,我们就会继续被谎言、煤气灯和各种荒谬的废话所淹没。

    • 回复: @Sya Beerens
  96. CanSpeccy 说:

    汉斯·艾森克(Hans Eysenck)是种族和智力争议中最早的主角之一。 他认为,观察到的 IQ 分数变异在很大程度上是由遗传决定的(80% 的遗传率),因此,美国的黑人-白人 IQ 差距主要是由遗传因素造成的。 随后的调查证实,智商确实是可遗传的,尽管其水平远低于 80%,而对群体遗传学的更深入了解表明,智商的种族差异可能完全由环境因素决定,即使其遗传力如艾森克所认为的那样高它是。 几项研究,特别是种族混合研究、涉及跨种族养育或收养的种族交叉研究,尤其是使用最新分子遗传学技术的调查,提供的证据表明,黑人和白人的智商差距不是由遗传因素显着决定的。

    资料来源:智商的种族差异:汉斯·艾森克根据后续研究对辩论的贡献

    • 不同意: Colin Wright
  97. @Robert Dolan

    一切都是“左或右黑色或白色”......。 那应该需要很高的智商?

    我的猫不同意……

    • 回复: @Robert Dolan
  98. @Sya Beerens

    对不起朋友。 这些战争中的大多数已经并将继续由犹太复国主义者精心策划。

    基督徒是打不道德战争的受骗者。

    别找借口。 但把责任归咎于它。

  99. 保持你的高智商全球种族灭绝和折磨阴谋集团! 我们不想要“白人”种族拥有的任何东西......🐽 工作?

    • 回复: @Anonymous
    , @John Johnson
  100. @Wally

    “””问:请说出一个因大量黑人和棕色人种从任何地方涌入而得到改善的地方。

    A:没有。”“”

    黑人占多数的地方都是下水道。 我们在非洲国家和美国城市看到它。 黑人的生命无关紧要,因为黑人不能做任何有用的事情。 任何涉及技术技能的事情都超出了他们的范围。 他们擅长运动(一项无用的活动),仅此而已。

  101. @Sya Beerens

    您的评论排名荞麦级别。

    你在这里已经超出了你的联盟。

    • 同意: lavoisier
    • 哈哈: Sya Beerens
  102. @Mefobills

    一次可能是三代人,而不是“每一代人”……而且可能会带来不可预见的后果。
    但是中国人缺乏错位的敏感性会给他们带来优势——
    总体上 10-15 个点将相当于一个量子跃进。

  103. Menes 说: • 您的网站
    @Oliver D. Smith

    非洲裔美国人……在南部各州,平均智商为 83(有些低至 80),而西部各州为 87,中北部各州为 89,东北各州为 93(最高为 94)。 换句话说,不同州的非裔美国人平均相差几乎一个标准差。

    东北各州非裔美国人的智商高于以下所有国家的国家智商:

    中东和北非(包括以色列)。

    拉丁美洲

    南亚

    中亚

    在许多情况下,它要高得多。

    例如,东北各州的非裔美国人智商 (93) 是
    比中东和北非15个国家(包括埃及和叙利亚)、南亚8个国家(包括印度)和拉丁美洲3个国家高出3个百分点以上。 在上述情况中的 4 种情况下,它高出 30 多个点。

    它也高于至少 9 个欧洲国家,其中 2 个国家超过 10 个百分点。

    有趣的是 Sailer、Thompson 和其他 HBD 崇拜者如何刻意无视这些事实。 为什么? 因为他们从下面拉地毯。 这些江湖骗子在卖蛇油。 买家当心,哈哈。

    来源: https://www.unz.com/akarlin/iq-2019/

    • 同意: Oliver D. Smith
  104. @Bert

    我知道😀就是无法抗拒油嘴滑舌的措辞。
    (我同意素食主义者)
    这个想法可以追溯到“开始就是结束”(不记得作者)的论点,认为人类是通过吃掉同伴的大脑而进化的; 完全胡说八道。
    ……尽管“水生(进化)时期”假说(在南部非洲)可能有些道理。

  105. Anonymous[339]• 免责声明 说:
    @Sya Beerens

    你能提供一个链接吗?

    紧接着你提供了一个说法,即白天阳光普照。

    如果您不同意,_you_ 提供链接。

    • 回复: @Sya Beerens
  106. Anonymous[339]• 免责声明 说:
    @Sya Beerens

    我们不想要“白人”种族所拥有的任何东西……。

    大约在公元 1990 年苏联停摆时,整个制造业都被解雇了。 整个东西。 没有钱支付,因为RF目前的资源输出经济还没有建立, 没有钱,只是可以用作胫骨膏的卢布而已。 美国似乎也在走同样的道路。 每年 0.8 万亿美元可能而且很可能会消失。

    幸运的是,您认为这是一件好事。 此外,如果发生这种情况,白人正在搬离可能发生骚乱的地区,因此您甚至不必看到白人。 看来我们在这里达成了一项互惠互利的交易。

    这是你的交易——你提出了它,坚持它,不会闭嘴,占领城市并摧毁它们来表达你的观点,用掉足够的资本,城市和劳动力无法养活每个人,驱赶了许多白人自杀,好吧,现在你得偿所愿了。

    并且至少要有勇气不去抱怨它,以免你把自己推向完全的蔑视。

    • 回复: @Sya Beerens
  107. Dugan 说:
    @Kratoklastes

    华盛顿特区(以及紧邻的周边地区)就是一个不好的例子,因为在这个地区,全国各地长大的人们都涌向那里寻找高薪的好工作。 所以那里有很多非常聪明的人,然后他们有也很聪明的孩子。 对于像 WV 这样的工作岗位很少的地方,情况正好相反。 任何聪明的人都会离开该州到其他地方工作,然后他们有聪明的孩子,他们又在其他地方长大。 因此,您在某些地区拥有智能人才不断涌入的地理环境,而在其他地区,最聪明的人才不断流失。 您必须承认这一点,才能在这里保持理智。

    • 同意: Jett Rucker
    • 回复: @Old Palo Altan
    , @res
  108. Dugan 说:
    @anarchyst

    是的,许多人忘记了许多中上阶层的孩子在他们生命的前四年大部分时间都在日托中度过,在那里他们通常由每小时 10 美元的讲西班牙语的女士和许多智力低下的孩子抚养长大。 但他们总是表现得很好,就像他们本来应该有的一样聪明。

  109. 当 Black Lives Matter 要求将黑人遣返回非洲相对白人自由的土地时,我会开始认为他们是认真的,因为他们相信白人是他们所有问题的根源。

    在那之前,我会看到他们的真实面目:说谎者和寄生虫,他们宁愿靠白人的生产力生活,也不愿回到他们的祖先家园,在没有白人的情况下生活。

    非洲欢迎你回来。 去那里提升你的人民和你祖先的土地。

    为什么不接受邀请,让自己摆脱邪恶白人的有害影响?

    这是我可以真诚支持的一项事业。

    • 巨魔: Corvinus
  110. 我注意到文章中存在某种“偏见”(抽象的,而不是态度的)。 该测试似乎旨在辨别(否则)黑人个体的“白人”特征。 我很少(如果有的话)注意到在(否则)白人个体中寻求“黑人”特征。
    这可能是我在美国南部听说过的标准的潜意识回声,如果不是也在其他地方,如果一个人有 一种 黑人祖父母,说这个人“是”黑人。 这个标准在 1935 年代中期德国对美国种族法的研究中被注意到,但在 XNUMX 年被德国人拒绝,以制定他们自己的种族法(针对犹太人)。他们有条件地承认这样的“quadroons”到 Aryanhood。

    • 回复: @James Thompson
  111. res 说:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    例如,华盛顿是平均“欧洲”混合物平均水平最高的州之一,30% 是华盛顿(Bryc 等人,2015 年,表 S3)。

    你的意思是表S2? 表 S3 是按地区划分的,而不是按州划分的。 由于您懒得链接您的参考文献,Bryc 等人。 2015年是:
    全美非裔美国人,拉丁裔和欧洲裔美国人的遗传祖先
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4289685/

    您是否碰巧注意到表 S2 中的样本量? 该 WA 数字基于 10-49 个人。 我想知道该范围的哪一端适用。

    还有就是论文数据来自23andMe的问题。 你熟悉选择偏差的概念吗?

    • 回复: @Oliver D. Smith
  112. thotmonger 说:

    我在某处读到过一半以上的犹太人诺贝尔奖是在第二次世界大战之后颁发的。
    二战期间有如此多的犹太人被杀,他们的人口如何遭受大量损失并仍然反弹并获得这个令人垂涎的奖项的最大份额,这似乎是一个很大的谜,因为来自世界各地的所有学者也都想要它。 或许不止一种解释?

    任何想法和进一步阅读的参考资料? 谢谢

    • 回复: @Colin Wright
    , @thotmonger
  113. res 说:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    Kaufman 和 Doppelt (1976) 后来分析了自我认同的非裔美国人的 WISC-R 测试分数,发现南部各州的平均智商为 83(有些低至 80),而西部各州为 87,西部各州为 89中北部各州为 93,东北各州为 94(最高为 XNUMX)。 换句话说,不同州的非裔美国人平均相差几乎一个标准差。

    为您的参考提供链接对您来说有那么麻烦吗?
    根据分层变量分析 WISC-R 标准化数据
    https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1976-27046-001

    看起来您正在为您的数据使用表 4 的 WISC-R Full Scale IQ 列。 以下是黑人 6 1/2 – 16 1/2 的值
    地区 | 意思 | 标清| N
    东北 | 93.0 | 12.2 | 57
    数控 | 88.1 | 12.4 | 64
    | | 83.4 | 12.1 | 166
    W | 87.3 | 11.7 | 18

    你从哪里得到最低 80 和最高 94 的数字? 我没有在报纸上看到那些。 鉴于样本量,我不确定我是否会相信南方以外个别州的数字。

    有更多最近的数据显示了类似的结果。

    链接?

    对于任何感兴趣的人,Jensen 和 Reynolds (1982) 在子测试差异的背景下查看相同的 WISC-R 标准化数据。
    WISC-R 上的种族、社会阶层和能力模式
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0191886982900071

    出于显而易见的原因,遗传主义者似乎忽略了较大社会“种族”(例如“黑人”/“非裔美国人”)中的子群体/美国各州之间平均智商的巨大差异——当存在差距时,遗传主义假设没有意义几乎与假定的“黑人”种族群体中的平均“黑人-白人”差异一样大

    奇怪的是,你在一篇关于有这个数字的论文的帖子中提出这种批评。

    图 3. g 和欧洲血统之间关系的回归图 (r = 0.411)。

    在我看来,这为您提出的问题提供了部分解释。 选择性迁移可能提供了另一种部分解释。 以及埃米尔提到的分类交配。

    顺便说一句,此链接有助于包含图形。 感谢您上传内容,埃米尔!
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335506114_Global_Ancestry_and_Cognitive_Ability

    此外,最聪明的“黑人”的智商高于“白人”的一些亚群。 当然,遗传学家很少讨论这种重叠——当他们讨论它时,他们会提出像理查德林恩这样的奇怪的临时假设。

    真的吗? 重叠分布这么难理解吗? 图 3 使这种重叠显而易见。 也许我们没有看到这个讨论太多,因为有统计学知识的人理解重叠分布,不需要赘述这一点?

  114. @Jett Rucker

    欧洲人有大量数据集,非洲还没有。 一旦非洲有 1 万人拥有基因组数据和受过多年的教育,那么非洲多基因风险评分就可以在欧洲人身上进行试验。 这两种方式的比较应该是有益的。

  115. @res

    感谢您的评论。
    我的 WISC 手册在别处,所以我无法查看欧洲的结果,但我注意到您描述的非裔美国人样本的标准偏差非常窄,大约为 12,这很不寻常。 Jensen 注意到了这一点并进行了讨论。 很容易看出不利情况如何降低均值,但很难看出这些不利情况如何缩小分布。

    • 回复: @Wizard of Oz
  116. @thotmonger

    “……在二战期间有这么多犹太人被杀,他们的人口如何遭受大量损失并仍然反弹并获得这个令人垂涎的奖品的最大份额,这似乎是一个很大的谜……”

    那些被杀的犹太人不成比例地不是那些获奖的人?

    请注意,打击最严重的不是德国和奥地利犹太人,他们中有一半及时脱身,而是波兰的犹太人并指向东方。 没有多少诺贝尔奖获得者在比亚韦斯托克闲逛。

  117. @CanSpeccy

    “……尤其是使用最新的分子遗传学技术进行的调查,提供的证据表明,黑人和白人的智商差距并不是由遗传因素决定的。”

    首先,这种颠簸在学术上等同于所有表明犹太人毕竟来自巴勒斯坦的伪基因研究。

    每当科学产生令人不快的结果时,就会匆忙编造“科学”来反驳那个令人不快的结果。

    其次,不仅仅是智商测试可以证明黑人的智力低下。 看黑社会的水平 不变地 回归到。 看看黑人行为的社会学指标。 这正是人们对一个由平均智力非常低的人组成的社会所期望的。

    终于走出去,遇到了一些黑人。 不是能够在白人社会中发挥作用的黑人,也不是能够与你互动的黑人——遇到一群真实的、随机的黑人。

    他们是 . 我的意思是严重愚蠢。 你不知道。

    您可以随心所欲地混淆智商测试结果。 真相依旧是真相。

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
    , @Sya Beerens
    , @Menes
  118. @Colin Wright

    不仅仅是智商测试可以证明黑人的智力低下。

    我同意你的观点,正如我在这里解释的那样: 为什么智商测试不能衡量智力.

    他们是哑巴。 我的意思是严重愚蠢。 你不知道。

    你的意思是像 这家伙 or 这家伙?

  119. @Sya Beerens

    我们不想要“白人”种族拥有的任何东西......🐽 工作?

    那就关掉你的电脑。

    左派在学术界占主导地位,每年有数千名博士毕业,从事各种种族研究。

    在所有这些教育中,左派最常见的反应是发表尖刻的评论。

    获得一个 10 年的学位,然后花了那么长时间才发现左边的比赛完全充满了狗屎,这一定是很艰难的。

  120. @James Thompson

    您总是对自己对 IQ 及其相关因素的正确看法感兴趣。

    我如何通过电子邮件向您发送一些有趣的信息? 我想让你对什么可能是第二个最重要的可测量但很少测量的人类繁荣的多基因校准人类特征感兴趣。 我指的是人们需要的睡眠量。 唐纳德特朗普说他在 5.30 起床,据说像玛格丽特撒切尔一样,睡眠时间很短。 我的假设是,对于睡眠期间发生的事情的至少某些方面,成人的平均需求是 7.25-8 小时,标准差约为 1 小时。 我不会惊讶地发现,一个 IQ 为 100 但睡眠需求低于平均水平 4sds 的水管工使自己成为百万富翁。 如果一个拥有 1Q 140 但需要 8 小时睡眠的战场将军能与只需要 4 小时睡眠的战场将军竞争,我会感到惊讶。这是一个非常重要的变量,而且可能是一个复杂的变量。 我曾经发明了 Just So 的故事,它承认一个部落的效用是让人们在早上保持警惕,其他人在晚上保持警惕,但是如果有太多的玛格丽特·撒切尔 (Margaret Thatchers) 晚上和早上争夺注意力会造成破坏......

    那么,怎么给你寄东西呢?

    • 回复: @James Thompson
    , @res
  121. @CanSpeccy

    我还没有阅读链接的文章,所以我很早就对艾森克和他的学生詹森的工作表示敬意他们的背景应该提供了一些意义。

    正如你所看到的,我注意到,在研究反遗传主义案例方面付出了相当大的努力,我想知道你是否遇到过特定相关突变的证据,这些突变可能会在特定日期之前排除它们至少在撒哈拉以南的非洲人口中的存在? 我似乎记得在离开非洲移民之后很久阅读了欧亚人之间的一些重要突变。

    您是否觉得非洲内可遗传的一切事物的种类可能比尚未被充分描述或充分探索的种类多得多? 例如,我的意思是西非的种姓制度,然后是在田径运动中如此明显的巨大遗传变异的证据。 鉴于这一明显的现实,我们难道不应该期望找到一些具有数学天赋的非洲人,但不是很多吗?

    • 回复: @lavoisier
    , @res
  122. @Pft

    “与侵略性和多动性有关的基因起源于智人,与尼安德特人的杂交导致了继承尼安德特人基因的人类更加和平的行为。 ”

    一战、二战、大屠杀……继承尼安德特人基因的人类和平行为的例子!!!

    不要忘记,那些和平的人类将要为将人类从地球上消灭的核战争负责。

  123. @Anonymous

    我无法阅读这个标准的维基百科听写。

    有些人在他们的世界中体验生活,(T)这里是死灵政治喉舌

    • 回复: @Anonymous
  124. @Colin Wright

    我给它怀疑的好处。 你说得对,所有深浅不一的棕色皮肤都比白皮肤时期的智商低!

    这并没有改变非洲裔美国人在几乎整个世界都非常受欢迎和受欢迎的事实

    我显然不是在谈论好莱坞明星。

    互联网让人们对某些事情大开眼界

    • 回复: @BloodSpirit
  125. @obwandiyag

    人们通常会关注最近历史的部分内容。 埃及和中东以及印度和中国的部分地区过去比欧洲先进得多。 在人们的记忆中,韩国人比许多非洲人贫穷得多。 中国在20世纪上半叶非常贫穷。 在人们的记忆中,日本比欧洲人贫穷得多。

    你太苛刻了。 很难让人们看到超过 70 年的东西,更不用说成百上千了。 在他们看来,这并不真实。 我举一个简单的例子。 1950 年代我还是个少年,那时在澳大利亚交叉双腿的是男人。 女人都穿着裙子到膝盖以下,只有一个大胆的年轻女人盘腿,因为男人可能会看到大腿的闪光。 在 60 年代后期,迷你裙变得越来越短,女性交叉双腿,因此男性看不到叉子的闪光。

    当所有的年轻女性开始盘腿时,男性停止了。 我没有。 我只看到其他老人和一群老人在一起时盘腿。 试着向一个相信你是同性恋的年轻女人解释一下,因为你已经盘腿了。 我可以说话,直到我脸色发青,但这不会给人留下任何印象。 只有最近的过去才是真实的。 我和伊博人一样同性恋,但没有人指责我是伊博人。 [电子邮件保护]

    • 回复: @obwandiyag
  126. 对智力的遗传基础的研究,以及这种行为在个体和人群之间的差异,是一项引人入胜的研究,肯定会带来很多人宁愿忽略的信息。

    我似乎很清楚,人们不能接受自然选择并设想一个自然世界,在这个世界中,人类的智力不会因地理上不同的人群而异。

    我认为,如果我们真的有一个色盲社会,在这个社会中,个人将严格根据优点来评判——没有平权行动或不同影响的司法废话之类的东西,我认为其中一些结果的刺痛感可能会减轻。 我认为在这样的世界里,种族关系会显着改善是可以想象的。 如果一个黑人足够聪明,可以成为一名公平公正的医生,那么就没有必要质疑他们是如何取得成就的。

    但在我们今天生活的世界里,无论人们关心的任何衡量标准,黑人表现不佳都被归咎于白人种族主义,唯一合理的反应是看遗传学。 在这个过程中,人们确实找到了黑人功能障碍的生物学原因,而不能归咎于种族主义。

    但是遗传数据和智商的正态分布也有好消息。 很明显,至少有 10% 的非裔美国人的得分高于欧洲白人的平均水平。 这不是一个微不足道的数字。 即使将一个人的所有价值都建立在智力的基础上,仅这一结果就证实了非平凡的黑人确实拥有成为技术先进文明的生产力成员的智力。

    底线。 智商背后的科学令人着迷,不应受到审查,应该被允许免受政治干预。 但是,只要叙事要求赔偿和全面责备怀特黑人功能障碍,对这些充满仇恨的指控的理性回应就是提出生物学问题。

    如果您希望对种族之间智力的生物学差异的研究仍然是深奥的科学讨论,那么减少仇恨白人模因可能是明智之举。 这对每个人都不好。

    • 同意: res
    • 回复: @Sya Beerens
    , @Anonymous
  127. @CanSpeccy

    第一个人:

    一、穆罕默德·阿里越战前的智商测试

    确实,当他被征召参加越南战争时,他在应征入伍的智商测试中得了 78 分。 在 78 年陆军智商测试中获得 1964 分后——“我说我是最伟大的,而不是最聪明的”——阿里被归类为 1-Y:“根据当前的军队服役标准,没有资格”。

    来源: http://www.iq-test.net 什么是穆罕默德·阿里的智商。

    第二个人:嗯,我相信他属于黑色贝尔曲线极右端的少数黑人吗? 没有人否认这样的人存在。

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
  128. @lavoisier

    起首! 最终你会找到一个借口来为谋杀辩护我的意思是大屠杀和反复。 殖民欧洲的破坏性方式创造了社会“科学”,目的是为了

    白人优势

    英语不是我的第一语言,但我相信无论如何你都会明白这一点

    • 回复: @lavoisier
  129. Anonymous[339]• 免责声明 说:
    @Sya Beerens

    我无法阅读这个标准的维基百科听写。

    而且你也不能写。 好吧,简单的版本:黑人和拉丁裔在美国主要靠白人和亚洲税收支持。 每年大约提供价值 800 亿美元的支持。 佩洛西想花费 3 万亿美元,这可能会使系统崩溃。

    降下来之后,美国的黑人和拉丁裔至少不会得到白人和亚洲税收的支持。 他们根本不会得到支持。 大多数也不会

    当这种情况发生时,至少要有勇气不抱怨它。 你说你对白人什么都不想要,你最终会得到它。

    有些人在他们的世界中体验生活,(T)这里是死灵政治喉舌

    你,在这种情况下。 你要求黑人和拉丁裔被饿死。 那是死灵。

    • 回复: @Sya Beerens
  130. Anonymous[339]• 免责声明 说:
    @lavoisier

    我认为,如果我们真的有一个色盲社会,在这个社会中,个人将严格根据优点来评判——没有平权行动或不同影响的司法废话之类的东西,我认为其中一些结果的刺痛感可能会减轻。 我认为在这样的世界里,种族关系会显着改善是可以想象的。 如果一个黑人足够聪明,可以成为一名公平公正的医生,那么就没有必要质疑他们是如何取得成就的。

    如果一个黑人足够聪明成为一名医生,公平公正
    在 1964 年民权法案之前,美国实际上就是这种情况。 _贝尔曲线_指出黑人的收入在调整智商后与白人相同,早在 1950 年代,人们就认为黑人职业和他们来的一样好,并且通常拥有其他职业无法比拟的尊严。 1964 年的民权法案改变了这一切——今天黑人收入与黑人智商无关。

    如果我们真的有一个色盲社会,人们会严格根据成绩来评判
    嗯,我们做到了,在美国的大部分地区。 问题是智商分布在家庭内部也起作用。 大约 50% 的黑人人口的智商低于 85,并且很难找到工作,随着机器接管粗鲁的工作(*),情况就更糟了。 因此,每个黑人专业人士都有失业并与警察陷入困境的亲戚。 这一点,加上一些组织资金,加上 LBJ 通过向黑人提供福利资金为美国城市提供资金的绝妙想法,使工业社会不受黑人欢迎,从而使白人不受黑人欢迎。

    *) 一个古老的爱尔兰笑话是,爱尔兰人非常感谢独轮车的发明者,他使爱尔兰人能够直立行走。 当时第一代爱尔兰移民到美国的标准工作是搬运建筑材料并用独轮车倾倒,因此这就是笑话。 现在做不到,必须足够聪明,训练有素才能操作土方设备。

  131. @Sya Beerens

    不要发现我在捍卫任何形式的人类邪恶。

    不是我的原因。

  132. @Pft

    任何遗传差异都是微不足道的。 你根本无法通过种族来判断一个人。

    好吧,这听起来很虔诚,但您是否也坚持认为它完全没有用?

    如果我有来自美国的个人申请少量软件工程工作,他们的名字是 DeShawn、Leroy、Dwayne 和他们的表兄弟,他们都拥有黑人大学的相似学位,如果我首先跟进来自香港工厂大学的 Tans、Lee's 和 Pengs?

    至于

    与攻击性和多动有关的基因起源于智人

    你忘记了黑猩猩以及它们与倭黑猩猩的区别吗?

  133. @Peripatetic Commenter

    95% 的白人都在白人平均值的 2SD 以内。

    • 回复: @res
  134. @CanSpeccy

    我已经阅读了您的链接文章,并且发现了行之有效的倡导,但我认为忽视智商测试提供的有时需要的认知能力的证据是错误的。 140 岁孩子 7+ 的 IQ 是一个很好的预测指标,可以很好地预测他将在 XNUMX 年内参加应届学校的竞选,这一事实不仅是正确的,而且有助于确保他保持兴趣和精神活跃。 事实上,在一个必须放慢速度的班级中,被报告非常聪明的孩子只是通过用其他人一半的时间做数学测试来向老师证明这一点通常会导致他的智商受到测试,因此父母或班主任可以让学校为他做更多的事情。
    许多高强度认知活动都需要快速建立联系(或看到模式),并且与智商分数高度相关,因此劝阻智商为 110 的孩子不要像他父亲一样渴望成为富有创造力的税务律师是很有意义的。 “吸收缓慢”真的很重要,尤其是对于警察和紧急服务人员而言,因此确保新兵在精心设计的 IQ 测试中得分至少为 100 是很有意义的,并且人们被描述为高度聪明的例子是因为他们分别是杰出的外科医生、音乐家、戏剧导演等几乎没有关系。 总有一天,如果没有基因工程,撒哈拉以南非洲人和他们的亲密关系将被提高到欧洲平均测出的智商水平,这并非不可能,但你不会打赌吗? 你会打赌他们在现代社会中同样具有就业能力吗?

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
  135. @res

    你的意思是表S2? 表 S3 是按地区划分的,而不是按州划分的。 由于您懒得链接您的参考文献,Bryc 等人。 2015年是:
    全美非裔美国人,拉丁裔和欧洲裔美国人的遗传祖先
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4289685/

    我并不总是需要链接到它们; 除非你很懒,否则有人可以很容易地在搜索引擎上找到它们,在谷歌上搜索 Bryc et al 2015,你会在结果的第一页找到这项研究。

    您是否碰巧注意到表 S2 中的样本量? 该 WA 数字基于 10-49 个人。 我想知道该范围的哪一端适用。

    突然间你关心样本大小? 有趣的是,考虑到你和 Thompson 引用了 Tang 等人的例子,其中使用了一个样本 一种 某些州的自我认定为 AA,但您从未提出过同样的反对意见……

    还有就是论文数据来自23andMe的问题。 你熟悉选择偏差的概念吗?

    其他研究报告了非常相似的结果,例如 Parra 等人。 1998年,见图1:

    “Parra [15] 提供的数据显示,欧洲对美国大陆几个非裔美国人社区的贡献百分比变化了十倍,从来自南卡罗来纳州的孤立的说古拉的海岛民的 3.5% 到西雅图的 35%(图 1)。 ”
    https://humgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40246-014-0023-x

    西雅图是华盛顿州最大的城市。 因此,AA 平均估计全州有 30% 的“欧洲”血统,但在西雅图,这一比例高达 35%。

    华盛顿/西雅图的 AA 智商最高吗? 不。 这只是反对遗传主义的一个明显证据——具有最高“欧洲”血统的 AA 并没有最高的智商。 似乎你没有任何反驳,所以你绝望地试图通过批评样本量来使研究无效。 哈哈

    • 回复: @res
  136. res 说:
    @Wizard of Oz

    我想知道您是否遇到过特定相关突变的证据,这些突变可能会在特定日期之前排除它们至少在撒哈拉以南的非洲人群中的存在? 我似乎记得在离开非洲移民之后很久阅读了欧亚人之间的一些重要突变。

    在 Davide Piffer 的工作中观察导致欧洲人和非洲人之间 PGS 差异的单个 SNP 可以很好地回答这个问题。 不知道有没有人做过。

    您是否觉得非洲内可遗传的一切事物的种类可能比尚未被充分描述或充分探索的种类多得多? 例如,我的意思是西非的种姓制度,然后是在田径运动中如此明显的巨大遗传变异的证据。 鉴于这一明显的现实,我们难道不应该期望找到一些具有数学天赋的非洲人,但不是很多吗?

    我认为这是有一定道理的。 尽管我认为 1000 Genomes 和 HGDP 在粗略的水平上对非洲多样性提供了不错的覆盖。
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1000_Genomes_Project
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genome_Diversity_Project

    与其看这些非洲的例子,我认为最好看看犹太人的智商遗传差异,以获得可以应用于其他地方的经验教训。 可以在那里对驱动 PGS 差异的 SNP 进行类似的分析(以上面的非洲-欧洲差异为例)。 我认为这与您的示例类似(具有特殊才能的小群体)。 在非洲,伊博语和约鲁巴语似乎是一个不错的起点。 我不知道有任何伊博基因研究,但 HGDP 和 1KGP 都有约鲁巴人。

    如果您正在寻找具有特殊智力才能的群体,我希望在已经享有这样声誉的人群中找到他们(我不希望特征会在没有表现出表型的人群中进化)。 伊博人享有盛誉——这就是我强调他们的原因。

    PS刚找到这篇论文。
    全球人口中基因和地理相似性的定量比较
    https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1002886

    那篇论文结合了多项研究的数据。

    我们从人类基因组多样性计划 (HGDP) [4,257]、149、国际单倍型图谱计划 III 期(HapMap III 期)[7]、[31 ] 和 POPRES [31] 样本,以及来自其他一些出版物 [33]、[9]、[23]。 在我们的分析中,我们关注来自 26 个人群的数据(表 S32、S128、S1)。

    它包括 23 个 SSA 种群中的伊博人(见图 3)。 还有 4 个额外的狩猎采集人口。 图和 SSA 摘录在 MORE 之后。

    [更多]

    通过整合来自多个来源的 SNP 数据 [23]、[26]、[31],我们调查了比 Bryc 等人的分析范围更广的撒哈拉以南非洲人口。 [26]。 我们首先排除了四个狩猎采集种群(!Kung、San、Biaka Pygmy 和 Mbuti Pygmy)和 Mbororo Fulani。 在进一步排除了 5% 缺失数据的 348 个个体和两个 PCA 异常值之后,我们的分析检查了来自撒哈拉以南非洲 23 个人群的 3 个个体(图 XNUMXA)。
    ...
    一般来说,非洲西海岸沿线的种群彼此紧密聚集,而内部种群则形成相对孤立的集群。 班图语族群倾向于相互聚集,根据地理位置可以分为三组:西部两个族群(方和刚果),东部两个族群(来自 HGDP 的肯尼亚班图斯和卢海亚),以及南部有五个(来自 HGDP 的南部非洲班图人、恩古尼、佩迪、索托/茨瓦纳和科萨)。 尽管这三组之间存在较大的地理分离,但它们在 PCA 图中的遗传分离相对较小(图 3B)。
    ...
    当狩猎采集种群(!Kung、San、Biaka Pygmy 和 Mbuti Pygmy)和 Mbororo Fulani 被纳入分析时,它们在 PCA 图中显示为孤立的集群,并大大降低了 PCA 地图和地理地图之间的相似性(图 S3 , 表 S7)。

    将 Piffer 的分析扩展到更细粒度的群体会很有趣。

  137. res 说:
    @Orange Man Good

    95% 的白人都在白人平均值的 2SD 以内。

    他将其表述为

    白色平均值周围的 2SD。

    这意味着与白色平均值的 1SD 以内相同(68% 是一个很好的线索)。 同意措辞有点混乱。

  138. @Wizard of Oz

    最好将您的工作发送给睡眠研究人员。 我从来没有在那个领域工作过,所以不能帮到你。

    • 回复: @Wizard of Oz
  139. @res

    拉斯克等人。 2019 年受到遗传学家 Kevin Bird 的批评,但该论文仍为预印本。

    伯德,KA(2020 年)。 “不支持使用多基因评分和不同选择测试的黑人-白人成就差距的遗传假设。”
    https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/2qfkt/

    路径模型中两个混杂变量的实质性问题削弱了 Lasker 等人得出的结论。 这两项分析也存在系统偏差,因为它们将多基因评分应用于未包含在原始 GWAS 中的人群。 Duncan 等人的结果。 表明在一系列性状中,使用多基因评分对非欧洲人群的估计值是有偏差的,并且比欧洲人群解释的方差要小得多。 非洲血统受到的影响最大,平均影响大小是在欧洲人中发现的相同遗传变异大小的 50%,对与认知相关的表型特征的错误估计甚至更大。 克服多基因评分中的这些偏差是使用基因组数据分析种族智商差距的必要条件。

    至于——

    真的吗? 重叠分布这么难理解吗? 图 3 使这种重叠显而易见。 也许我们没有看到这个讨论太多,因为有统计知识的人理解重叠分布并且不需要赘述这一点?

    图 3 没有显示组均值/平均值的重叠,但 个人 重叠。 相反,我正在讨论的是一个假定的广泛群体(“种族”)中的当地子群体的平均智商测试分数与同一个假定的广泛群体中的其他当地子群体有着非常不同的智商测试分数,即一些自我认定的非裔美国人子群体的平均值智商在 80 年代低,但其他人在 90 年代。 这可以说是证伪了遗传假设,因为正如理查德·林恩反复指出的那样——遗传主义的一个预测是,在一个假定的种族中基因密切相关的群体在智商测试分数上应该是相似的。 但这不是我们发现的。 然而,自我认同的非裔美国人可能是一个不好的例子,因为遗传主义者只会使用选择性移民的临时解释来解释任何差异。 我有更好的例子。

    • 回复: @res
  140. res 说:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    (TLDR,即使你厌倦了我和 Oliver 的周旋,看看下面的 Parra 和 Pfaffelhuber 参考文献。前者有一个很好的 SNP 表,表中西非人、欧洲人和美洲原住民的频率不同,并且后者通常有更多关于祖先信息标记的信息。)

    我并不总是需要链接到它们; 除非你很懒,否则有人可以很容易地在搜索引擎上找到它们

    这是一个合理的观点,但我认为包含链接是礼貌的。 特别是如果评论中有很多参考文献和/或它们更加晦涩。 链接很重要的一种情况是全文不易获得但有PDF。 我对 Libgen 和 Sci-Hub 做了一个例外,我不喜欢链接它们(担心引起注意,加上 URL 会随着不同镜像的关闭而变化),尽管我有时会提供 DOI 并注意可以在那里找到它。

    FWIW 我认为向自己灌输良好的习惯是值得的。 我可以很容易地争辩说,您是不包含链接的懒惰者,因为正如您所说,这很容易。

    突然间你关心样本大小? 有趣的是,考虑到您和 Thompson 引用了 Tang 等人的案例,其中使用了一个自我认定的 AA 样本用于某些州,但您从未提出过同样的反对意见……

    如果您查看我的评论(例如搜索样本),您会发现我经常关注样本大小。

    据我所知,我从未引用过 唐等人。 (2005)。 搜索我的评论,我发现我唯一一次使用“唐”这个词是在你的引述中。
    https://www.unz.com/jthompson/weaponizing-race/#comment-4069252
    不实指控是不可接受的。 我觉得你欠我一个道歉。 或者我之前引用那篇论文的链接。

    看看那个帖子,你似乎反对 Thompson 博士在最初的帖子中的使用。 由于研究人口被视为他的评论的单一实体,因此单一州的单一种族的样本大小无关紧要。 在您的使用中,您使用这些小州样本来估计特定州的 AA IQ。 完全不同。 (我会详细讨论这样的特定案例,因为我无法完全解决您的 FUD 暴风雪。我希望通过展示您的许多评论是毫无根据的,我可以清楚地表明其余的不值钱任何一个。)

    其他研究报告了非常相似的结果,例如 Parra 等人。 1998年,见图1:

    ??? 您链接的论文是 2015 年的。

    更有趣的是,这个数字是从较早的一本书章节中复制的(参考文献 15):
    Parra E. 北美的外加剂。 在:Suarez-Kurtz G,编辑。 混合人群中的药物基因组学。 德克萨斯州乔治城:Landes Bioscience; 2006年

    该书可在 Libgen 上以 ISBN 1587063115 获得
    参考第 3 章第 28-46 页。

    我之所以详细介绍该参考文献,是因为它包含一个非常有趣的表,其中包含 100 个 SNP,用于估计北美混合人群中的混合物。 任何人都想检查该列表中是否有任何 IQ SNP? 😉 但说真的,在欧洲人中接近固定的 SNP 不太可能在 GWAS 中发现,除非它们有非常大的影响。 Parra 称这些为祖先信息标记 (AIM)。 该表可在 语义scholar.org 如果您搜索“北美外加剂”。

    一般而言,更好的 AIM 参考(Parra 可能更适合北美特定的外加剂)是 Pfaffelhuber 等人。 (2019) 其中包括查找它们的代码和多个集合。 包括表 17 中的 3 个 SNP 集,它应该以 1000% 的准确度解析 100 个基因组样本。
    如何选择祖先信息标记集:一种有监督的特征选择方法
    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/759464v1.full

    他们的代码在 https://github.com/fbaumdicker/AIMsetfinder

    华盛顿/西雅图的 AA 智商最高吗? 不。 这只是反对遗传主义的一个明显证据——具有最高“欧洲”血统的 AA 并没有最高的智商。 似乎你没有任何反驳,所以你绝望地试图通过批评样本量来使研究无效。 哈哈

    你很有趣。 你相信这种咆哮真的有价值吗? 我们从统计上看如何? 使用“具有最高“欧洲”血统的 AA 并不具有最高的智商。” 对于任何了解统计分布的人来说,作为有效性标准都是愚蠢的。

    您是否有按州划分的 AA 混合物和 IQ 的综合数据? 因为那至少会使讨论一个有趣的话题。

    PS 感谢您带领我阅读有趣的 Parra 书章节和更有趣的 Pfaffelhuber 论文。 我一直回复你的原因有两个。
    1. 明确你的大多数评论是多么毫无根据。
    2. 偶尔有这样的参考资料。 即使它是间接的,我也必须追赶。
    信噪比比较差,但至少有一些信号。

    • 谢谢: botazefa
  141. Macumazahn 说:
    @American Citizen 2.0

    “如果黑人获得菲尔兹奖,我会很高兴的。”
    就像我一样。可悲的是,所有的测试都表明这不太可能。
    我经常访问一个优秀的“科学”网站,
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/
    它致力于科学进步,涵盖物理学、数学、生物学和计算机科学的发展。
    我最喜欢在那里玩的游戏是“发现黑人”——有点像“沃尔多在哪里?”
    除了沃尔多是 无处 被发现……

  142. res 说:
    @Wizard of Oz

    你可能对这篇论文感兴趣。
    睡眠质量、持续时间和一致性与大学生更好的学习成绩有关
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41539-019-0055-z

    抽象

    尽管许多调查研究报告了睡眠与认知功能之间的联系,但仍然缺乏使用客观措施来直接评估睡眠与学业成绩之间关联的定量数据。 在这项研究中,可穿戴活动追踪器被分发给大学化学入门班的 100 名学生(其中 88 人完成了研究),允许将多项睡眠测量与课堂测验和期中考试的表现相关联。 总体而言,更好的质量、更长的持续时间和更高的睡眠一致性与更好的成绩相关。 然而,测试前一晚的睡眠测量与测试表现之间没有关系; 相反,测试前一个月和一周的睡眠持续时间和质量与更好的成绩相关。 睡眠测量占学习成绩差异的近 25%。 这些发现提供了定量、客观的证据,证明更好的睡眠质量、更长的持续时间和更稳定的睡眠与更好的大学学习成绩密切相关。 讨论了性别差异。

    有趣(对我来说不直观)的一点是,考试前一天晚上睡觉似乎并不重要。 我想知道这是否应该从表面上看,或者学生是否倾向于在考试前一晚更努力地入睡。 看看测试前一晚的睡眠与参与者的平均值之间的关系可能会很有趣。

    我怀疑您会感兴趣的是更多地了解像那些(图 1A)每晚睡眠时间少于 5.5 小时且得分约为 80% 的人。

    你知道关于这个主题的好数据吗? 我怀疑(短)睡眠时间对成功的影响与一般的时间管理相比有很大的不同(例如普通人看多少电视?)。

    • 回复: @Wizard of Oz
  143. res 说:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    拉斯克等人。 2019 年受到遗传学家 Kevin Bird 的批评,但该论文仍为预印本。

    你认真对待凯文伯德吗? 这是他尖锐批评的一个例子。

    我假设这是您的意思是预印本?
    不支持使用多基因评分和不同选择测试的黑人-白人成就差距的遗传假设
    https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/2qfkt/

    这里有一些关于旧版本的讨论:
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/the-mismeasure-of-genes

    该线程的一些亮点是我在评论 22 中的 Twitter 回复和此链接:
    xxxhttps://www.reddit.com/r/heredity/comments/ev1vv3/thoughts_on_kevin_birds_paper_on_race_and_iq/
    在 bispora 的评论 51 中。

    FWIW,我认为图 3 对非洲混合与情报的关系这一主题具有决定性意义。

    图 3 没有显示组均值/平均值的重叠,但个人重叠。 相反,我正在讨论的是一个假定的广泛群体(“种族”)中的当地子群体的平均智商测试分数与同一个假定的广泛群体中的其他当地子群体有着非常不同的智商测试分数,即一些自我认定的非裔美国人子群体的平均值智商在 80 年代低,但其他人在 90 年代。

    群体由那些不同的个体组成。 因此,组也会有所不同——取决于它们的大小和/或随机选择的大小。

    遗传主义的一个预测是,在一个假定的种族中基因密切相关的群体在智商测试分数上应该是相似的。

    不。 种族并不是唯一重要的事情。 您会期望哈佛的白人拥有与当地监狱中的白人相同的平均智商吗?

    PS 一些有用的链接和总结在
    xxxhttps://www.reddit.com/r/heredity/comments/9nnmb6/fallacious_or_otherwise_bad_arguments_against/

    • 回复: @Oliver D. Smith
  144. @James Thompson

    但我怀疑 BBC 的“信任.e 我是医生”的迈克尔莫斯利 (Michael Mosley) 会注意到你的提议,例如他会查看要求(maube 复数形式) ) 因为当涉及许多基因时,睡眠就像人们所期望的那样正态分布.. 了解更多关于这个非常重要的变量不是很好吗?

  145. @Franklin Ryckaert

    确实,当他被征召参加越南战争时,他在应征入伍的智商测试中得了 78 分。 在 78 年陆军智商测试中获得 1964 分后——“我说我是最伟大的,而不是最聪明的”——阿里被归类为 1-Y:“根据当前的军队服役标准,没有资格”。

    所以你是说 穆罕默德·阿里是一个伽马减去白痴? 哈哈

    • 回复: @Franklin Ryckaert
  146. @Wizard of Oz

    嘿维兹,

    我已经阅读了您链接的文章,并且发现了行之有效的倡导

    嗯,谢谢你。 实际上, 那件作品有点匆忙,我只是试图修复一些更狂野和毛茸茸的部分.

    但是,是的,智商测试得分高的人显然在进行智商测试方面非常聪明。

    而且,是的,智商测试通常是学术能力的有用指标,这主要涉及智商测试类型的心理功能。 但是当你看到一个人 以上争论穆罕默德·阿里是一个伽玛减白痴,因为他的军队智商测试成绩为 78,你意识到 伽马负值白痴可以非常善于表达,具有非常敏锐的逻辑电路的个体 (与卡维特和诺曼梅勒的后续讨论证实了这一点)。

    总有一天,如果没有基因工程,撒哈拉以南非洲人和他们的亲密关系将被提高到欧洲平均测出的智商水平,这并非不可能,但你不会打赌吗?

    事实上,这种转变已经发生,非洲移民到英国的孩子在许多社区的表现都超过了白人孩子。

    • 回复: @Wizard of Oz
  147. Anon[376]• 免责声明 说:
    @Mefobills

    ......来自不需要提及的来源。 但你可以弄清楚。

    “……近60%的中国男医生是吸烟者,这是世界上最高的比例。[4]”
    辛丁丁(2009-12-11)。 “无烟清单延伸至医疗机构”。 中国日报。

    这么聪明??? 不,抽烟不聪明!

  148. @res

    你认真对待凯文伯德吗? 这是他尖锐批评的一个例子。

    我是否比拉斯克等人的四位作者更认真地对待凯文伯德? 2019? 是的。

    伯德似乎是一位真正的科学家,拥有证书:

    https://kevinabird.github.io/1_about.html
    https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinabird

    他还在著名的同行评审期刊上发表文章(参见他的 Google Scholar)。

    拉斯克等人的作者。 相比之下,四个狡猾的人主要在声誉较差的期刊上发表文章,其中包括一些欺诈或虚假的期刊(例如,甚至未经正式同行评审的 OpenPsych 期刊,请参阅下面的链接)。 其中三位作者(不包括 Bryan Pesta)也没有任何科学证书(对不​​起,语言学学士学位不算数……)拉斯克的四篇出版物都在一个期刊上(迷幻)。 没有其他地方可以发布他。 你不觉得这看起来至少有点可疑吗? 大约 80% 的 Kirkegaard 和 Fuerst 的引文是他们自己作为作者/合著者。 再说一遍,你不觉得这很可疑吗?
    http://closerlookattheissues.blogspot.com/2019/02/emil-kirkegaards-self-citations.html

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPsych#Criticism
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/OpenPsych_pseudojournals#Lack_of_peer_review

    迷幻 拉斯克等人的出版商。 被广泛认为是 OpenPsych 的“继任者”,现在由于它获得了如此糟糕的声誉而处于非活跃状态。 大部分都是同样狡猾的人,他们同时在这两个网站上发表文章:

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Psych_(journal)#Psych_as_OpenPsych_Version_2

    与 OpenPsych 不同的是, 迷幻 至少使用正式的同行评审。 然而,它的质量仍然存在争议。 迷幻 由历史悠久的争议和批评的MDPI出版:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI

    描述 MDPI/ 的 Bird 评论迷幻 因为“垃圾”显然是准确的。

    不。 种族并不是唯一重要的事情。 您会期望哈佛的白人拥有与当地监狱中的白人相同的平均智商吗?

    我所说的亚群是指每个假定种族中的族群。 对我来说,这是反对遗传主义的最好证据,也是对环境假说的有力支持,因为许多与基因密切相关的种族之间的智商存在很大差异。 相反,遗传主义假设预测基因密切相关的种族群体应该具有非常相似的智商分数。

    • 回复: @res
  149. @CanSpeccy

    这不是我说的,是美国军队。
    顺便说一句,流畅的谈话可能会让人产生高智商的印象,但仅限于肤浅的。 “我是最伟大的”先生并不是最聪明的。

    • 回复: @Wizard of Oz
  150. Beau Nydle 说:
    @Sya Beerens

    我建议你利用interwebz 上大量的非洲风格网站。 就像几乎所有黑色的东西一样,它们是欧洲事物的拙劣复制品,以白色为导向的网站充满了研究、研究、有据可查的统计数据和证据,而非洲中心主义风格的网站几乎总是决定一个更受欢迎的真相,在令人发指的、无背景的、历史性的樱桃采摘发生之前,混杂着大量的自助式幻想。 西方对黑人表现不佳的妄想性白人憎恨和指责的程度,在其深刻、深刻、愚蠢和讽刺中令人不安,并因其无休止的人为表现的自尊而变得滑稽可笑。 有时我确实为他们感到尴尬,但是,我通常很快又开始笑了,所以......没有打扰。

    但是,它并没有真正止步于此,不是吗? 基于种族的整顿是美国黑人在城里最大的游戏。 白人是实现全面瓦坎达的绊脚石的断言是对精明的黑人发牢骚男/女的通用论据,几乎可以提出索赔的每个领域,例如,白人居住在五小时车程内一个黑人。

    如果没有白人因任何感知到的黑人失败而受到责备,一种真正有害的不适将超越自我放纵的黑人灵魂,迫使黑人向内看,并且很可能成为对个人责任的一些迟来的反思和对借口文化的沉迷的催化剂弥漫在黑人的思维过程中。

    很大一部分黑人对白人的仇恨实际上是高度公开的表现,并且已经持续了一段时间。 然而,所陈述的理由显然是不诚实的,从不间断的黑人河流可以看出,只要白人从事创造我们强大国家的勤劳、有远见的活动,就可以无休止地生活。

    • 回复: @Sya Beerens
  151. @res

    谢谢。 不幸的是,我不知道任何有用的数据,但不断重申“当代美国人/澳大利亚人/任何睡眠不足的人”只会让我感到恼火,因为没有人测试 [甚至提出] 需要睡眠的假设——至少在睡眠的一些重要功能 - 是正态分布的 - 你引用的研究结果仅仅是或主要是现代生活竞争压力的结果。

    我不禁同意,不能好好利用时间是一件很严重的事情。 但是,当我在看电视的同时每天进行大量有氧运动时,我肯定是对的注意到塔楼中咆哮的红色火焰和证明火灾规模的大量烟雾,并试图放弃他对程序化拆除理论的剩余支持。 (我昨晚看了那个,史蒂文·斯皮尔伯格需要让我相信其中的证据是伪造的:(i)飞机飞入塔楼,(ii)能够削弱钢铁构件的巨大持久火灾;(iii)产生重力在塔中,支撑的弱点较低,因此上方的重量较大,因此倒塌得更快。

  152. 这不是我说的,是美国军队。

    哈哈。 你是什​​么意思”? 显然,你是说“那个”是指穆罕默德·阿里是一个伽马负值的白痴。 但美军这样说是不真实的。 根据你的引用,美军“说”的是阿里的智商为78,这是完全不同的事情。

    而是你,暗示“说”阿里是一个负伽马的白痴,因为他的智商为 78。但阿里显然不是负伽马的白痴,这可以从他与卡维特和诺曼梅勒的谈话中看出. 因此结论是显而易见的:智商不衡量智力。 它不衡量智力的原因是我已经说过的原因 点击此处。

    但是让我们邀请其他人来裁决分歧。 有多少人看过 阿里与卡维特和梅勒交谈的视频片段 得出的结论是,他是一个伽马负值的白痴,根据乔丹·彼得森的说法,由于智商低,他们无法在任何形式的工作中有效地发挥作用。

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
  153. @Franklin Ryckaert

    我记得在后来的社交场合中,我注意到一个和他兄弟一样的人在后来的社交环境中明显的快速目击,根据我所看到的记录,他的智商约为 80。 就卡修斯·克莱而言,他可能足够聪明,可以伪造自己的智商分数,以免退伍。 我还注意到一个异常事实,即弗林效应在“文化公平”测试(如 Raven's Matrices)中最为显着。 对我来说,这表明他们并不是真正的文化公平,但正如人们可以证明的那样,容易受到培训影响。

  154. @CanSpeccy

    不要在这个线程上重复我自己,我不确定上流社会的约鲁巴语和伊博语击败了白色垃圾的论点。 牙买加人似乎并没有以同样的方式提升他们的认知能力。 当然,六个(白人)兄弟姐妹都去牛津剑桥的日子几乎不是遥不可及的记忆。 .

    您可能忽略了 IQ 测试通常作为阈值测试有效的可能性——实际上很有可能。 母亲和父亲都是物理学教授,他们也希望他们的儿子成为物理学教授。 但他在智商测试中的得分从未超过平均水平 1.2 sds。 不要打扰将是正确的建议。 不要让自己和父母失望。

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
  155. res 说:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    我是否比拉斯克等人的四位作者更认真地对待凯文伯德? 2019? 是的。

    感谢您至少给出一个直接的答案。 我倾向于相信让作品(以及推特,哎呀,我的意思是推文)不言自明,而不是让你对人和出版物的“声誉”的概念决定要相信什么。 但我想如果你所拥有的只是联想的内疚......

    Bird 将 MDPI/Psych 描述为“垃圾”的评论显然是准确的。

    他正在回复有关特定论文的推文。 似乎提供实质性批评会更好 那张纸的. 但这只是我,我猜。 似乎不同的标准适用于 SJW。 “反驳”某事所需要的只是一种尖刻的侮辱。

    我所说的亚群是指每个假定种族中的族群。

    不知道这甚至意味着什么。 我以为你在谈论不同状态下平均 AA 混合物和智商之间的差异。 有点像不同州的白人有不同的平均智商。

    相反,遗传主义假设预测基因密切相关的种族群体应该具有非常相似的智商分数。

    我喜欢你定义“遗传假设”的方式,不管你怎么想。 你真的需要了解稻草人是什么——并停止使用它们。 或者,也许您可​​以将我指向真正提出该论点的人?

  156. Anonymous[339]• 免责声明 说:
    @Sya Beerens

    既不会读也不会写,却能恨白人的傲慢傻瓜说。 好吧,至少你接受了我关于不要抱怨的建议。 是时候继续做别的事情了。

  157. FatR 说:
    @opat

    “把智商高的人扔进丛林,让他们活下来。 他们不会持续三个小时。”

    彻头彻尾的胡说八道,立即表明您从未离开过舒适的城市环境。

    如果您对任何可能致命的自然环境有任何第一手经验,即使是登山徒步旅行,您就会知道人们自杀的最常见原因是愚蠢。 也就是说,无法听取指令、理解指令和遵循指令,或者无法对风险和自己的能力进行基本评估。

  158. annamaria 说:
    @Sya Beerens

    芝加哥正在燃烧。 https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/08/breaking-massive-looting-underway-chicago-riots-continue-across-nation-watch-live/

    Black Lives Matter 周日晚上再次在芝加哥进行了大规模的抢劫。 据报道,一辆大篷车载着数十名抢劫者从一家商店到另一家商店……

    一位名叫 Aero Finesses 的 Facebook 用户热情地直播并鼓励破坏,同时庆祝他的直播中的现场观众数量。 另一位 Facebook 用户直播自己抢劫耐克,同时播放自己的脸和其他抢劫者的脸。 除了故意破坏和抢劫,汽车也被点燃。 …

    西雅图也发生了抢劫事件,全食超市、大通银行和星巴克在那里遭到袭击。

    评论部分:

    我住在市中心。 在过去的 4 或 5 个小时里,我听到了不间断的警报声。 本地新闻中没有任何内容:芝加哥论坛报、WGN、WLS? 我们不能再相信媒体给我们提供消息了。 这不符合他们的叙述。

    民主党失去了对弗兰肯斯坦的控制吗?

    我敢肯定,其中一些企业向 BLM 提供了资金。 ……这就是你得到的,你的生意被洗劫一空。

    民族的真实形象。

    • 回复: @Franklin Ryckaert
  159. @res

    出色的反应——而且是真实的。

    数据说明了什么? 那是科学,而不是来自“声誉”的论证。

    • 回复: @Oliver D. Smith
  160. @res

    排除凯文伯德,看看拉斯克等人的其余 8 篇引文。 2019 –

    https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cites=3407205024582536480&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en

    1. [PDF] 种族差异:非常简短的评论
    EOW Kirkegaard – 人类季刊,2019 年 – maistre.uni.cx

    2. 种族差异:回顾
    EOW 柯克郭尔 – 2019 – psyarxiv.com

    3.种族差异
    EOW 柯克郭尔

    4. [PDF] 初学者的人类生物多样性:Charles Murray 的人类多样性回顾
    EOW Kirkegaard – 2020 年人类季刊 – 研究门.net

    5. [PDF] 通过他们的旗帜你会知道他们:国旗的象征意义和颜色可以预测平均国家智商和人类发展指数
    S Koljević – 人类季刊,2020 年 – 研究门.net

    6. 拉什顿、詹森和国富论:生物地理学和公共政策是经济增长的决定因素
    GB 克里斯坦森 – 2020 年人类季刊 – 研究门.net

    7. 智力遗传的种族和族群差异:系统评价和荟萃分析
    BJ Pesta,EOW Kirkegaard,情报,2020

    8. 捍卫生物行为科学
    MA Sarraf, C Feltham – 现代性与文化衰落,2019

    -

    因此,这些引文中有 5/8 是 Kirkegaard 作为作者/合著者的自引(包括 3 个版本,例如他发表在 人类季刊) 虽然 2 /8 来自不同的作者,但仍然发表在 人类季刊. 所以超过一半是 MQ 引文(如果包括预印本。)

    所以只剩下 Sarraf 等人的一篇论文。 然而,我在谷歌上搜索了 Matthew A. Sarraf,你猜怎么着? 他发表论文于 MQ 并与 Kirkegaard 合着了一篇论文……

    所有这些论文都是乱伦的。 它基本上是一小群人,其中许多人共同撰写论文并与 MQ 相关联,他们在有争议的期刊中引用彼此的工作(几乎没有其他人) 人类季刊 – 其网站域归 Kirkegaard 所有。

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mankind_Quarterly
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mankind_Quarterly

    Mankind Quarterly 是一份同行评审期刊,被描述为“科学种族主义建立的基石”、“白人至上主义期刊”、[1]“臭名昭著的种族主义期刊”和“科学种族主义的守护者”

    所有这些都是我 4 年前曝光的,所以他们仍然在做同样狡猾的老事情也就不足为奇了。 这一切都不是“联想谬误”。

    • 回复: @res
  161. @Sya Beerens

    喜欢他们的人真的很喜欢他们,但他们是少数。 也许孩子是个例外。
    更多的成年人似乎喜欢墨西哥人或东亚人。

    互联网上的很多内容都是浪费时间,大多数人不应该制作视频。 非裔美国人处于互联网的低端、更浪费的一端。 面对现实,有比 Frog Boy 和 Turdie Locks 更好的东西。

  162. CanSpeccy 说:
    @Wizard of Oz

    您可能忽略了 IQ 测试通常作为阈值测试有效的可能性——实际上很有可能。

    一般来说,也许,但有许多例外。

    例如,如果阿里是文盲怎么办——我不知道他是不是。 世界上一定有很多高智商的文盲、无法正常上学的人、阅读障碍者或因任何原因与教育过程无关的孩子。

    对于一个经常上学的人来说,低智商测试分数可能表明一个有机脑问题,但还有许多其他可能的解释,因此许多高智商的人智商测试分数中等至低,例如,理查德·费曼、路易斯·阿尔瓦雷斯、威廉肖克利是 20 世纪物理学界的伟人之一,智商只有罗恩·恩茨的一半。

    • 回复: @Wizard of Oz
  163. @lavoisier

    科学不仅仅是数据,还有学术诚信,包括研究标准和伦理。 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_integrity

    我批评的人缺乏这一点,这就是 (1) 为什么他们在不可靠/声誉不佳的期刊上发表文章(有些甚至没有正式的同行评审),(2) 过度自我引用以欺骗性地让很多科学家付钱在几乎没有人的情况下关注他们的工作,并且 (3) 容易出现糟糕的研究(严重的方法论缺陷、确认偏差等),名单还在继续。 然而,一个非学者或没有经过同行评审的论文的随机人不太可能理解这一点。

  164. @res

    我喜欢你定义“遗传假设”的方式,不管你怎么想。 你真的需要了解稻草人是什么——并停止使用它们。 或者,也许您可​​以将我指向真正提出该论点的人?

    ? 查看理查德·林恩 (Richard Lynn) 的大多数论文。 他声称可以从附近国家的分数中估计缺失的国家智商分数,因为他认为它们会相似,因为它们在基因上相似。 由于我们也知道遗传相似性与地理距离成反比,因此附近的人群在遗传上比远处的人群更相似,这意味着地理距离映射遗传距离——遗传假说认为“世界各地的人的智力水平随着他们的地理位置和种族,即使有相当多的重叠。” (林恩,2003 年)
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080437934500453

    相比之下,我的论点是,我们无法可靠地估计附近国家缺失的国家智商分数,因为它们通常不相似,其次,地理/遗传距离与智商之间的相关性太弱,无法支持遗传假设。 Becker 和 Rindermann (2016) 报告遗传距离和跨国智商差异呈正相关 (r = .37)。
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S019188691630174X

    r = 0。37 = r2 0.1369

    因此,这意味着遗传(=地理)距离仅解释了国家之间 IQ 测试分数差异总变异的 14%。

    实际数字甚至更低,因为贝克尔和林德曼使用了林恩对非洲不准确的智商数据。
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121155220.htm

    根本不支持遗传假说。

    • 回复: @res
  165. res 说:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    这一切都不是“联想谬误”。

    如果说, 没有 其中就是LOL! 值得。 你对绝对性的痴迷使你的评论很容易被反驳,从而损害了你的评论。

    但是要认真对待您在该评论中的担忧,因为我认为它们提出了一个值得提出的观点。 我相信您观察到的乱伦行为通常是由两个原因之一引起的(还有其他建议吗?)。
    1. 使用不正确的场所和/或方法工作的一群人。
    2. 使用政治上不可接受的前提、方法和/或结论的一群人。

    这些是非常不同的,这就是为什么我们需要让作品自己说话。 以及“反驳”。 其中有实质性批评的却少得惊人。 尽管如此,还是有很多人身攻击和内疚。 (当然,您的评论与最后两句话的任何相似之处完全是巧合;)

    值得称赞的是凯文伯德,他至少似乎试图与拉斯克等人进行某种实质性的时尚。 纸。 我对拉斯克等人感到有点失望。 合著者尚未参与 Bird 的论文(据我所知,除了我在早期线程中链接的 Emil 的推文之外),但我的理解是他们正在等待它通过同行评审并正式发布。

    我认为他的论文是 FUD 和球门柱移动的结合。 有关后者的示例,请参见表 1。如果 EA/IQ h^2 为 0.5(根据文献中的估计,这似乎是一个低值,但他使用 0.15、0.35 和 0.5 的值进行计算)他估计16-18% 的全球智商差异归因于“加性遗传分化”。

    以下是他在预印本中定义遗传假设的方式。

    所谓的“遗传假说”,它假定遗传差异在很大程度上导致了黑人和白人人口认知能力的差异。

    因此,撇开他的方法论和他的 h^2 估计值 0.5 的有效性不谈,我们正在研究 17% 的组间差异。 以及这是否是“实质性的”。 让我们将解释的方差转换为 Cohen 的 d 以给出另一种观点。

    两个相关参考文献。

    计算和报告效应大小以促进累积科学:t 检验和方差分析的实用入门
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3840331/

    效应大小:偏 Eta 平方、Cohen's f 和 Cohen's d 之间的关系 (SPSS手册)
    https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/effect-size-relationship-between-partial-eta-squared-cohens-f-and-cohens-d

    从第一个参考,粗略地说 eta^2 是解释的百分比方差。 从第二个参考我们有两个方程。
    d = 2 * f(其中 f 是效果大小)
    f = sqrt(eta^2 / (1 – eta^2))

    这些给了我们:
    f = sqrt(0.17^2 / (1 – 0.17^2)) = 0.17251
    d = 2 * 0.17251 = 0.35

    d 和 eta ^ 2 值的解释似乎不同(我在上面犯了错误吗?)。 这是上面第一篇参考文献关于解释的内容。

    一种常用的解释是根据 Cohen (0.2) 建议的基准将效应大小称为小 (d = 0.5)、中 (d = 0.8) 和大 (d = 1988)。 然而,这些值是任意的,不应严格解释(Thompson,2007)。 小的效应量可能会产生很大的后果
    ...
    Cohen (1988) 提供了定义小 (η^2 = 0.01)、中 (η^2 = 0.06) 和大 (η^2 = 0.14) 效应的基准。

    根据第一个标准,效果介于中小之间,到第二个标准(我更信任它,因为它直接使用论文中提供的值),效果很大。

    门柱移动的另一个例子是詹森通常将美国黑白智商差异称为遗传学的函数。 伯德指的是全球差异。 美国黑人和白人之间的环境差异远小于欧洲人和非洲人之间的环境差异。 鉴于此,人们会期望解释的百分比方差值不同(这当然取决于种群内部和种群之间的环境和遗传变异)。

    PS 我觉得有趣的是,17% 接近 Lewontin 对组间遗传变异的估计。 关于为什么会这样的任何想法? 巧合?

    PPS 对于任何感兴趣的人,Cohen (1988) 可在(579 页 PDF)获得:
    行为科学的统计功效分析
    http://www.utstat.toronto.edu/~brunner/oldclass/378f16/readings/CohenPower.pdf
    他对 d 的解释在第 25-27 页。
    他从第 2 页的小节开始讨论 f 和 eta^280
    8.2.2 f、相关比和方差比例。
    该部分的解释主要是关于 f。 他还以 eta^2 的形式给出了它们,它们以四舍五入的形式与我上面给出的值相对应。

    我在上面给出的 f 等式是等式 8.2.22,并在表 8.2.2 中列出。 查看表格,2 的 eta^0.17(表格中的 0.1684)对应于 0.45 的 f,因此 ad 为 0.9。 所以看起来我在上面的 d 计算中犯了一个错误,但我没有看到它。 如果有人可以仔细检查我的分析/数学,我将不胜感激。

  166. res 说:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    这就是为什么最好关注美国黑白差异的原因。 正如詹森和拉斯克等人。 做。

    你最初的评论是基于美国各州的黑人,所以援引非洲数据只是一种红鲱鱼。

    在这里关注美国黑白差异有几个很好的理由。
    1. 改变外加剂可以进行外加剂分析,正如我们在 Lasker 等人中看到的那样。
    2. 美国黑人和白人之间的环境差异远小于非洲人和欧洲人之间的环境差异。
    3. 与非洲数据相比,美国数据的可用性和质量要高得多。 尽管某些类型的种族数据似乎出奇地难以获得。
    4. 最相关的政策含义(对我而言,例如反驳具有不同影响的谎言)取决于美国的差异。

    根本不支持遗传假说。

    停止与那个稻草人。 而“不支持”的部分完全是不真实的。

    您是否同意强烈的环保主义假设(智商群体差异的遗传贡献为 0)已被果断驳斥?

    • 回复: @Oliver D. Smith
  167. @CanSpeccy

    艾森克会同意你关于公平竞争的隐含观点。 他坚持认为,使用 11 Plus 测试的 msin 问题在于应该对其进行练习——一位成功的工程师和 Coirbyn 支持者向我证实了这一点,他认识到他在生活中的物质成功,而他的哥哥缺乏它 hsd是他的母亲对进入文法学校所需要付出的努力变得明智的结果。

    至于 Feyn mman 等人据称的低智商分数。 我只知道费曼所谓的 125,我不相信。 Jerry Pournelle 非常了解他,我想知道 Jerry 是否曾告诉过 Ron 或 Steve Sailer 他是否相信 125。

    • 回复: @canspeccy
  168. @res

    但是要认真对待您在该评论中的担忧,因为我认为它们提出了一个值得提出的观点。 我相信您观察到的乱伦行为通常是由两个原因之一引起的(还有其他建议吗?)。
    1. 使用不正确的场所和/或方法工作的一群人。
    2. 使用政治上不可接受的前提、方法和/或结论的一群人。

    2:没有

    在这场辩论中没有学术审查。 遗传学家可以在著名的同行评审期刊上发表。 这是一个示例(Rushton 和 Jensen,2005 年):

    https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology,_Public_Policy,_and_Law

    审查制度的可疑主张构成了许多所谓的 HBDers 中常见的受害者/迫害情结的一部分,包括(从我遇到的情况来看)Nathan Cofnas。 我不确定他们的这种说法的依据是什么,因为几十年来,遗传学一直在主流科学期刊上发表。 审查制度在哪里? 还有一些毫无根据的指控,HBDers 因为他们的观点而失去了工作。 当我查看这些所谓的案件时,虽然我发现了一些完全不同的东西,比如诺亚卡尔。

    请注意,我自己的专业领域很难在同行评审的期刊上发表,但我从未声称自己受到审查——我很难在学术界发表作品,因为很少有学者对我选择的不寻常的东西感兴趣写,我的手稿经常被退回,因为没有专家审稿人。

    我会在另一条评论中回答你的其他观点。

    • 回复: @lavoisier
  169. @mikemikev

    我不同意你的可恶观点,但是当你像疯子一样整天坐在互联网上,在社交媒体上创建数百个帐户,滥用垃圾邮件时,你认为你如何为自己的“运动”取得任何成就?

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Coombs#2020_activity

  170. canspeccy 说:
    @Wizard of Oz

    至于 Feynmman 等人据称的低智商分数。 我只知道费曼所谓的 125,我不相信。

    哈哈。 事实是有据可查的。 费曼的智力并不全面。 他的低识字水平让普林斯顿的那些考虑他申请进入研究生院的人深感担忧。 除了对物理学的阐述之外,费曼对语言的掌握也很谦虚,他的想法也很乏味——就像爱因斯坦一样。 如果你怀疑尝试 这一切的意义:公民科学家的想法, 也许是唯一一本以费曼的名义出版的书,实际上是费曼写的,而不是幽灵。 即便是 物理讲座 也许是世界上最伟大的物理学教科书,经过大量编辑出版。

    • 回复: @Wizard of Oz
  171. @Oliver D. Smith

    审查制度在哪里? 还有一些毫无根据的指控,HBDers 因为他们的观点而失去了工作。

    我觉得这个回应至少是不诚实的。

    你真的认为那些想要调查黑人和白人之间的智商差异是否有遗传基础的研究人员完全可以自由地这样做吗? 对该主题的自由调查不存在体制或社会障碍?

    当 Jason Richwine 敢于调查这个主题并报告他的发现时,他发生了什么?

    沃森,可以说是最伟大的在世科学家,当他提出也许遗传学可能解释了观察到的种族之间智力差异时发生了什么?

    如果他们能毁了这样一位著名科学家的生活,而且他们做到了,那么只有那些非常勇敢(或疯狂)的人才会试图从这样的研究领域中谋生。

    调查这些问题确实需要付出代价,我相信本文的作者可以证明这一点。

    • 同意: res
    • 回复: @anon
    , @Oliver D. Smith
    , @res
    , @Menes
  172. anon[189]• 免责声明 说:
    @lavoisier

    我觉得这个回应至少是不诚实的。

    那是因为它是一个巨魔帐户,仅此而已。

  173. @lavoisier

    你真的认为那些想要调查黑人和白人之间的智商差异是否有遗传基础的研究人员完全可以自由地这样做吗? 对该主题的自由调查不存在体制或社会障碍?

    是的,一点没错。 在这个领域存在审查制度的想法是偏执和精神错乱的受害者/迫害情结。 我还观察到“种族现实主义者”会捏造声称让自己看起来像受害者。 这包括关于我试图“关闭”与 Antifa 的 ISIR 会议的虚假谣言。

    至于沃森,他有发表性别歧视、恐同、种族主义和其他攻击性评论的悠久历史。 查看他在 2007 年之前的冒犯性评论的时间表:
    https://www.vox.com/2019/1/15/18182530/james-watson-racist

    他被解雇了吗? 不可以。沃森在冷泉港实验室的行政职责被暂停,直到进行调查,但在那之前他退休了。

    沃森为他 2007 年的评论道歉:

    http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/10/18/nobel.apology/index.html

    “我无法理解我怎么能说出我所说的话,”沃森在伦敦皇家学会露面时说。

    “我当然可以理解为什么人们在阅读这些文字时会做出这样的反应。

    如果他用不同的方式表达他的评论,他承认的愤怒就会减少。

    我之前已经评论过——沃森的停职并不是一个关于种族和智力的遗传观点被审查或沉默的例子,但冷泉港实验室厌倦了沃森长期发表令人反感和令人尴尬的评论并损害其声誉该研究所。

  174. res 说:
    @lavoisier

    说得好。 一个小的澄清,Jason Richwine 因讨论西班牙裔(不是黑人)和白人之间的智商差异而被 Watsoned。
    https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/why-people-keep-misunderstanding-the-connection-between-race-and-iq/275876/

    对于那些相信没有迫害的人(这对于经常参与迫害的人来说很有趣),琳达·戈特弗雷德森 (Linda Gottfredson) 的这本书章节值得一读。
    抑制情报研究:伤害我们打算帮助的人。
    https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-02409-009

    这篇来自 Nathan Cofnas 的论文似乎是在这种情况下关于自由查询的更公平的讨论之一。 汤普森博士,你讨论过这篇论文吗? 我没有在搜索中找到它。
    智力上的群体差异研究:自由探究的辩护
    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09515089.2019.1697803

    • 回复: @Oliver D. Smith
    , @lavoisier
  175. @canspeccy

    我在某处读到费曼自学日语,这样他就可以在日本举办系列讲座。 请注意,我不记得读过日本学生的评论。 你确实让我想起了一位年轻的亲戚,他在科学和数学方面名列前茅,他很机智,像闪电一样通过了英语论文的清晰思考部分,但只获得了英语及格分数。 他似乎明确地将英语测试视为他将通过的门槛测试。

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
  176. Menes 说: • 您的网站
    @Colin Wright

    不仅仅是智商测试证明了黑人在智力上的劣势……..他们是愚蠢的。 我的意思是严重愚蠢。 你不知道。

    我上面不是刚刚展示了东北各州的非裔美国人的智商是93,比中东所有白人高加索国家高出26个百分点(平均高出12个百分点)——东非和北非? 并高于9个欧洲国家? 这不是告诉你伊朗、黎巴嫩、叙利亚、埃及、沙特阿拉伯、乌克兰、波斯尼亚、希腊、塞尔维亚等在智力上都不如非裔美国人吗? 为什么不? 你相信智商吗? 努力做到诚实和一致。 为什么对你们来说这么难?

    读到这里,哭了:

    https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/most-nobel-prize-laureates-per-capita

    圣卢西亚是人均诺贝尔奖获得者最多的国家,比例为每百万人 10.81 人。

    不幸的是,您的错觉圣卢西亚是一个加勒比黑人国家。

    它的名义人均收入也超过 11,600 美元。 高于东亚及太平洋、拉美、中东及北非、南亚、中亚、阿拉伯世界及东盟。

    并且高于许多欧洲国家:俄罗斯、乌克兰、保加利亚、塞尔维亚、波斯尼亚、阿尔巴尼亚、白俄罗斯、马其顿、摩尔多瓦、科索沃……

    来源: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD

    锦上添花的是,圣卢西亚是一个美丽的热带岛屿天堂:

    https://qtxasset.com/styles/breakpoint_xl_880px_w/s3/travelagentcentral/1545411957/SimonDannhaueriStockGettyImagesPlusGettyImages.jpg/SimonDannhaueriStockGettyImagesPlusGettyImages.jpg?A0oZQ4nR0.hnf76hYlo2YQ.zQ_LzmJJ1&itok=Tw7OEf3c

    • 同意: Oliver D. Smith
  177. @res

    我从未听说过 Jason Richwine,但根据他的维基百科页面(引用了报纸消息来源),他从传统基金会辞职。 那么,这种所谓的审查意味着什么呢? 没有人审查过他有争议的博士论文或工作。

    更多的受害者/迫害情结。

    你们太像 SJW 了。 你们是政治极端的对立面,但有很多共同点,比如受害者情结。 马蹄理论。 SJW 喜欢让自己成为受害者,HBD 人群也是如此。

    • 回复: @res
  178. @Menes

    “我不是刚刚在上面展示了东北各州的非裔美国人的智商是 93,这要高得多……”

    显然,您无法阅读。 无论如何,您的帖子没有显示出您理解我写的内容的证据。

    '…英石。 露西亚是人均诺贝尔奖获得者最多的人,比例为每百万人 10.81 人……”

    圣卢西亚是一个很小的地方。 它有过两位诺贝尔奖获得者,其中一位几乎是白人。 所以曾经有一位黑人诺贝尔奖获得者。

    有没有人声称 所有 黑人特别笨? 您对统计数据的理解也显得不足。

    你是黑人吗?

  179. @Menes

    是的,这都是真的。 撒哈拉以南非洲各国的智商测试分数也存在巨大差异,有些是 90 年代,但这些通常被忽略,典型的“种族现实主义者”只会关注 70 年代智商低的国家。

    正如我在其他评论中所解释的那样,您可以发现同一假定“种族”(白人、黑人、东亚人等)的不同种族群体之间的智商测试分数存在如此巨大的差异,这是对遗传假设的重大打击,因为您最终形成与基因密切相关的种族群体,但平均智商测试分数却大不相同。 对我来说,这是环境假说的有力证据。

    • 同意: Menes
    • 回复: @Menes
    , @res
  180. res 说:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    我从未听说过 Jason Richwine,但根据他的维基百科页面(引用了报纸消息来源),他从传统基金会辞职。 那么,这种所谓的审查意味着什么呢? 没有人审查过他有争议的博士论文或工作。

    不要刻意变得迟钝。 我包括了一个链接。 我想我会用勺子喂你第一段。

    上周,遗产基金会学者 Jason Richwine 是一项备受争议的关于全面移民改革的财政成本的新研究的合著者,在他 2009 年哈佛大学博士学位的争议中辞职。 论文。 在那篇论文中,里奇维恩曾辩称,美国“西班牙裔”的智商不如本土出生的白人,这一点从他们在智商测试中的平均分数较低就可以看出。 Richwine 然后将西班牙裔人所谓的智力低下至少部分归因于遗传因素。

    需要明确的是,我指的是迫害,而不是审查制度。 你“擅长”移动那些球门柱和稻草人。

    更多的受害者/迫害情结。

    你对那些因知识分歧而失去工作、声誉和生计的人(例如“决定辞职”通常意味着面临压力)的同情令人叹为观止。 最糟糕的是他们(例如这里的 Richwine)在客观上是正确的。

    你们太像 SJW 了。 你们是政治极端的对立面,但有很多共同点,比如受害者情结。 马蹄理论。 SJW 喜欢让自己成为受害者,HBD 人群也是如此。

    您的评论提供了一个使用逻辑谬误的诊所。 那就是假等价。

    • 回复: @Oliver D. Smith
    , @anon
  181. Menes 说: • 您的网站
    @lavoisier

    沃森发生了什么事,可以说是最伟大的在世科学家

    值得指出的是,詹姆斯·沃森 (James Watson) 有 16% 的非洲人,4% 的亚洲人:

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/22248094/ns/health-health_care/t/does-man-look-black-you/#.XzHgWRNKg1I

    在他的案例中,非洲血统是不可见的,数百万其他“白人”高加索人也是如此,但在他的“爱尔兰”祖母身上却很明显:

    • 回复: @Menes
    , @res
  182. Menes 说: • 您的网站
    @Oliver D. Smith

    事实上,你会发现同一假定“种族”(白人、黑人、东亚人等)的不同种族群体之间的智商测试分数存在如此巨大的差异,这是对遗传假设的重大打击,因为你最终与基因密切相关的种族群体但平均智商测试分数非常不同。 对我来说,这是环境假说的有力证据。

    没错,而且说得好。

    这些头脑简单的傻瓜在这里无法理解的是,心灵与皮肤、肌肉、头发、骨骼、色素沉着等不属于同一类别。心灵是一个属于自己的类别,科学对此一无所知,因为它无法解释意识。

    • 回复: @Oliver D. Smith
    , @anon
    , @MrVoid
  183. @res

    您是否同意强烈的环保主义假设(智商群体差异的遗传贡献为 0)已被果断驳斥?

    不,它没有被反驳。 我个人认为零基因可能吗? 不。Earl Hunt 在他 2010 年的书中引用了一句很有用的话,他说类似的争论不应该是群体间遗传力是 0% 还是 100%,而是介于 1% 和 99% 之间。 大多数专家认为有遗传因素。

    为您提供更多马蹄铁理论。 谁会关注 0%? HBD 和 SJW。 前者和后者都将环境假设限制为 0%(从来没有)。

    这是 Jensen 和 Rushton,他们的“纯文化”稻草人是 0% 的基因:

    纯培养(0% 遗传 - 100% 环境)

    https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

    这是 SJW (Block, 1995) 争论同样的事情:

    http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/heritability.pdf

    对于像 Block 这样的人来说,有趣的是,我对微不足道的基因的立场是“种族主义者”,他继续批评/拒绝 Herbert(1994),他说“环境条件是造成差异的主要原因”(我的观点)因为“大多数”不是 100%。

    • 回复: @res
  184. res 说:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    撒哈拉以南非洲各国的智商测试成绩也存在巨大差异,有些是 90 多岁

    那些是? 您使用哪些数据源来计算国家/地区 IQ?

    对遗传假设的重大打击,因为您最终会遇到与基因密切相关但平均智商测试分数却大不相同的族群。 对我来说,这是环境假说的有力证据。

    这看起来像是错误二分法的一个很好的例子。 也许您可以澄清每个假设的含义?

  185. @res

    好吧,你声称的不是审查,而是迫害。

    但什么迫害?

    这家伙因发表一篇有争议的论文反对移民而受到公众强烈反对和严厉批评,理由是某些移民的智商较低,然后他辞职了,然后有人挖出了他的博士论文。

    有什么问题? 根据某人的智慧反对移民是一种不道德和荒谬的观点。 所以可以理解的是,这些可怕的观点会受到强烈反对。

    附言。 我自己对某些事情持有非常有争议的观点,可能是这里最极端的观点,如果我在某些地方表达它们,它们会引起许多人的负面情绪反应和愤怒。 我会声称我因持有他们而受到迫害吗? 不。

    放弃受害者情结。

    • 回复: @res
  186. Menes 说: • 您的网站
    @Menes

    James Watson 16% 是非洲人,4% 是亚洲人

    更正:他是 16% 的非洲人和 9% 亚洲人. 所以整整四分之一非白色。 更正的来源,以及他奶奶的照片:

    https://isteve.blogspot.com/2007/12/james-watson-and-passing.html

    事实上,像 Watson 的祖母(可能还有他的祖先中的其他人)这样的三种族混合体看起来比两个种族混合体更模棱两可。 看看波多黎各人、多米尼加人、巴西人等的例子。

    另一个非常有名的非裔混血的例子,虽然他没有愚弄所有人(不像沃森),但他是美国历史上最著名的犯罪斗士、联邦调查局的创始人 J Edgar Hoover。 联邦调查局总部以他的名字命名:

    https://www.takimag.com/article/j_edgar_black_or_gay/

    广泛传言胡佛要么是一个自恨同性恋传球者,要么是一个自恨混血传球者,要么是全白人,要么两者兼而有之。

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover#Legacy

    传记作者肯尼斯·D·阿克曼这样总结胡佛的遗产:

    不管是好是坏,他将 FBI 打造成一个现代化的全国性组织,强调专业精神和科学打击犯罪。 在他一生的大部分时间里,美国人都认为他是英雄。 他让 G-Man 品牌如此受欢迎,以至于在其鼎盛时期,成为 FBI 特工比被常春藤大学录取更难。 [80]

    • 回复: @Menes
  187. res 说:
    @Menes

    值得指出的是,詹姆斯·沃森 (James Watson) 有 16% 的非洲人,4% 的亚洲人:

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/22248094/ns/health-health_care/t/does-man-look-black-you/

    在他的案例中,非洲血统是不可见的,数百万其他“白人”高加索人也是如此,但在他的“爱尔兰”祖母身上却很明显:

    有没有更好的证据证明这一说法? 我进行了搜索,但很难找到比 2007 年更近的东西。

    在“拉直钟形曲线:黑人男性气质的刻板印象如何推动种族和智力研究”的第 113-114 页中有此注释

    5 乔纳森·利克,“DNA 先驱詹姆斯·沃森比他想象的更黑”,星期日泰晤士报,9 年 2007 月 16 日。某些研究人员对 9% 的数字提出了质疑。 参见维基百科关于 Watson 的文章:“一些期刊就此事发表了意见。 2007 年 16 月 9 日,《星期日泰晤士报》的一篇文章报道了 deCODE Genetics 声称 Watson 的 DNA 中有 99.5% 来自非洲,16% 来自亚洲。 必须根据解释单核苷酸多态性 (SNP) 起源的统计模型来理解 Watson(或任何人的 DNA)起源的说法,它在任何两个人之间至少具有 XNUMX% 的相同性。 基于这个模型,沃森 DNA 中 SNP 的解释是“我们可以得出结论,在过去几百代左右的时间里,他的祖先中约有六分之一来自非洲”。 这种分析方法对个体基因组测序中的错误相当敏感; deCODE 的方法没有报告,分析的细节也没有公布。 根据 deCODE 的 Kari Stefansson 的说法,该分析依赖于 Watson 全基因组序列的错误版本,而 Stefansson 对此表示怀疑。 . . XNUMX% 的数字是否能站得住脚,'根据使用的数据补充说,'沃森似乎有两条 X 染色体,这将使他成为一个女人。'”

    这不足以激发信心,而且缺乏后续行动似乎表明该主张未能成立。 你有更好的证据吗?

    PS 感谢您为您断言的事物的有效性提供如此好的指标。 特别是因为这个来源表明声称的亚洲百分比是 9% 而不是 4%(实际上在你的链接中没有提到)。
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/revealed-scientist-who-sparked-racism-row-has-black-genes-764104.html

    • 回复: @Menes
  188. @Menes

    与这些人辩论是浪费时间,因为他们永远不会改变自己的观点,而且他们是坚定的理论家。 几天前,我已经6个月没有在这里辩论了。 我在这些愚蠢的辩论之间有很长的隔阂。

    • 回复: @Menes
  189. res 说:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    对于像 Block 这样的人来说,有趣的是,我对微不足道的基因的立场是“种族主义者”,他继续批评/拒绝 Herbert(1994),他说“环境条件是造成差异的主要原因”(我的观点)因为“大多数”不是 100%。

    HBDers 关注该职位的原因是。
    1.有像Block这样的白痴拥护它(即它不是稻草人,再次,您需要了解该词的含义)。
    2、反驳比较容易。

    我提出来(有资格作为 强烈 环境假设,尽管“仅文化”可能是一个更好的短语),以便更好地了解您的立场。 例如,您的主张未被驳回。

    推动纯文化假设的一个很好的理由是避免滑坡。 在同一篇博文下看到来自 Dearieme 的这条评论和来自我的滑坡评论。
    https://www.unz.com/jthompson/scientific-racism/#comment-2610869

  190. Menes 说: • 您的网站
    @Menes

    说到传奇的部分非洲犯罪斗士,看看牛仔犯罪斗士 Bass Reeves 的精彩生活,他可能是《独行侠》(由白人演员扮演,通常为好莱坞)的灵感来源:

    https://www.history.com/news/bass-reeves-real-lone-ranger-a-black-man

    尽管这个速写的故事听起来像是独行侠的冒险,但这并不是虚构的事件。 事实上,这是狂野西部传奇执法者巴斯·里夫斯 (Bass Reeves) 的众多壮举之一——他真正的冒险经历可与不法之争的蒙面角色相媲美。 里夫斯是一位现实生活中的非洲裔美国牛仔,一位历史学家认为他可能启发了独行侠。

    巴斯身高 6 英尺 2 英寸,拥有内战时期的熟练射击技巧以及对地形和语言的了解,是迎接挑战的完美人选。 上任后,他成为密西西比河以西第一位黑人副美国元帅。

    巴斯被广泛认为不可能获得回报或动摇,他展示了一种道德指南针,甚至可以让超人感到羞耻。 他甚至以谋杀妻子的罪名逮捕了自己的儿子本尼。

    传记作家阿特·T·伯顿 (Art T. Burton) 写道,作为副元帅,巴斯逮捕了 3,000 多人并杀死了 14 名不法分子,所有这些都没有受到任何枪伤,他在 2006 年的书中首次断言巴斯启发了独行侠的理论,黑枪,银星:边防元帅巴斯里夫斯的生平与传奇。

    “巴斯·里夫斯是最接近 XNUMX 世纪美国西部边境虚构的独行侠的真人,”伯顿在《黑枪》、《银星》中写道。

    https://truewestmagazine.com/was-bass-reeves-the-real-lone-ranger/

    19 世纪后期见证了现实生活中一位名叫巴斯·里夫斯 (Bass Reeves) 的美国传奇副元帅的传奇事迹。 几个细节使他与众不同。 首先,他是德克萨斯州的一名前奴隶,从未学会阅读或写作。 其次,他通过记住他必须在印第安领地(俄克拉荷马州之前)管理的逮捕令和传票来克服文盲的障碍。 第三,里夫斯工作了32年,生前成了名人。 在那个时代,黑人、白人和印第安人都在唱歌,讲述里夫斯在将不法之徒带到联邦法院的成就的故事。 最后,他捕捉亡命之徒的许多个人特质和技巧与小说中的独行侠相似。

    来自 Potawatomi 民族的 Tonto 在广播节目的第 XNUMX 集(特伦德尔在密歇根州长大,这是 Potawatomi 的传统领土)中首次作为独行侠的搭档出现。 在印第安领土上,联邦法律规定美国副法警至少要带一名警员协助现场工作。 很多时候,与里夫斯一起工作的警察是印第安人或黑人印第安人,比如格兰特约翰逊。 独行侠留下了银弹作为他的名片。 里夫斯给了人们银元以纪念他。 独行侠伪装工作,这是里夫斯经常用来抓捕毫无戒心的重罪犯的技术。 独行侠骑着一匹名叫“银”的白马。 研究表明,里夫斯骑的灰色可能看起来是白色的。

    这种相关性最有趣的方面之一是,被里夫斯逮捕的 3,000 名罪犯中有许多被送往底特律惩教院。 这是 1933 年独行侠角色开始的同一个城市。虽然我们不能最终证明里夫斯是独行侠的灵感来源,但他是现实中最接近这些特征的人。

    • 回复: @syonredux
  191. res 说:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    但什么迫害?

    这家伙后来辞职了 受到公众强烈反对和严厉批评 发表了一篇有争议的论文,根据某些移民的智商较低这一事实反对移民,然后有人挖出了他的博士论文。

    感谢您回答您自己的问题。

    根据某人的智慧反对移民是一种不道德和荒谬的观点。

    为什么? 有限制吗? 是否应该要求一个国家允许全球任何智商低于 60 的人移民? 反对移民的正当理由是什么?

    附言。 我自己对某些事情持有非常有争议的观点,可能是这里最极端的观点,如果我在某些地方表达它们,它们会引起许多人的负面情绪反应和愤怒。 我会声称我因持有他们而受到迫害吗? 不。

    如果你因为这些观点而丢了工作怎么办? “辞职”与否,这就是 Richwine 的遭遇。

  192. Beau Nydle 说:
    @Sya Beerens

    断言:“黑人”不要浪费生命,日复一日地在网上让自己难堪,让全世界都读到对“白人”的牢骚和抱怨

    对此,提出了指示以帮助表明大量存在完全相反的情况,作为反对该断言的证据,然后是……

    “我不读精神病真是浪费时间”

    必须保持叙述,即使这需要否认任何指出支持它的谬论的存在。 为什么非洲不是高水平知识和人类进步的堡垒,这是一个该死的谜吧? 一个被谜团包裹的谜语,用最深奥的绳索捆绑在一起。

  193. anon[262]• 免责声明 说:
    @res

    您的评论提供了一个使用逻辑谬误的诊所。

    互联网巨魔的常见做法。 恐怕只是巧合。

  194. Menes 说: • 您的网站
    @res

    这不足以激发信心,而且缺乏后续行动似乎表明该主张未能成立。 你有更好的证据吗?

    更令人信服地证明您无法进行逻辑思考。

    缺乏跟进证明与您的想法完全相反。 很容易反驳发现沃森 25% 是非白人的基因测试结果。 目前还没有人能够做到这一点。 为什么?

    • 回复: @res
    , @Ron Unz
  195. anon[262]• 免责声明 说:
    @Menes

    在这里,这些头脑简单的傻瓜不明白的是,心与皮肤、肌肉、头发、骨骼、色素沉着等不属于同一类别。

    据我们所知,大脑是意识的所在地,因此是“思想”。 大脑对进化免疫? 有没有影响大脑的基因?

    请做详细解释。

    心智是它自己的一个范畴,科学对此一无所知,因为它无法解释意识。

    不可测试,因此无关紧要。 你相信占星术吗? 颅相学? 看手相? 就是想。

  196. @Wizard of Oz

    你确实让我想起了一个年轻的亲戚,他在科学和数学方面名列前茅,他很机智,像闪电一样通过了英语论文的清晰思考部分,但只获得了英语及格分数

    是的,提到你年轻的亲戚很好地说明了我的观点。 但是请注意,在您提到的情况下,智商测试旨在评估的认知能力之间存在差异。 但是还有许多其他对人类生存很重要的心智能力没有通过智商测试进行评估。 音乐能力; 阿里谈话中充分展示的言语礼物——明显促进社会支配地位的礼物; 寻路能力,对于生活在澳大利亚内陆或加拿大北极等荒野中的人来说必不可少; 幽默——对勾引女仆很有帮助; 多种形式的创造力——艺术的、诗意的、机械的、科学的; 战斗管理技能,对于需要王国的人来说必不可少,等等。

    智商测试在某些情况下可能很有价值,但它们衡量一般智力的概念,或 g, 是无稽之谈,因为没有这样的东西。 是的,所有心理活动都有一个共同的细胞和生理基础,但这些通常只说明能力之间的微小相关性。 智力的每个主要方面都依赖于独立的叶、神经节和神经网络,每个方面都有自己的遗传决定因素。 每一个都有其独特的环境历史,这导致了文化和教育对智商测试分数的巨大影响。

    • 回复: @Wizard of Oz
  197. Ron Unz 说:
    @res

    如果你因为这些观点而丢了工作怎么办? “辞职”与否,这就是 Richwine 的遭遇。

    好吧,我碰巧注意到2013年关于Jason Richwine Affair的讨论很激烈。 有兴趣的人可能想看看我关于该事件的文章,当时引起了一定的关注,并强调了许多非常具有讽刺意味的方面:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/raceiq-the-jason-richwine-affair/

    • 回复: @res
  198. Menes 说: • 您的网站
    @Oliver D. Smith

    与这些人辩论是浪费时间,因为他们永远不会改变自己的观点,而且他们是坚定的理论家。

    那是真实的。 这就像与被洗脑的宗教狂热分子争论一样。 但它们充当了方便的沙袋,可以将您的观点敲回家,并将它们暴露给不道德的骗子和不合理的傻瓜。

    • 哈哈: res
    • 回复: @anon
    , @res
  199. @CanSpeccy

    我认为你低估了心理速度和良好的短期记忆的普遍表现,对此我注意到 Harpending 等人关于某些典型的德系神经系统疾病的副作用的工作给予了如此支持。 尽管如此,我的一些亲戚让我很恼火,抱怨很高的智商不足以防止完全愚蠢。
    更有希望的一点:您是否同意个人对睡眠神经效率功能的需求可能是正态分布的,并且对于世俗的成功确实非常重要? 为什么那些重复我们每晚需要 7 到 8 个小时的咒语的人不这样对待呢?

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
  200. @Wizard of Oz

    更有希望的一点:您是否同意个人对睡眠神经效率功能的需求可能是正态分布的,并且对于世俗的成功确实非常重要?

    我不听你的话,这无疑反映了我的无知。 你是说那些需要较少睡眠的人在生活中更成功吗? 如果是这样,我不清楚为什么会这样。 但是对于睡眠的功能似乎知之甚少,以至于个人对睡眠的需求如何影响世俗成功的问题似乎难以评估。

    我自己的信念是,睡眠的进化是为了让我们免于在黑暗中走来走去,免于被兔子洞绊倒或被未观察到的岩石扎伤脚趾。 但显然睡眠还有其他重要的功能,长时间的中断会导致死亡,因此当我感到担忧时,我倾向于闭上眼睛打瞌睡。

    顺便说一下,你如何看待《旁观者》中提出的英国脱欧英国应该重建盎格鲁圈的想法,这是一个包括澳大利亚、新西兰、加拿大和英国在内的自由贸易和自由人员流动区。 我一边看着《每日邮报》上所有肥胖的英国人在布莱顿海滩和其他太阳黑子上欢快地挤在一起的照片,一边想着,想知道以前被称为白人领地的国家是否真的希望所有那些肥胖的英国人蜂拥而至他们美丽的海滩。 我觉得温哥华岛上最好的海滩吸引了少数来自东部的德国人、日本人、中国人和加拿大人,这已经够糟糕的了。 在我看来,向英国全体人民开放将是一场彻头彻尾的灾难。

    • 回复: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Wizard of Oz
  201. res 说:
    @Menes

    更令人信服地证明您无法进行逻辑思考。

    LOL!

    缺乏跟进证明与您的想法完全相反。 很容易反驳发现沃森 25% 是非白人的基因测试结果。 目前还没有人能够做到这一点。 为什么?

    你的意思是同样的测试结果表明他有两条 X 染色体? 你确实看过我附上的那张纸条,对吧?

    鉴于从给定基因组检测祖先的能力在其间的 13 年中显着提高,我很惊讶没有跟进。 同样有趣的是,我一直无法找到 Kari Stefansson 评论全文的主要来源,这些评论最初在 2007 年底引发了媒体围绕这个话题的狂热。这可能不是巧合,这发生在 Watson 发表评论之后不久非洲哪个让他陷入困境?

    让我重复那个笔记中最相关的部分。 请记住,这是来自首先进行分析的人。

    根据 deCODE 的 Kari Stefansson 的说法,该分析依赖于 Watson 全基因组序列的错误版本,而 Stefansson 对此表示怀疑。 . . 16% 的数字是否能站得住脚,'根据使用的数据补充说,'沃森似乎有两条 X 染色体,这将使他成为一个女人。'”

    我相信打破这个故事的媒体很高兴有人像你一样轻信。 现在,如果只有有人会用当前的技术重新审视这个问题。

    PS 有兴趣了解有关 Watson 基因组的更多信息的任何人的一些链接。
    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06884 (2008 年 Nature 论文)
    https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/User:Watson (有他的 SNP,但只是与参考基因组的偏差)
    https://web.archive.org/web/20080705140221/http://jimwatsonsequence.cshl.edu/about.html (他的基因组浏览器不见了,但这个档案可以让你了解它曾经拥有的东西)

    PPS 还有一些关于混合结果有效性的链接。
    http://racehist.blogspot.com/2008/01/graphic-evidence-james-watson-admixture.html
    https://web.archive.org/web/20080614061955/http://www.rootstelevision.com/blogs/megans-rootsworld/2007/12/a_first_look_at_decodeme_dna_r.html

    • 回复: @Menes
    , @Menes
  202. anon[100]• 免责声明 说:
    @Menes

    大声笑,你们两个可以轻松地用所有的投影打开一个移动影院!

    [更多]

  203. res 说:
    @Ron Unz

    谢谢,罗恩。 在我看来,这篇文章包含了您关于西班牙裔智商的大部分数据。
    https://www.unz.com/article/race-iq-and-wealth/

    在这篇文章中,Jason Richwine 断言“由于大量新近移民来自拉丁美洲,我查阅了文献表明西班牙裔智商分数在美国介于白人和黑人分数之间。 这个事实在专家中没有争议,但引用它似乎激起了大部分媒体的强烈反对。”
    https://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/opinion-jason-richwine-095353

    你不同意这种说法吗? 我同意随着时间的推移,美国的 WH 差距已经缩小,并且观察到的与从其他国家移民的西班牙裔人之间的差距可能有一个环境因素可以改善美国的下一代,但我认为没有理由相信是没有基因差距。 规模是否足以引起关注是一个更复杂的问题,我对这方面的工作还不够熟悉,无法判断。

    这里有一系列关于西班牙裔白人智商差距的文章,任何想要更深入研究这个问题的人可能会感兴趣。
    https://humanvarieties.org/category/hispanic-white-iq-gap/

    • 回复: @Ron Unz
  204. res 说:
    @Menes

    我喜欢看到如此纯粹和毫无修饰的投影示例。 你和奥利弗绝对是一对。

  205. @CanSpeccy

    我的观察是,首席执行官、常务秘书、招生官和将军以及高级政治家(就我所能观察到的而言——对军队来说更少:更多的是理论和传记)都倾向于在不到 6 小时的时间内度过睡觉。 与具有同等认知能力(和其他相关特征)的人相比,那些对自己职位面临的威胁保持警惕并能够有效地解决问题的人每天工作更多小时的人往往会更成功,这是有道理的。 不然怎么可能?
    我对正态分布的假设仅仅基于这样一个事实,即许多基因会负责,可能比身高多但比智商少。 而且它也非常适合观察。
    不幸的是,可能有很多人通过与天生需要更少睡眠的人竞争而损害了他们的帮助。 我还在别处指出,一个人每晚只需要 4 小时以保持良好的心理功能,可能需要 7 小时来保持心脏健康。

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
  206. @CanSpeccy

    加拿大没有足够的海滩可供嬉戏玩耍。 如果他们去西澳并把自己当作鲨鱼饵,澳大利亚人几乎不会注意到肥胖的英国人。

    是安德鲁·罗伯茨写的《旁观者》吗? 我曾经很了解他,他当然是可读的,但我在澳大利亚看不到太多,尽管我们当然应该有选择地利用英国退欧,不要比 1790 年代上层阶级送我的第一个澳大利亚祖先时表现出的多愁善感在这里——我想这对我成千上万的澳大利亚表亲大有裨益。

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
  207. @res

    感谢您的澄清以及您在此处提供的所有严格分析。

    对人类行为遗传学的研究,特别是对人类种群差异的研究,对于那些冒险进入这一领域的科学家来说,一直是一个充满危险的领域。

    西方将在这个研究领域落后,仅仅是因为任何挑战平等主义假设的想法都会受到无情的攻击。 但中国人会继续研究人类行为的遗传学,总会发现与高智商和低智商相关的基因。 我们的社会将继续将这些发现视为“种族主义”,并假装只有充满仇恨的人才会相信人类的思维能力和创造力可能存在差异。

    我记得看过拉什顿和铃木之间的辩论,并对铃木对待拉什顿的态度感到惊讶。 这是很多年前的事了,从那时起我就鄙视铃木。

    看看 Arthur Jensen 因敢于研究这件事而受到了多么恶劣的对待。

    EO Wilson 因暗示人类行为受基因影响而成为贱民。 这种诋毁威尔逊的努力的领导人包括 SJ Gould 和 Lewontin,他们都被伟人和好人誉为冷静的学者和高尚的人。

    从那时起,随着艾米·哈蒙 (Amy Harmon) 等清晰的轻量级思想家的庆祝和詹姆斯·沃森 (James Watson) 等人的毁灭,情况变得更糟。

    我敢肯定,对令人不舒服的想法的审查将继续下去。 此外,种族之间在成就和犯罪行为方面的巨大差距将继续由邪恶白人的不道德和种族主义行为来解释。

  208. iffen 说:
    @Sya Beerens

    阿拉巴马州州长大吉姆福尔瑟姆是一位在 XNUMX 年代末和 XNUMX 年代中期任职的真正的新政,他回应抱怨说他的社会福利支出也在帮助黑人,他说:“该死! 黑鬼也是人。”

  209. @res

    我之前在其他地方的其他评论中讨论过这个问题。 我的观点是,限制移民的唯一合理论点是基于对人口过剩和不可持续的人口增长的环境担忧,包括人们从低碳排放国家迁移到高碳排放国家。 然而,只有当人们提出这个论点时才有意义 无儿童 谁想要大幅降低各地的生育率,最重要的是在西方。

    你很容易发现种族主义者或白人民族主义者滥用人口增长论点来限制移民,因为他们自己有孩子和/或不想降低西方的生育率。

    一个例子是塞拉俱乐部的大卫布劳尔,据称他因为担心人口过剩和不可持续的人口增长而想要限制移民,但他自己有四个孩子,并在白人中促进了大家庭。 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brower#Rejoins_and_resigns_from_board

    最近我看到史蒂夫赛勒大肆谈论人口过剩以限制移民,但他自己有孩子,对西方的生育率下降没有兴趣。

    • 回复: @res
  210. Ron Unz 说:
    @res

    在这篇文章中,Jason Richwine 断言“由于大量新近移民来自拉丁美洲,我查阅了文献表明西班牙裔智商分数在美国介于白人和黑人分数之间。 这个事实在专家中没有争议,但引用它似乎激起了大部分媒体的强烈反对。”

    好吧,虽然 Richwine 关于西班牙裔犯罪率的工作是严重错误的,但我不能谴责它的方法论。 然而,正如我在我的链接文章中所讨论的,他的种族/智商分析揭示了他的完全无能:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/raceiq-the-jason-richwine-affair/

    只是没有任何两种方法。 当你在做该学科的博士论文,但似乎完全不了解 20 世纪初期美国族群的智商分数,也不了解 Jensen 和 Eysenck 等领先心理测量学家的相关分析时,你应该受到最大的麻烦你最终会累积。

    正如您所说,我之前在 2012 年的 Race/IQ 文章中已经涵盖了大部分内容,这些文章在 Internet 上引发了大量讨论,您可能还想查看链接在以下位置的十几个后续专栏那件作品的底部:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/race-iq-and-wealth/

    Richwine 显然属于林尼斯学派,理查德林恩和他的亲密合作者发表了对我的批评的冗长回应,但我认为我的反驳非常果断:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/unz-on-raceiq-response-to-lynn-and-nyborg/

    在我看来,这些问题大多在几年前就已经解决了,而 Richwine 在如此狭窄的意识形态圈子中活动,以至于他似乎完全没有意识到早期这些广泛的讨论,这不能归功于他的知识质量,也不能归功于无知的记者谁把他当回事。

    • 回复: @res
  211. @res

    感谢您回答您自己的问题。

    您可疑的说法是某人发表了令人发指/冒犯性的评论并受到谴责或受到公众强烈反对是“受到迫害”。

    因此,在您看来,有人宣扬像恐怖组织这样有争议的东西并作为回应而受到很多严厉批评,是“受迫害”吗?

    你没有提供任何证据表明遗传者实际上受到审查或迫害。 如果有人发表了冒犯性的评论并且有强烈的负面情绪反应——这不是“迫害”。

    你还可笑地声称我“迫害”过人。

    正如我所说,您与分享您的受害者情结的 SJW 有很多共同点。

    • 回复: @res
  212. @res

    值得称赞的是凯文伯德,他至少似乎试图与拉斯克等人进行某种实质性的时尚。 纸。 我对拉斯克等人感到有点失望。 合著者尚未参与 Bird 的论文(据我所知,除了我在早期线程中链接的 Emil 的推文之外),但我的理解是他们正在等待它通过同行评审并正式发布。

    没有其他人接受拉斯克等人。 严重,所以不要费心回应。 Bird 的预印本是该论文的唯一独立引用(正如我所展示的,其他 8 个引用是由 Lasker 等人的合著者和狡猾的 MQ 大多数相同的合著者定期发表在期刊中)。

    作为证据,几乎没有人认真对待合著者:

    如果您查看其中一位合著者 John Fuerst,您会发现除了他自己和 Kirkegaard 以及 MQ 的几个种族主义者之外,几乎没有人引用他的作品。

    在他的 Google Scholar 顶部列出的论文有 42 次引用。

    https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?oi=bibs&hl=en&cites=8003298242431943073

    几乎所有这些都是 Kirkegaard 的,剩下的少数人是 Fuerst 本人和与 MQ 相关的人。

    我可能会提交一份报告,让这些白痴因滥用引用指标而被谷歌学术搜索禁止。 当大约 42 次被一个人引用时,你怎么能拥有一篇有 35 次引用的论文?

    我认为他的论文是 FUD 和球门柱移动的结合。 有关后者的示例,请参见表 1。如果 EA/IQ h^2 为 0.5(根据文献中的估计,这似乎是一个低值,但他使用 0.15、0.35 和 0.5 的值进行计算)他估计16-18% 的全球智商差异归因于“加性遗传分化”。

    肯定不是一个低值 - Jensen 大规模夸大了组内遗传力:

    碰巧的是,有充分的证据表明詹森对智商遗传力的估计确实被夸大了。 Plomin和DeFries(1980)回顾了大量的现代数据,这些数据共同表明,当代西方人群中智商的广泛遗传力约为.50,而不是 Jensen 估计的 .75-.80。

    – 麦肯齐,1984
    https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1985-25462-001

  213. 在不久的将来,与不太可能受环境影响的 G 的稳健测量相关的遗传相关性,例如向后的数字跨度,将被发现。 将发现这些遗传相关性在某些人群中更为普遍,因此在其他人群中不那么普遍。

    尽管有这一发现,我们的文化将继续被那些坚持认为种族之间智力成就或文明成就的任何差异与遗传学无关,而与白人种族主义有关的人所主导。

    他们将继续像现在一样坚信平等主义小说。

    指望它。

    迫害那些认为地球围绕太阳旋转的人的天主教会与现代平等原教旨主义者的虔诚和不容忍毫无关系。

    • 回复: @Oliver D. Smith
  214. CanSpeccy 说:
    @Wizard of Oz

    与具有同等认知能力(和其他相关特征)的人相比,那些对自己职位面临的威胁保持警惕并能够有效地解决问题的人每天工作更多小时的人往往会更成功,这是有道理的。 不然怎么可能?

    如果一个人对睡眠的功能一无所知,那么得出这个结论对我来说是没有意义的。 有理由相信睡眠对于信息处理是必要的,但我们不知道这种处理需要什么。 如果它影响判断力,也许睡眠越多越好。

    唐纳德特朗普似乎睡得不多,把节省下来的时间都花在了推特上。 但我不相信这对他或其他任何人有多大好处。

    • 回复: @Wizard of Oz
  215. @Wizard of Oz

    加拿大没有足够的海滩可供嬉戏玩耍。

    这可能不完全正确,但世界可能会长期相信它。

  216. res 说:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    声称是发表无耻/冒犯性评论并受到谴责或受到公众强烈反对的人是“受到迫害”。

    我断言,伴随着失去工作的那种级别的强烈反对构成了迫害。 您与宣传恐怖组织的比较是……很有趣。 也许您需要重新阅读我上面的错误等效评论?

    你试图把话放在我嘴里的习惯(而不是礼貌地,“你同意……”的方式)是令人厌烦和烦人的。

    你还可笑地声称我“迫害”过人。

    我认为您(自豪地)参与的 RationalWiki 热门文章提供了充分的证据。

    你没有提供任何证据表明遗传者实际上受到审查或迫害。

    说到可笑的说法。 我在这个线程中提供了这样的证据。

    顺便说一句,对于那些真正关注我与奥利弗(受虐狂?;)的讨论的人,请注意我的所有断言和他忽略的问题。

    • 回复: @Oliver D. Smith
  217. @lavoisier

    你正在展示遗传主义者/“种族现实主义者”的另一种奇怪的心理复合体——伽利略策略与迫害复合体具有重叠特征——

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Galileo_gambit

    它使您与否认全球变暖的人和神创论者处于同一条船上(请参阅页面上的示例)。

    实际上,承担伽利略的职责不仅需要你被当权派蔑视,还需要你是正确的——也就是说,有证据支持你的立场。

    策略有多种形式,但在大多数情况下,有人用它来宣传他们的想法会突出他们感知到的迫害. 这种所谓的迫害被夸大了,直到观察者几乎别无选择,只能接受他们的想法,实际上是作为同情投票。 这种策略被用在“不允许智能驱逐”的“纪录片”中,该纪录片关注的是几位据称因为将智能设计作为有效假设而失业的学者。 这部电影将其描述为对学术自由的侵犯,并且 广泛打打迫害牌。 在那些能够沉迷于这种策略的人中, 仅仅反对他们的胡作非为就足以让人相信他们正在受到迫害,因此他们一直都是对的。=

  218. res 说:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    我之前在其他地方的其他评论中讨论过这个问题。 我的观点是,限制移民的唯一合理论点是基于对人口过剩和不可持续的人口增长的环境担忧,包括人们从低碳排放国家迁移到高碳排放国家。 然而,只有在没有孩子并且希望在任何地方大幅降低生育率的人(包括最重要的是在西方),提出这种论点的人才有意义。

    我同意环境论点很重要。 但强烈不同意你的最后一句话。

    在我看来,每个人都有以替代生育率繁殖的基本人权。 有人可能会争辩说,只有当他们能够养活自己的孩子时才适用,但现在让我们把这个想法搁置一旁。 此外,我认为这些陈述适用于个人和团体(例如国家/地区)。

    西方大多数国家目前都低于更替生育率。
    https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/total-fertility-rate

    你是认真地认为他们应该做以下事情吗?
    1. 进一步限制自己的生育能力。
    2. 允许来自尼日利亚等高生育率国家的移民(5.4)。
    3. 不要说在高生育率国家降低生育率。

    这是一个让一个人消失而地球人口仍然过剩的秘诀。

    你很容易发现种族主义者或白人民族主义者滥用人口增长论点来限制移民,因为他们自己有孩子和/或不想降低西方的生育率。

    你的石蕊试纸很有趣。 或者,如果您和许多其他人似乎并不真的这么想的话。

    • 回复: @canspeccy
    , @Oliver D. Smith
  219. @res

    我在 RationalWiki 上因揭露和批评虚假/欺诈性期刊以及与之相关的狡猾人而受到赞誉。 我在这些文章中的批评是由 几乎所有人.

    在 Twitter 上搜索 OpenPsych 并开怀大笑:

    https://twitter.com/search?q=OpenPsych&src=typed_query
    https://twitter.com/search?q=OpenPsych&src=typed_query&f=live

    关于我在 RationalWiki 上的活动的所有其他声明都是 Emil Kirkegaard 散布的虚假谣言和谎言。 例如,他试图将 Bo Winegard 的文章归咎于我,而我从来没有创作过它,也没有反对 Winegard 的内容。 最近,他试图指责一个 Twitter 帐户攻击 Winegard,名为 Creed Barron(或类似的东西),我不拥有。

    • 回复: @res
  220. res 说:
    @Ron Unz

    罗恩,你经常谈论非量化思想家,但我观察到该评论中没有数字,而在你的第一篇链接文章中则很少。 我知道您已经就这个主题写了数十(数百?)数千个字。 但我没有看到你的观点摘要。

    首先,你如何回答我在评论中提出的简单问题? 我已将主要观点加粗。

    在这篇文章中,Jason Richwine 断言“由于大量新移民来自拉丁美洲,我回顾了文献表明, 西班牙裔智商分数在美国介于白人和黑人分数之间. 这个事实在专家中没有争议,但引用它似乎激起了大部分媒体的强烈反对。”
    https://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/opinion-jason-richwine-095353

    你不同意这种说法吗?

    这篇文章解决了 Richwine 的争议,并充分且积极地引用了您的工作。
    https://reason.com/2013/05/17/are-hispanics-too-stupid-to-become-ameri/

    我想重点关注这段摘录中提到的研究(顺便说一句,摘录似乎是 Richwine 观点的一个很好的高级陈述。如果可能的话,你能概括出你不同意的地方吗?)。

    Richwine 引用了克莱姆森心理学家菲利普罗斯及其同事对 39 项研究的评论,这些研究报告说西班牙裔美国人的平均智商 89.2分,. Richwine 还回顾了研究表明,第二代西班牙裔美国人的平均智商和收入确实增加了,但在随后几代人中都没有太大的增加。 Richwine 同意贫穷国家的这些智商缺陷部分是由于营养不良、普遍感染和缺乏足够的教育造成的,但他也认为存在显着的遗传因素。

    是时候量化了。 那篇论文根据 Cohen 的 d 来讨论白人与黑人和西班牙裔之间的智商。 他们给出了黑人的 d = 1.1(表 1)和西班牙裔人的 0.72(表 7)的顶线估计值。 这些转化为黑人 100 和西班牙裔 15 的 IQ 估计值(假设白人 IQ 为 83.5,SD 为 89.2)。

    Richwine 的论文提供了大量数据。
    https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2009-richwine.pdf

    让我们关注表 2.6 移民一代的 ASVAB 族群差异(在 SD 中)
    它提供了对移民智商的估计,特别是第二代移民人数,欧洲人为 101.2(有点选择性移民?),墨西哥人为 87.8,而第二代移民人数为 97.2

    你不同意这些数字吗? 如果是,依据是什么? 你会做出什么样的估计?

    我觉得奇怪的是 3 代以上的移民得分较低——他估计墨西哥移民为 85.6,其他西班牙裔移民为 88.2。

    PS 讨论西班牙裔的一个主要问题是该群体在遗传(和环境)上的多样性。 在拉丁美洲,城市西班牙裔精英与农村 100% 土著有很大不同。 美国境内的“西班牙裔”也存在类似的差异。

    PPS 是的,我知道 Lynn 的国家/地区 IQ 数字存在问题。 与所有国家/地区的 IQ 数字一样。 有些国家不太擅长收集此类数据(顺便说一句,这应该会提供线索)。 让我们关注美国,它实际上在拥有可用数据方面做得很好。

    • 回复: @James Thompson
    , @Ron Unz
  221. res 说:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    所以您“可能是 RationalWiki 的顶级文章创建者”,但与任何那些热门文章无关? 有趣的。
    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/open-thread-88/#comment-3437791

    我在 2012 年创建了我的第一个 RationalWiki 帐户(但在 2010 年进行了一些 IP 编辑),并在过去 7 年中成为了一堆独立帐户的管理员(最着名的是 2015 年的“Krom”),并且可能是顶级文章创建者。

    这清楚地表明您在评论 238 中撒谎。
    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/open-thread-88/#comment-3437654

    我写了一篇反驳诺亚卡尔的说法,见这里:

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Noah_Carl_Controversy:_FAQ_(rebuttal)

    我很清楚 RationalWiki 作为 SJW 的恶名。 然而,我在 RW 上写的许多关于伪科学家的文章现在出现在维基百科上。

    维基百科的声誉更可靠; 很少有人会认为它的 POV 是 SJW,所以我的内容现在不会那么容易被驳回,例如

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPsych
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Meisenberg
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Carl

    Meisenberg 和 Carl 都失去了工作,但我没有参与其中。 我刚刚写了一些 RationalWiki 和 Wikipedia 文章批评它们,以及其他几位与 OpenPsych 相关的伪科学家。

    请注意,有很多人认为解雇诺亚卡尔的决定是一个错误,但即使是他们也承认 OpenPsych 是伪科学并且“在学术上不可靠”。 以下文章为例:

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/05/09/the-lynch-mobbing-of-noah-carl/

    所以事实证明,OpenPsych 的名声甚至比 RationalWiki 更糟糕。 哈哈。

    吹嘘你的所作所为似乎是你的一个根本弱点。

    然后是这个评论。
    https://www.unz.com/article/its-official-again-leftists-particularly-leftist-women-are-nuts/#comment-4087531

    和往常一样,韦尔顿的预测很多。

    他是一位科学的文盲,疯狂的阴谋理论家,他否认人为造成的全球变暖,并持有许多其他关于骗子的观点。 头脑有问题? 照镜子问韦尔顿先生。 https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lance_Welton#Climate_change_denial

    如此多的 RationalWiki 热门文章很好地反映了您的观点,以至于您可以利用每一个机会将它们链接起来,这当然很方便。

    PS既然你对攻击页面没有问题,而且似乎对什么构成迫害有很高的标准,让我们附上一个链接。
    Rationalwiki (Oliver D. Smith) 关于我的攻击页面
    https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?page_id=7034

  222. @res

    感谢您的有益评论。 西班牙裔是一个困难的类别,但另一种方法是研究墨西哥人。 我正在阅读相关的荟萃分析,稍后可能会发表评论。

  223. Ron Unz 说:
    @res

    罗恩,你经常谈论非量化思想家,但我观察到该评论中没有数字,而在你的第一篇链接文章中则很少。

    嗯,那是因为在某些科目中存在可靠的定量数据,而在其他科目中则没有。 不幸的是,我的结论是 Richwine 所依赖的智商结果很明显属于后一类。 Flynn 调整后的智商在短短几十年内发生的极其迅速的变化说明了这一点。

    正如我在 1920 年代和 1930 年代的文章中所指出的,相对于主流白人人口的 80,土生土长的意大利裔美国儿童的智商测试统一将其置于 100 左右,但在一两代人之内,他们的平均水平与白人差不多. 一项大规模且非常严格的研究确定,爱尔兰爱尔兰人的弗林调整智商在 87 年代后期仅为 1960 左右,但在一两代人之内就达到了 100。德国统一后,东方的弗林调整智商德国人在一代人的时间里上升了大约 12-15 个百分点。 在我的长篇文章和许多后续专栏中引用了很长的类似实例的列表。 如果您愿意,只需通读并阅读它们。

    当数据发生如此快速的变化时,以 Richwine 的静态方式使用它简直是荒谬的。 也许他本可以找到解释这些困难的方法,但他似乎完全没有意识到这些困难,这是寻求获得哈佛博士学位的人的一个明显缺陷。 同样,他似乎同样没有意识到 Jensen 和 Eysenck 的分析分析,他们认为环境因素是罪魁祸首。

    我可能不应该让自己被这个主题所吸引,我已经有五六年没有看过了。 但是 Richwine 案例是意识形态倾向如何轻松克服客观分析的完美例子,特别是如果您与之交谈的所有人都相信同一个荒谬的框架。

    • 回复: @Anon
    , @res
  224. @res

    “限制移民的唯一合理论据是基于对人口过剩的环境担忧”

    我建议您和史密斯先生重新审视您的权利概念。 史密斯可能会就他从美国剩余的印第安人、澳大利亚原住民,甚至加拿大新斯科舍省被长期灭绝的 Beothuk 部落的幽灵移民的权利的概念发表评论。

    关于你的评论:

    在我看来,每个人都有以替代生育率繁殖的基本人权。

    你确实意识到这几乎会结束自然选择的过程,不仅会导致人类进化停滞,而且随着有害基因变化在基因库中积累,种群的适应度会逐渐下降?

    权利只能由统治权力授予,理论上,统治权力是民主国家的人民。 因此,史密斯认为在确定谁(如果有人)有权移民时可以忽略人民的利益和偏好,这对于主权民主国家来说完全是不可能的。

    你声称“每个人都有以替代生育率繁殖的基本人权”,尽管它可能会在全民公决中失败,但出于我所说的原因,这不是一个好主意。 显然,合理的公共政策将促进适者生育,更好地为子孙后代提供生存机会。 为此,在我看来,一个拥有聪明领导人的民主国家可以而且应该说服公众需要:

    (a) 对福利再生产实行严格限制,如果不是所有流血的心和社会工作者都急于生产尽可能多的非生产性人口,这并不难实现,以及

    (b) 扭转目前女性生育率与健康/智力之间的负相关关系(大致通过家庭纳税评估)。

    目标 (a) 可以通过相当明显的方式实现,在这里讨论会很乏味。 目标 (b) 可以通过根据父母双方的收入提供大量税收减免来实现,这些税收将以现金形式支付给母亲终生。 这将为偏爱母性而非职业的聪明女性提供显着增加的经济保障。

    您的 (1) 到 (3) 点对叛国党大规模移民到西方民主国家的种族灭绝计划提出了确凿的理由。

    • 回复: @res
  225. Anon[223]• 免责声明 说:
    @Ron Unz

    罗恩
    我一直在关注这场移民辩论以及种族和智商辩论有一段时间了。
    我想知道您是否有任何可靠的数字来说明我们各种移民群体的经弗林调整后的智商应该是多少?
    比如,西班牙裔和白人之间的智商有什么区别,或者白人和中东人/南亚人之间有什么区别,等等。
    真的有人估计过这些数字吗?
    我觉得看第 4 代或第 5 代会是解决这个问题的好方法,但我还没有看到有人真正研究过这些数字。

    • 回复: @Ron Unz
  226. res 说:
    @Ron Unz

    嗯,那是因为在某些科目中存在可靠的定量数据,而在其他科目中则没有。 不幸的是,我的结论是 Richwine 所依赖的智商结果很明显属于后一类。

    所以没有结论 在所有 可以从数据中得出吗? 这似乎完全是警察出来的。

    Flynn 调整后的智商在短短几十年内发生的极其迅速的变化说明了这一点。

    这就是我特别关注第二代移民的原因。 到那时,期望他们与当地人接近相同的弗林轨迹似乎是合理的。

    正如我在 1920 年代和 1930 年代的文章中所指出的,相对于主流白人人口的 80,土生土长的意大利裔美国儿童的智商测试统一将其置于 100 左右,但在一两代人之内,他们的平均水平与白人差不多.
    ...
    在我的长篇文章和许多后续专栏中引用了很长的类似实例的列表。 如果您愿意,只需通读并阅读它们。

    我知道。 但是你有没有注意到你所有的例子都在基因上密切相关? 您是否有任何理由假设西班牙裔和黑人移民也会发生同样的情况? 请注意,我的意思是过渡到接近或高于白色平均值。 我同意我们可以期待增加(就像 Richwine 一样)。

    当数据发生如此快速的变化时,以 Richwine 的静态方式使用它简直是荒谬的。 也许他可以找到解释这些困难的方法,但他似乎完全没有意识到这些

    相反,我认为 Richwine 讨论了变革方面。 特别是参见表 2.6(我参考了它)以及第 42-48 页上的相关讨论(特别注意这里和其他地方的弗林效应引用)。 以下是我认为特别相关的一些摘录。

    然而,每一代都具有可比性的假设是可疑的。 NLSY 受访者出生于 1957 年至 1964 年之间,1965 年后移民政策改为偏向低技能移民。 大约 75% 的 NLSY 移民在 1965 年后来到美国,这意味着第一代和第二代之间的差异可能只是反映了政策而不是代际智力增益。
    ...
    然而,有四个理由相信真正的智力差异在很大程度上是造成考试成绩差异的原因。 首先,NLSY的大多数移民是在美国上过学的年轻人。 其次,即使在控制受教育年限的情况下,本地人在数学考试中的得分也远高于移民。 第三,因子分析表明,移民和本地人的子测试的g-loadings基本相同。 第四,对于大多数族群来说,子测试负载与本地移民 d 之间存在正相关关系

    我对 Richwine 的工作不够熟悉,无法对其进行整体判断,但我确实认为我提出的观点都是有针对性的,并且得到了很好的支持。 我看到你所做的只是逃避(特别注意我的明确问题完全没有答案)和散布修辞(注意形容词),例如:“意识形态倾向很容易克服客观分析,特别是如果你谈论的所有人相信同样荒谬的框架。”

    • 回复: @Ron Unz
  227. @res

    所以您“可能是 RationalWiki 的顶级文章创建者”,但与任何那些热门文章无关? 有趣的。

    是的。 因为 95% 我的文章创作与个人无关。 在数百页中,我只制作了大约十几页关于个人的内容。 我的大部分页面创建和编辑都与人无关。 像柯克郭尔一样,你完全歪曲了我的活动。 例如,我创建了 RationalWiki 的大部分关于古人类学主题(包括人类起源模型)、非达尔文进化论和替代宇宙学的页面。 那些“热门作品”怎么样?

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Multiregional_hypothesis
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Assimilation_model
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Recent_African_Origin_hypothesis
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-Darwinian_evolution
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alternative_cosmology

    我用来在网站上“骚扰”人们的想法是公然的错误信息——我的大部分编辑和页面创建不是针对个人而是针对科学主题的,并获得了良好的反馈。 无论如何,我不再编辑维基。 我只链接到它的文章,如果它们在讨论中有用。

    这清楚地表明您在评论 238 中撒谎。

    不,它只会让你不诚实并断章取意。

    我在上面的评论 #238 中说过,我创建了有关与 OpenPsych 相关的人的文章。

    Noah Carl 是 OpenPsych 的第二位顶级文章撰稿人,也是其“评论”团队的成员。
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Noah_Carl#OpenPsych

    所以我没有对任何事情撒谎。 更多你的投影。

    PS既然你对攻击页面没有问题,而且似乎对什么构成迫害有很高的标准,让我们附上一个链接。
    Rationalwiki (Oliver D. Smith) 关于我的攻击页面

    我通常不在乎 Kirkegaard 写的关于我的内容,因为他散布关于我的谎言和荒谬的指控长达 4 年之久,而且没有人认识我并阅读过该页面的人会认真对待任何荒谬的说法。 我从来没有费心写过详细的反驳。

    尽管我确实阻止了搜索引擎并且 五月 采取法律行动的是 Kirkegaard 在他的网站上上传了我自己的旧照片,上面写着“恋童癖”。 但话又说回来,我不确定我是否会继续起诉诽谤,因为我知道我不是恋童癖,所以我为什么要真正关心我认为非常精神错乱的人,写关于我生活在 5000 年的谎言几英里以外? 这一直是我的态度。 我比 Kirkegaard 更支持言论自由。

    • 回复: @res
  228. res 说:
    @canspeccy

    我想知道是否有人会接受我的那句话; )

    真诚地,谢谢你。 这是一次比我与奥利弗的谈话更有趣的谈话。

    首先,我要指出的是,我在这句话后面加上了“人们可以争辩说,只有在他们能够养活自己的孩子的情况下才适用,但现在让我们把这个想法搁置一旁。” 这是对你的观点的点头。

    称其为权利是(故意)挑衅性的语言。 我会通过称之为有抱负来稍微限定一下,并指出我更倾向于不允许人们积极阻止繁殖(例如奥利弗和韦斯特),而不是保证他们能够繁殖。

    作为实用的观点,我倾向于同意你的目标。 作为澄清,我认为“福利再生产”是指在享受福利的同时生孩子。 在我看来,接受福利的一个条件是一个人在福利期间没有额外的孩子,这似乎是合理的。 尽管细节变得复杂(例如,任何形式的福利?为了生孩子而跳进和跳出福利怎么样?如何保证和制裁违规?)。

    我想知道您设想的税收减免是否足以实现您的目标。 我认为问题的很大一部分是在流行文化中对女性职业的美化而不是母性。 不仅仅是财务方面。

    当谈论上述替代生育率时,事情变得更加复杂/有趣。 我有一些朋友,我看着并想:我很高兴你有三个(或更多)孩子(他们都将成为我们社会的资产)。 但我认为这对于人口众多的西方社会来说不是一个好的规范。

    PS 我很好奇你对我的声明的团体与个人版本的看法。

    • 回复: @canspeccy
  229. res 说:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    像柯克郭尔一样,你完全歪曲了我的活动。

    你的意思是引用你自己的评论?

    重读你的评论 238 我确实看到了你的“与它有关的狡猾的人”的陈述,这足以成为一种资格,我称之为谎言是不公平的。

    也就是说,为了透明起见,也许您可​​以概述您在哪些特定用户名下编辑过的个人的哪些 RationalWiki 页面? 我不想歪曲你的活动。

    • 回复: @Oliver D. Smith
  230. canspeccy 说:
    @res

    Re: everyone has a basic human right to reproduce at a replacement fertility rate.

    PS 我很好奇你对我的声明的团体与个人版本的看法。

    If by group, one means sovereign state, then there is no body that can confer or deny the right to reproduce at whatever rate the people or its government chooses. I suppose the UN might try to jaw-bone states such as Nigeria (projected population of 800 million within eighty years) to slow down a bit. But I see no obvious means of enforcing such an objective short of war and oppression.

    So long as humanity remains organized on the basis of sovereign states, population policy, if any, will be determined primarily on a national basis. The rational objective of population policy should reflect the need for national security, most fundamentally the ability of the nation to continue to exist as a genetic entity. (One might say continue to exist as a race, but that would likely lead to an unproductive diversion on the definition of race and the relation of race to nation, etc. Better than either term might be “bearers of a gene pool,” but that sounds weird.)

    As a question concerning national survival, population policy must consider both quantity and quality. The probability is that the Western nations are grossly overpopulated. Whereas, in times past, most work was achieved by muscle power, human or four-footed, today there is virtually no demand for a “labor” force. Moreover, whereas wars used to be settled by mass armies slugging things out with pikes and bayonets, the outcome of the next big war may already have been settled by the coding of critical computer systems. In future, therefore, national survival will surely depend on a population policy focused on quality.

    In times past, the wealthy tended to produce more surviving offspring than the poor. Insofar as intelligence in all its manifestations generally favors the acquisition and retention of wealth, humans have thus long been under selection for intelligence. Democracy, however, has changed the rules in such fashion as to favor reproduction by the poor not the rich. In the interest of national security, this needs to be reversed and could be reversed, for example through the application of intelligence to public policy relating to taxation, quota hiring of women (or is it people with a cervix we now have say), public education (i.e., state-controlled propaganda), and reproduction on the dole.

  231. Ron Unz 说:
    @res

    On the contrary, I thought Richwine discussed the change aspect.

    Well, I remember reading his entire doctoral dissertation at the time, which got posted online. As far as I recall, he dismissed all the copious American IQ data from the first part of the twentieth century by saying all our leading psychometricians back then were “racists.” I actually read several of the books from that era, and the authors seemed scrupulously careful scientists (very much unlike Richwine!), and not crazy “racists.” So I actually think it serves Richwine right that he himself was soon purged as a “racist.”

    If you feel you can throw around wild accusations of “racism” to eliminate all the data you don’t like, you’re not a serious scientist.

    Personally, I’m pretty sure that Richwine is one of those “soft-core WNs” I described in a recent article, or at least opportunistically seeking funding in those quarters.

    And what about Jensen and Eysenck? I never bothered trying to track down Jensen’s paper, but he claimed his examination of the IQ structure suggested the effect was overwhelmingly environmental, and his analysis persuaded Eysenck. If Jensen and Eysenck both agree on that sort of technical psychometric issue, that’s good enough for me. Go ahead and look up Jensen’s paper if you’d like, and maybe you’ll discover he was wrong.

    When you can find many, many cases of large-sample Flynn-adjusted IQs jumping around by 10-20 points in just a generation or two, you need to be very cautious in treating them as hard quantitative evidence.

    • 回复: @res
  232. Ron Unz 说:
    @Anon

    我想知道您是否有任何可靠的数字来说明我们各种移民群体的经弗林调整后的智商应该是多少?
    比如,西班牙裔和白人之间的智商有什么区别,或者白人和中东人/南亚人之间有什么区别,等等。

    Well, for the reasons I cited in my series of articles, I’m very cautious about taking any of these IQ subsamples very seriously. On the other hand, it really seems pretty likely that different ethnic groups have somewhat different IQs, also including different Verbal, Math, and Spatial subcomponents.

    因此,如果您强迫我进行猜测,我会怀疑在完全环境均衡的基础上,美国的西班牙裔人的智商会比白人平均数低 3-5 个百分点,可能(如东亚人)在空间方面略高一些并且在语言方面稍弱。

    Similarly, I wouldn’t be surprised if South Italians generally fell into the same range. I remember that Lynn found that South Italians in South Italy had IQs of something like 85 back in the 1980s. (It was years ago, so my numbers are probably a little fuzzy).

    Maybe Middle Easterners might be similar. South Asians are much more complex since they almost certainly have a multi-modal structure based upon caste and sub-caste.

    • 回复: @JohnnyWalker123
  233. @res

    在我看来,每个人都有以替代生育率繁殖的基本人权。

    For clarification, I do no support any coercive measures to prevent people procreating. If someone wants 1, 3, 5, 10 or 22 children they have the right to do so. And I oppose any form of eugenics.

    My position is simply voluntary childlessness. People have the choice not breed. Simple.

    As for non-coercive ways to cut fertility rates: the most humane and practical way is empowering women by giving them the full opportunity of education. The number of years a woman has spent in education is usually inversely correlated with the number of children she will bear in her lifetime.

    On top of this, people can simply learn why deciding not to have children is the most environmentally positive thing. For example, being child-free is the most effective method to reduce carbon emissions.

    西方大多数国家目前都低于更替生育率。
    https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/total-fertility-rate

    你是认真地认为他们应该做以下事情吗?
    1. 进一步限制自己的生育能力。
    2. 允许来自尼日利亚等高生育率国家的移民(5.4)。
    3. 不要说在高生育率国家降低生育率。

    1. Yes. For example, in the US the carbon footprint of a child is roughly 58.6 metric tonnes annually, whereas that of a Malawian child has been estimated between 0.07 and 0.1 metric tonnes. Or to use another example, a person in the UK produces 70倍 the CO2 of someone in Niger.

    If you’re concerned about the environment and the climate crisis, we have to drastically cut fertility rates in the Western world. ‘Mythbusting’ what you posted is also explained well here –

    “BIRTH RATES ARE LOW IN EUROPE AND AMERICA – THIS IS JUST AN ISSUE FOR OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD.”

    “People in the developed world, such as Europe and America, have a disproportionate impact on the planet. For example a person in the UK produces 70 times the CO2 of someone in Niger. That means that fewer people being born in these countries has the most immediate and positive impact on our environment, climate and sustainability设立的区域办事处外,我们在美国也开设了办事处,以便我们为当地客户提供更多的支持。“

    https://populationmatters.org/mythbusting

    2. I would support restricting immigration from any countries with low per capita carbon emissions to high per capita, as well as supporting balanced migration to prevent population growth. However there seems to me no humane or practical way to do this, so it’s futile. Anyone who wants to limit immigration will (understandingly) become associated with accusations of racism and xenophobia, because limiting immigration is a talking point of right-wing populists and the ‘far-right’. Since there’s no humane or practical method, it’s not something I now dwell on, although I used to talk a lot more on this issue like a decade back because mainstream politicians then were too afraid to tackle or even mention it. That’s no longer really the case today because of the rise of populism since the mid-2010s (Brexit, Trump, etc).

    3. Certainly they are overpopulated too like everywhere and I support declining fertility in every country, but the reason I focus more on declining fertility rates in the West is explained in 1.

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
    , @Oliver D. Smith
  234. Menes 说: • 您的网站
    @Menes

    Speaking of Afro-Caribbeans, Biden just picked Kamala, the daughter of Jamaican-born Stanford Professor, Donald Harris as his running mate:

  235. @res

    你的意思是引用你自己的评论?

    重读你的评论 238 我确实看到了你的“与它有关的狡猾的人”的陈述,这足以成为一种资格,我称之为谎言是不公平的。

    That said, in the interest of transparency perhaps you could outline which RationalWiki pages on individuals you have edited under which specific usernames? I would not want to misrepresent your activities.

    I have been clear since 第一天 when I’ve discussed the articles (contrary to Kirkegaard’s many misleading claims and lies about my activities) I created the OpenPsych and MQ:

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/OpenPsych_pseudojournals
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mankind_Quarterly
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_Kirkegaard
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Edward_Dutton
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gerhard_Meisenberg
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Noah_Carl
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Aurelio_J._Figueredo
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/John_G.R._Fuerst
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Heiner_Rindermann
    (not a full list, but the bulk of them)

    Note though these articles have been edited by different users over the years and the current pages look little like how I originally made them in 2016-2018 and I don’t necessarily agree with all the edits, nor am I responsible for those I didn’t make.

    If it’s not someone associated with OpenPsych or MQ, it’s very unlikely I created it.

    I have already explained why I focused on OpenPsych and MQ – the former is a phoney journal that has no formal peer-review, and the people who publish in it are dodgy. And the latter is an infamous racist journal that has been widely criticised since the 1960s, so it also attracts dodgy people.

    All the other pages on legitimate/non-dodgy intelligence researchers on RationalWiki (i.e. people not publishing in OP/MQ)- I never created nor have an issue with, however, Kirkegaard has blamed me for writing them with the intention of causing animosity between me and these people. And this includes people emailing me legal threats for content I’ve not even written based on Kirkegaard’s unfounded allegations. Furthermore, I believe it was Kirkegaard’s strategy to misrepresent me as an “SJW attacking intelligence researchers” to discredit me, when that was never what I was doing.
    Nevertheless, a bunch of his close friends (uncritically) copied his falsehoods.

    As an example I did not create either of the Bo and Ben Winegard articles:

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ben_Winegard
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bo_Winegard

    The latter was created last month and I’ve never made a single edit on it:
    https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Ben_Winegard&action=history

    These brother’s are followed around by SJWs, not me.

    Nor did I create Richard Haier, Robert Plomin or Intelligence (journal):

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Robert_Plomin
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_Haier
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Intelligence_(journal)

    I disagree with much what is written on Haier’s & Plomin’s article and they should be deleted. I also never created the Eric Turkheimer and Kathryn Paige Harden articles.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eric_Turkheimer

    注意我 banned the creator of these articles and voted to delete them. Harden’s article was deleted for pure character assassination and lies, and Turkheimeer’s was completely re-written after I left complaints.

    10:16, 1 May 2019 Tobias (talk | contribs) blocked CBH (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Harassment: troll who was creating attack pieces with lies that have had to be completely rewritten like Eric Turkheimer))
    https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ACBH

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Eric_Turkheimer

    So as you can see it’s complete BS and an absurd lie I “attack intelligence researchers”.

    • 回复: @Anon
  236. @Oliver D. Smith

    I oppose any form of eugenics.

    As for non-coercive ways to cut fertility rates: the most humane and practical way is empowering women by giving them the full opportunity of education.

    LOL

    Your not for eugenics but you wish to promote dysgenics by further lowering the fertility of the most educable women, i.e., the most intelligent.

    Crazy, or worse.

    • 回复: @Oliver D. Smith
  237. @Ron Unz

    因此,如果您强迫我进行猜测,我会怀疑在完全环境均衡的基础上,美国的西班牙裔人的智商会比白人平均数低 3-5 个百分点,可能(如东亚人)在空间方面略高一些并且在语言方面稍弱。

    I’ve noticed that Meztizo Hispanics are disproportionately concentrated in professions in which one needs strong hands-on skills, like carpentry, construction, home repair, etc. I wonder if this could reflect their relatively strong spatial skills.

    I’ve also noticed that “White” Hispanics (like Cubans) seem to do much better in verbal careers, like politics and entrepreneurship. Maybe they skew more towards verbal and less towards spatial.

    • 回复: @Ron Unz
  238. @CanSpeccy

    It seems that the time Trump gives to extending his ad lobbing self into the Twittersphere has been an indispensable element in the extraordinary swathe he cut through a big Republican field and then captured the electoral college votes where it counted so it did him good if you don’t believe in an afterlife! Apparently Margaret Thatcher was notoriously on top of her many briefs and able to catch out her sleepier colleagues. And then there are those ubion officials who control political parties because everyone else is too exhausted by 3 am…. Mind you I think much of that achievement is often alcohol fuelled and so those woth the healthier livers may have an additional advantage m.

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
  239. @CanSpeccy

    I don’t know what dsygenics is, so Googled it.

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dysgenic

    tending to promote survival of or reproduction by less well-adapted individuals (such as the weak or diseased) especially at the expense of well-adapted individuals (such as the strong or healthy)

    I don’t see how you got this from my views and argument.

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
  240. Ron Unz 说:
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Sure, that seems plausible. Plus I think a significant number of the highest-end white Cubans are at least substantially Jewish, with an extreme Verbal skew.

    And I think the pattern is even clearer if you focus on the Meso-American Hispanics, like the MexAms, who are probably over 75% of the total. Their higher-performing individuals are far more likely to become engineers than lawyers or financiers, partly because the latter professions are considered a little “dishonest.” My guess is that it’s a mixture of genetic and cultural factors, reinforcing each other.

  241. @Wizard of Oz

    It seems that the time Trump gives to extending his ad lobbing self into the Twittersphere has been an indispensable element in the extraordinary swathe he cut through a big Republican field…

    If Trump ever got a decent night’s sleep maybe he’d say something sensible. As it is, he has Twittered away so much credibility with his late-night driveling that he headed for near certain defeat by the serial plagiarizer, past opponent of desegregation and clearly demented Joe Biden.

    • 回复: @Wizard of Oz
  242. @Pft

    “Africans carry surprising amount of Neanderthal DNA
    作者:迈克尔·普莱斯詹。 30 年 2020 月

    十年来,遗传学家一直在讲述尼安德特人(或至少是他们的DNA序列)如何在当今的欧洲人,亚洲人及其后代中生存。 这个故事在非洲人中并非如此,因为现代人类和我们的灭绝表亲仅在非洲以外地区杂交。

    A new study overturns that notion, revealing an unexpectedly large amount of Neanderthal ancestry in modern populations across Africa. It suggests much of that DNA came from Europeans migrating back into Africa over the past 20,000 years. ”

    • 回复: @Franklin Ryckaert
  243. @CanSpeccy

    Perhaps we can focus on the energetic plumber with an IQ of 100 who worked at plumbing 15 hours a day and spent 4 hours researching the real estate opportunities he saw thanks to his plumbing – now construction and real estate holding – business which puts him in some Forbes list.

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
  244. res 说:
    @Ron Unz

    And what about Jensen and Eysenck? I never bothered trying to track down Jensen’s paper, but he claimed his examination of the IQ structure suggested the effect was overwhelmingly environmental, and his analysis persuaded Eysenck. If Jensen and Eysenck both agree on that sort of technical psychometric issue, that’s good enough for me. Go ahead and look up Jensen’s paper if you’d like, and maybe you’ll discover he was wrong.

    I’m not a fan of the “name drop a prolific researcher (Arthur Jensen wrote over 400 papers, Hans Eysenck wrote about 80 books and over 1600 papers) and claim he supports me without giving a specific reference” game, but I’ll at least try to play along.

    The most recent paper from Jensen I see on the topic is this.
    https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

    There he seems to affirm the differences, but gives no numbers and makes no comment on genetics vs. environment.

    Because the means for Blacks and Hispanics are lower on tests of academic and vocational achievement, such as the SAT, the General Aptitude Test Battery, and the ASVAB, than those for Whites and East Asians, some have claimed the tests are racially biased. Yet the evidence reviewed and the distributional model predict that such differences will occur worldwide (see Section 3). This is supported by the fact that these tests have about equal predictive validity for all groups who speak the same language and have been schooled in the culture of the test.

    That paper gives three references from Eysenck and fifteen references with Jensen as first author.

    The most recent Eysenck reference is this, but I can’t find a PDF.
    https://mankindquarterly.org/archive/issue/32-1/8

    The 1984 Eysenck reference is a book chapter with a substantial (but very equivocal IMHO) discussion of genetic vs. environmental explanations for racial differences. This is the closest thing to a conclusion I see (page 285). PDF of the book is available on Libgen.
    https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4684-4658-6_8

    11. It is suggested that, although no certain conclusions can be drawn from the evidence so far available, the trend of the results reported is, on the whole, in favor of some form of genetic differentiation between racial groups, responsible for some but certainly not all of the observed differences. Quantitative estimates of the degree of genetic involvement are hazardous in the extreme, and none are attempted here.

    Eysenck’s 1971 book: Race, Intelligence and Education
    https://muse.jhu.edu/article/406402
    sounds promising, but is focused on blacks.

    I did not see any discussion of Hispanic environmental vs. genetic differences in Jensen’s The g Factor, but it is possible I missed it. It is a big book.

    Jensen’s 1973 book Educability and group differences has a great deal of discussion about “Mexicans.” This page from Emil has a link and some comments.
    https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=4132

    That book does have what seems to be a VERY relevant discussion on pp. 306-312

    It tends to confirm your point IMO. I am concerned about it being based on two particular tests though. I think that makes the methodology vulnerable to differing average ability profiles by race. Perhaps one of the experts here could comment on how that might affect the analysis?

    Some excerpts.

    Next, consider the white-Mexican comparison. Here we see that the Mexican regression line is above the white regression line for the regression of Raven on PPVT (upper graph in Figure 17.5), and the Mexican regression line is below the white regression line for the regression of PPVT on Raven (lower graph in Figure 17.5). This state of affairs is predicted only by Hypothesis 1. Thus we see that the results for the Negro-white comparison are predicted by one hypothesis (Hypothesis 3), and the results for the Mexican-white comparison are predicted by another, although both the Negro and Mexican groups are regarded as disadvantaged and score lower than whites on IQ and scholastic achievement tests. It is most interesting that each of the two sets of ethnic comparisons is consistent with a different hypothesis.

    Finally, consider the Negro-Mexican comparison. For the regression of Raven on PPVT the Mexican regression line is above the Negro, but just the reverse is true for the regression of PPVT on Raven. This result corresponds to Hypothesis 1 in Figure 17.3, i.e., the hypothesis GA < GB and EA > EB, where A and B represent the Negro and Mexican groups, respectively. That is, the finding is consistent with the hypothesis that the Mexican group is genetically equal to or higher than the Negro, but environmentally or culturally disadvantaged relative to the Negro group. Since the Mexican group was also found equal to or higher than the white group genetically in this analysis, and the white group is genetically higher than the Negro (i.e., Hypothesis 3), it follows that the Mexican group genetically is not equal to but higher than the Negro. (That is, if Mexican > white > Negro, then Mexican > Negro.) The results are well comprehended within the framework of these alternative hypotheses. Those who think in terms that are exclusively environmental, however, are usually deeply puzzled by the results shown in Figure 17.5. If (in the lower graph) for any given score on the less culture-loaded test (Raven) whites get the highest score on the more culture-loaded test (PPVT) and Mexicans get the lowest, with Negroes intermediate, it seems to make perfectly good sense from the culture-bias or environmentalist hypothesis. But then when we look at the upper graph in Figure 17.5, we see that for any given score on the culture-loaded test the Mexican gets the highest score on the culture-fair test, and this surely seems to make sense from the environmentalist standpoint. But the Negro group’s regression line does not come next – instead it is well below the white group’s regression line. In other words, if you match Negro, Mexican, and white children on the culture-loaded test, their scores on the more culture-fair test come out with Mexicans highest, Negroes lowest, and whites intermediate. This seems paradoxical to the environmentalist. It is predictable from the hypothesis formulated in Figure 17.3, which involves hypothesizing group differences in both genetic and environmental factors for explaining the Negrowhite and Negro-Mexican differences. On the other hand, for these data at least, the hypothesis of only an environmental difference is compatible with the Mexican-white comparison. This methodology is presently being extended to other tests and other subpopulations. In terms of these formulations, it is already apparent from preliminary analyses that California Orientals bear a similar relationship to whites as the Mexicans bear to the Negroes, that is, a higher average genotype and lower average environmental advantages.

    That is very interesting. I find it surprising that I am unable to find an equivalent discussion in The g Factor 25 years later. Any thoughts why that might be?

    Feel free to give your own SPECIFIC Jensen and Eysenck references if you don’t like those.

    Here is a paper somewhat similar to the Lasker et al. paper we are discussing, only it includes Hispanics.
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332610894_Biogeographic_Ancestry_Cognitive_Ability_and_Socioeconomic_Outcomes

    And here is a plot of of cognitive ability vs. percent European ancestry for Hispanics.

    I commented on that graphic in this iSteve post.
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/biogeographic-ancestry/#comment-2790072

    Emil’s Rpubs for that paper breaks down Hispanic ancestry by European, African, and Amerindian.
    https://rstudio-pubs-static.s3.amazonaws.com/259501_069f8c321aa340449f109066bb1fdf8d.html

    The Amerindian effect is rather small with by my eye no effect being (just) within the confidence interval. As is typical though, the African effect is larger.

    P.S. I’ll also note that your comment was again full of evasion and rhetoric. Hard data and real references, not so much. Doesn’t seem much like the comment of a “serious scientist” to me. Perhaps people who are occupying a glass house should go a bit easier on the stone throwing? And before you point me to tens of thousands of words worth of your articles or entire bodies of work from prolific researchers how about giving some 具体的 references which respond to MY points?

    • 回复: @Ron Unz
  245. Ron Unz 说:
    @res

    Eysenck’s 1971 book: Race, Intelligence and Education…Jensen’s 1973 book Educability and group differences has a great deal of discussion about “Mexicans.”

    Actually, the 1971 Eysenck book approvingly quoted long sections of Jensen’s analysis on pp. 120-126, though I never bothered looking at Jensen’s original material, which he apparently later included in his 1973 book. I stumbled across it by accident while doing some follow-up reading on my Race/IQ article 7 or 8 years ago. The fact that Richwine apparently never noticed it while doing a Harvard Ph.D. dissertation on exactly that issue hardly speaks to the quality of his research skills.

    P.S. I’ll also note that your comment was again full of evasion and rhetoric. Hard data and real references, not so much.

    Look, you’re a fanatic IQist, and that’s perfectly fine, but don’t misrepresent someone who raises serious doubts about your religious dogma.

    The point I repeatedly made in my articles and mentioned in this thread is that there are a plethora of large-sample IQ results for various ethnic groups that jump around by 10-20 points during just a generation or so even after Flynn-adjustment. So I think that the data is just too noisy and changeable to rely upon in the way IQists do.

    You still haven’t explained why you think Italian-American schoolchildren used to have IQs of around 80, but are now close to 100, or why the IQ of Ireland Irish rose by around 15 points in about a generation, or why Jewish-American IQs rose by almost as much during the 20th century. There are many, many additional cases along these lines.

    Richwine seemed to think it was because the past generations of psychometricians were all “racists” so maybe that’s your explanation as well…

    • 回复: @res
  246. @Oliver D. Smith

    For example, being child-free is the most effective method to reduce carbon emissions.

  247. Anon[311]• 免责声明 说:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    One of the authors of the Lasker study, Kirkegaard, filed a defamation suit against you.

    结果是什么?

    I noticed Kirkegaard mentioned the suit on his website, and elsewhere a while back, but suddenly went silent and nothing about it has been mentioned since.

    I assume given his change from mentioning it and almost boasting he was suing you, to silence, the outcome was not so good for Kirkegaard. Or am I mistaken?

    • 回复: @Oliver D. Smith
  248. @Anon

    He lost the lawsuit by discontinuance (he won £0 damages) and is liable to pay my legal costs. It is though taking me a long time to sort out the latter – I’m still working on the bill of costs and money he owes me.

    Of course as you noted his behaviour changed. Until he realised he lost, he was harassing me across the internet about it with his friends (I got comments such as I “would be made bankrupt” and “100% lose”) and uploading legal letters and documents to his website to intimidate me. He loses, and then he all of sudden goes silent about it… Obvious humiliation and his only strategy now is to try to brush it under the carpet.

  249. @Oliver D. Smith

    I don’t know what dsygenics is, so Googled it.

    你是说你 没有做 know. But since you just looked it up, presumably you do know now, unless you already forgot.

    tending to promote survival of or reproduction by less well-adapted individuals (such as the weak or diseased) especially at the expense of well-adapted individuals (such as the strong or healthy)

    I don’t see how you got this from my views and argument.

    Your idea was:

    As for non-coercive ways to cut fertility rates: the most humane and practical way is empowering women by giving them the full opportunity of education.

    so why not think about that a bit.

    You’re saying female education cuts the fertility rate, so the more education a woman has the fewer children she will have.

    And which women will have the fewest children?

    QED,对不对?

    • 回复: @lavoisier
    , @Oliver D. Smith
  250. @Wizard of Oz

    Perhaps we can focus on the energetic plumber with an IQ of 100 who worked at plumbing 15 hours a day and spent 4 hours researching the real estate opportunities he saw thanks to his plumbing …

    This plumber sounds an awful bore. A sort of blue-collar Trump. He should work less, get a prescription for sleeping pills and try to develop some worthwhile cultural or intellectual interests. For example, he could take up collecting antique plumbing hardware, toilet seats and the like, an activity that might, by virtue of the Flynn Effect, raise his modest IQ by a point or two.

  251. @CanSpeccy

    Agree of course.

    But then I could not understand why anyone would be confused based on your original comment.

    • 回复: @res
  252. res 说:
    @Ron Unz

    Actually, the 1971 Eysenck book approvingly quoted long sections of Jensen’s analysis on pp. 120-126, though I never bothered looking at Jensen’s original material, which he apparently later included in his 1973 book. I stumbled across it by accident while doing some follow-up reading on my Race/IQ article 7 or 8 years ago. The fact that Richwine apparently never noticed it while doing a Harvard Ph.D. dissertation on exactly that issue hardly speaks to the quality of his research skills.

    Thanks for finally including a specific reference. I missed that discussion because I searched for Hispanic rather than Mexican (and forgot to go back and double check after seeing the Jensen version).

    I would like to emphasize this excerpt from page 124 (emphasis mine).
    (1) Mexican-American children are by far the lowest in socioeconomic status, being over three times as much below the whites as are the negroes. (This statistic does not take into account the additional fact, very important for school work, that English is the only language spoken in the child’s home in 96.5% of white homes, 98.2% of negro homes, but only in 19.7% of Mexican-American homes; in the lastmentioned homes, Spanish or some other foreign language is the only language spoken in 14.2% of all cases!) Thus on an environmentalist hypothesis, Mexican-American children should do much worse than negro children on IQ tests and school work. (2) On tests of non-verbal intelligence, i.e. culture fair tests, Mexican-Americans are hardly inferior to whites; both groups are markedly superior to negroes. (3) On verbal IQ and school achievement, MexicanAmericans are still superior to negroes, although inferior to whites. (4) On rote memory, negroes are equal to whites, Mexican-Americans are inferior in both groups. These results would seem to defy explanation in purely environmentalistic terms.

    The discussion of subgroups on pp. 127-128 is also interesting. And the pages through 140 provide a vigorous argument against environmentalism. Followed in the Epilogue by a vigorous argument against affirmative action.

    Unfortunately, though it has a list of further reading, Eysenck’s book does not give explicit references in the text. I 认为 this is the relevant Jensen paper with the original work we are discussing.
    A. R. Jensen et al ‘Environment, heredity and intelligence’, Harvard Reprint Series No 2, 1969
    I am not finding that book in its entirety, but this page appears to have the relevant papers (but I don’t see the analysis we are discussing).
    https://arthurjensen.net/?p=838

    This also seems somewhat relevant (but not concerning group differences).
    A. R. Jensen ‘Estimation of the limits of heritability of traits by comparison of monzygotic and dizygotic twins’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, No 58, 1967
    https://www.pnas.org/content/58/1/149

    This 1973 paper has an exposition of the results we are discussing.
    https://arthurjensen.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/How-Biased-Are-Culture-Loaded-Tests-1973-by-Arthur-Robert-Jensen.pdf
    It references this 1968 paper which I think is the original source (based on the book publication dates).
    Jensen, A. R. Another look at culture-fair tests. In Western Regional Conference on Testing Problems, Proceedings for 1968, “Measurement for Educational Planning.” Berkeley, Calif.: Educational Testing Service, Western Office, 1968. Pp. 50-104.

    That is reference 71 at https://arthurjensen.net/?page_id=9 but they don’t give a link. And I can’t find either that book or the reprint they mention.

    As I noted earlier, my big concern with this work is that by using the PPVT and Raven’s Matrices Jensen was as much detecting differences in cognitive profile (e.g. verbal vs. spatial) as he was differences in culture fairness.

    I just searched g因子 for Peabody and PPVT and am finding no mention of this work. That does not encourage me. Does anyone know if my cognitive profile concerns have been discussed in the 50 years since this work was done?

    Look, you’re a fanatic IQist, and that’s perfectly fine, but don’t misrepresent someone who raises serious doubts about your religious dogma.

    LOL! Which is why I spent hours digging around for vague references from you which run counter to my priors. And where exactly have I misrepresented you?

    Ron, you really are a bit quick with the ad hominems these days (I have been seeing you do it with other commenters as well). Reread my comments and notice that I have criticized your comments (for rhetoric and evasion) but not you personally. And I stand by my comments there. In fact, I think this most recent comment of yours just further validates them.

    The point I repeatedly made in my articles and mentioned in this thread is that there are a plethora of large-sample IQ results for various ethnic groups that jump around by 10-20 points during just a generation or so even after Flynn-adjustment. So I think that the data is just too noisy and changeable to rely upon in the way IQists do.

    That is one reason 也不 you nor I should have complete confidence in what we believe. But it is hardly a compelling argument for the genetic gap being zero. BTW, I find your comments 251 and 259 quite reasonable. Not sure why you are being so hostile to my points if those are your more specific views. Perhaps you have decided I am on the “other side” for whatever reason?

    You still haven’t explained why you think Italian-American schoolchildren used to have IQs of around 80, but are now close to 100, or why the IQ of Ireland Irish rose by around 15 points in about a generation, or why Jewish-American IQs rose by almost as much during the 20th century. There are many, many additional cases along these lines.

    Because no one has asked me until now? Improved environment and cultural adaptation (e.g. language) seem adequate to explain that. Though I think we both are well aware that the causes of the Flynn Effect are not settled science.

    The question is whether the more recent immigrants will rise to the same average (or near enough so as not to matter) as natives. And neither you nor I I know the answer to that with certainty. Don’t pretend you do.

    The same argument has been and still is being made with respect to blacks. Do you think the B-W IQ gap in the US is ever going to close to 0? If not, which pieces of evidence do you find compelling there which are lacking in the Hispanic version of the question?

    BTW, if you look at my comments above you will notice my focus on 2nd generation immigrants. This was the reason.

    Richwine seemed to think it was because the past generations of psychometricians were all “racists” so maybe that’s your explanation as well…

    I’m not a big fan of the “putting words in my mouth” gambit. You are better than that.

    • 回复: @Ron Unz
  253. res 说:
    @lavoisier

    Being willfully obtuse seems to be one of Oliver’s tactics. It is not an endearing characteristic.

    FWIW, that is how I interpreted his original “I don’t know what dsygenics is” statement. I suppose it is possible for someone to talk as much about these topics as he does and not have ever run across it, but is it likely?

    Notice that the RationalWiki hit piece on Emil uses the word “dysgenics” multiple times.
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_Kirkegaard

  254. @CanSpeccy

    You’re saying female education cuts the fertility rate, so the more education a woman has the fewer children she will have.

    And which women will have the fewest children?

    QED,对不对?

    Women who stay in education the longest usually have the fewest children, but women who spend longest in education won’t necessarily all be smart. What is the average IQ of a university student? Seems to vary a lot depending on the subject studied.

    Anyway, my concern and argument has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence.

    There are more humane (non-coercive) and practical methods to reduce fertility rates, not just empowering women through opportunity of education. I only mentioned the latter because it has been very effective in reducing fertility rates (see the charts or diagrams I already posted).

    One might point out that women in the Western world already have good opportunities to a long education, however, there is still sexism that prevents them from having equal opportunities such as in jobs. Some women opt to stay at home and have kids because of encountering sexism, so they choose kids over career. I would like to see that reversed.

    • 巨魔: mikemikev
  255. @res

    Actually it only quotes one of Kirkegaard’s tweets when he uses the odd term:

    “Dysgenics is real. Eugenics or Western civilization dies. Choose wisely.”

    Dysgenics > eugenics look very similar. Most people not familiar with the word would think they’re the same thing. Furthermore, when this quote was first added to the page in 2018, dysgenics was not mentioned because of probable confusion with the same word.

    https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Emil_Kirkegaard&diff=1965082&oldid=1963858

    优生学

    Nonsurprisingly for a far-right racist, Kirkegaard is supporter of [[eugenics]], writing without eugenics, “Western civilization dies”.
    http://archive.is/URqek

    I have no familiarity with the term, nor likely do other editors on the article.

    • 回复: @metagross
  256. Ron Unz 说:
    @res

    Ron, you really are a bit quick with the ad hominems these days

    Well, perhaps I’m mistaken but I had the clear impression that you’d never previously bothered to read my long series of articles on Race/IQ from a few years ago, and that greatly irritated me. At the time, they provoked an enormous amount of Internet discussion on that topic, probably more than anything else had in many years. Here’s a link to a summary of the debate and the topic series:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/raceiq-the-entire-series-and-debate/

    https://www.unz.com/author/ron-unz/topic/race-iq/?ItemOrder=ASC

    Indeed, Nicholas Wade cited my analysis in his 2014 book, and that citation soon became the central point of controversy between him and the 139 leading geneticists who signed the letter denouncing him and demanding that he be purged from the media:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/raceiq-should-scientists-bother-reading-the-books-they-denounce/

    Towards the end of my original article, I had summarized my conclusions in the following paragraph:

    现在,我们面临着一个比智商本身更大的谜团。 鉴于Lynn和Vanhanen向反对自己的“坚强智商假说”的人提供了强大的弹药,我们必须怀疑,为什么尽管他们据称熟悉,但在那无尽的,激烈的智商争执中却从未引起任何交战营地的关注这两位杰出学者的作品。 实际上,我建议林恩和凡汉宁预言的长达300页的工作构成了与智商确定论者相对立的游戏终结目标,但没有哪个竞争意识形态团队注意到这一点。

    https://www.unz.com/article/race-iq-and-wealth/

    I think others came to similar conclusions. I remember that one or two of the most energetic IQists on the Internet actually abandoned their previous beliefs, and shut down the websites at which they’d previously spent years promoting IQism.

    Again, I might be entirely mistaken and perhaps you had indeed read my articles, but simply came to different conclusions. But if you’re a zealous IQist and you’d never bothered reading my articles, I think my annoyance was fully justified.

  257. canspeccy 说:

    perhaps I’m mistaken but I had the clear impression that you’d never previously bothered to read my long series of articles on Race/IQ

    I have read one or two of your articles on race versus IQ and thought them informative and interesting. However, your assumptions about that question are open to challenge on several grounds. For example, you say,

    Although “intelligence” may be difficult to define precisely, most people have accepted that IQ scores seem to constitute a rough and measurable proxy for this trait

    Here I think is reflected a widespread and serious misapprehension, or rather two misapprehensions: namely, (1) that intelligence is a “trait” rather than a collection of traits; and (2) that intelligence is independent of the environmental history 0f the organism, e.g., education, but by no means limited to that (which is why country folk, are smarter than city folk at distinguishing a bull from a cow).

    In this assumption, you take the IQist view, that IQ tests provide an estimate of a property called “general intelligence,” or for greater scientific cred., just g – as basic as a fundamental constant in physics. But for reasons that I have noted briefly 此处, the brain isn’t like a computer. There is no central processing unit that determines computing power, FLOPS or IQ. Rather:

    The brain is the product of evolution. It is built on the Rube Goldberg principle. A bunch of junk put together and then endlessly tested in the struggle for existence, endlessly modified by mutation, and endlessly retested.

    The end product of this evolutionary process does all kinds of amazing things in amazing ways, but not in the neat tidy ways a good engineer would design things to work, but maybe completely crazy ways, but ways that work nevertheless — somehow, just…

    The result is that intelligence is not one thing. It is not the product of one bit of brain or one brain module. It is the product of numerous neurological modules and networks, each doing its own thing, each dependent on its own particular structure and biochemistry, each subject in its development to its own set of controlling genes. Did you know that, in the male brain, there’s even a specialized knot of neurons that seems to have no function except to light up at a girl’s smile? Cool.

    And that’s why intelligence is not a “trait”, singular, and why IQ tests don’t measure intelligence.

    Yes, IQ tests measure competence at various intellectual tasks, competence at which may, if combined with other advantageous traits, promote material and social success in Western society. But those competences are of a narrow range and depend for maximum expression on extensive Western-style education. There are many other forms of intelligence, as the dictionary defines that term, and different forms of intelligence depend on different neurological systems, the genetic determinants of which, in the individual, vary more or less independently, and the phenotypic expression of which depend on the environmental history, including education, of the individual.

    So attempting to rank people differing in race, culture or creed by means of an IQ test is absurd. You can compare Paganini with Pearlman and perhaps decide who is the better violinist, or you can compare Feynman with Clerk Maxwell to decide who was the greater physicist. But to compare Einstein with J.S. Bach or W. Shakespeare to decide who is most intelligence is ridiculous. Those guys were each among the best at at what they were best at, and what the three were best at were different things, each with a distinct neurological and experiential basis. And beside what they were best at, they may have been complete clutzes.

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
  258. @Ron Unz

    I agree with your views on race/race and IQ, excluding this one issue:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/does-race-exist-do-hills-exist/

    Today, when people speak of “races” they are almost invariably referring to the continental-scale mega-races such as Asians, Africans, and Europeans. These “races” certainly exist and are highly meaningful and distinct in genetic terms, with blogger Steve Sailer slyly noting that the cover of Prof. Luca Cavalli-Sforza definitive tome on human genetic diversity displays a colored worldwide map looking much like what Sen. Strom Thurmond in his dotage might have drawn on a napkin with crayons.

    But I would argue that restricting the term race to merely that small handful of huge groupings is extremely wasteful and we are far better off also applying the term to its traditional meaning, typically aimed at much smaller population groups. One hundred years ago, every educated individual casually used phrases such as “the Anglo-Saxon race,” “the Hungarian race,” and “the Chinese race,” and this is exactly the usage to which we should restore. To be sure, these particular genetic population clusters are naturally grouped into higher-level clusters as well—with Russians, Ukrainians, and Poles all being branches of the larger Slav race, itself a component of the European mega-race, but the word can remain flexible in scale without producing any serious confusion. All these groups are exactly the sort of natural statistical clusters that regularly appear during genetic population analysis, and we might as well use the traditional popular term for them rather than inventing an entirely new one.

    In contrast what I argue is only those ‘smaller population groups’ are meaningful to population genetics and bio-medicine, not aggregates/clusters of them at the continental level (it’s incorrect the small populations are naturally grouped into higher-level clusters; any clustering is arbitrary.) I therefore like William W. Howell’s change of Livingstone’s (1962) aphorism “There are no races, there are only clines” –> to “There are no races there are only [local] populations”.

    I find larger-scale/continental groups aren’t at all useful to study, unless analysing traits under climatic selection. Similar conclusions were reached by the anthropologist Grover Krantz (气候种族和后裔群体, 1980) yet few people have read that book.

  259. @res

    I submitted deletion request pages for 所有 my RationalWiki articles on individuals. If they’re causing conflicts, delete them – I don’t want the hassle.

    Anatoly Karlin, Emil Kirkegaard, etc., could have had their pages deleted.

    所以发生了什么事?

    Well, these same people who complained I wrote hit-pieces on them like you are complaining now voted to keep their articles I voted to delete. You really couldn’t make it up…

    Karlin has trailed me across the internet for 2 years moaning about his page, when I requested and voted for its deletion out of good faith:

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Articles_for_deletion/Anatoly_Karlin

    Now who voted to keep the article despite still complaining about it non-stop:

    Keep. As the “subject”, I get a vote, right? The world must be made aware of my insane levels of hate. Akarlin (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

    Yep Anatoly Karlin voted to 保持 his article when I voted to delete it.

    I always told you I was not dealing with sane people.

    I gave these people who complain about the articles an opportunity to delete them but they refused, but these people still follow me across the internet complaining about their pages. Karlin has made like 100 tweets complaining about his RationalWiki, while attacking me (despite he voted to keep his page I wanted deleted). It’s insane.

  260. CanSpeccy 说:
    @Ron Unz

    As you have most likely noticed, I responded to yours at #275 with a comment at #276, inadvertently doing so without a link back.

  261. res 说:
    @Ron Unz

    Well, perhaps I’m mistaken but I had the clear impression that you’d never previously bothered to read my long series of articles on Race/IQ from a few years ago, and that greatly irritated me. At the time, they provoked an enormous amount of Internet discussion on that topic, probably more than anything else had in many years.

    As you can see from my comment history, I started commenting at The Unz Review in 2014, and I was reading a bit before that. My familiarity with your work dates from about then (though I had seen some of your comments elsewhere and found them insightful, big part of the reason I came here) so I missed those Race/IQ debates happening in real time. Since then I have read a number of your articles on the topic, but not all and not systematically. I certainly don’t claim to have anything like an encyclopedic knowledge of them.

    Here’s a link to a summary of the debate and the topic series:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/raceiq-the-entire-series-and-debate/

    https://www.unz.com/author/ron-unz/topic/race-iq/?ItemOrder=ASC

    Thanks! After looking through those links I see there were more articles than I realized (17). Providing the list of your own articles in the second link (most from 8 years ago, not “a few years ago”) earlier would have helped me find your most relevant articles. Some of which I had not read.

    Towards the end of my original article, I had summarized my conclusions in the following paragraph:

    I think adding your definition of the “Strong IQ Hypothesis” from that same article helps gives some context to your excerpt.

    Lynn 和 Vanhanen 工作的中心论点可以称为“强智商假说”,即智商准确地反映了智力,智商绝大多数由遗传决定,智商在我们调整后几乎不受或没有显着的文化或经济影响对于普遍的弗林效应。

    You contrast that with “Weak IQ Hypothesis,” which I don’t see given an equally detailed definition (at https://www.unz.com/runz/raceiq-is-it-game-over/ you describe it as “which suggests a much more limited genetic influence upon IQ”). But I suspect comments 251 and 259 above (which, as I said before, I find reasonable) provide an example. In particular, this excerpt from comment 251 mentions differences in both group averages and ability profiles (note relevance of the latter specifics to my Jensen PS).

    因此,如果您强迫我进行猜测,我会怀疑在完全环境均衡的基础上,美国的西班牙裔人的智商会比白人平均数低 3-5 个百分点,可能(如东亚人)在空间方面略高一些并且在语言方面稍弱。

    FWIW, that statement seems completely consistent with my comment 222 request for clarification.

    As I see it there are a few issues here which could stand clarification and/or discussion.
    1. Hispanic is a very imprecise category. Your more detailed comments and in particular your articles are much better at being clear about this by focusing on particular subsets (e.g. Mexican-American, but even that lacks precision).
    2. Individual pairs of populations vary greatly by how strong/weak the IQ hypothesis is in their particular case (e.g. my comments are full of statements about the Europe/Africa IQ differences having a more significant environmental component than the US B/W IQ differences).
    3. For particular population pairs (e.g. US white natives and children of Mexican immigrant) we could use more effort at estimating the differences and the relative balance of genetic and environmental effects.
    4. “Strong” and “Weak” are very qualitative terms. I think that tends to add to the heat vs. light ratio for this conversation. It would be helpful to have some discussion of ranges. For example, I might approximate strong as 80-100% genetic and weak as 0-20% genetic, with a range of intermediate possibilities which I don’t think fit either term that well. I think other people can differ greatly in their implicit priors for those ranges. Note that by my lights your 3-5 IQ point estimate for a possible Hispanic genetic gap falls into the intermediate range.

    I tend to view your work more as a valuable corrective to some of Lynn et al.’s more extreme positions rather than as a decisive refutation of their ideas in total (trying to understand your points in detail and whether or not you have gotten the balance right is more the focus of my questions). IMHO this conversation could use a bit more of people working together to come up with a range of agreement and less dividing into hostile opposing camps.

    At some point do you plan to update your Race and IQ work to include more recent developments like:
    – IQ GWAS and PGS.
    – Admixture analysis of the sort described in Lasker et al. (2019) which is the topic of this blog post.
    – Davide Piffer’s work looking at correlations of worldwide IQs and IQ PGS results.
    ? These techniques offer far more powerful ways of looking at the genetic vs. environmental contribution to IQ question than were available in 2012 (much less 1970).

    P.S. Any thoughts on my concern about the Jensen Mexican-American work being vulnerable to influence by differing ability profiles? That work seems to be a linchpin of your argument:
    https://www.unz.com/runz/raceiq-a-coda-on-mexican-american-iq/
    and I am sincerely concerned about how little mention of it I see in more recent work (e.g. The g Factor). BTW, linking that specific article earlier would have saved us (me in particular) some time.

    • 回复: @res
  262. Manuel 说:

    Fucking idiots, IQ inheritance is not the canonical 70% you’re talking about, but 100%, because you don’t consider the test-retest differences.

  263. . “Strong” and “Weak” are very qualitative terms. I think that tends to add to the heat vs. light ratio for this conversation. It would be helpful to have some discussion of ranges. For example, I might approximate strong as 80-100% genetic and weak as 0-20% genetic, with a range of intermediate possibilities which I don’t think fit either term that well. I think other people can differ greatly in their implicit priors for those ranges. Note that by my lights your 3-5 IQ point estimate for a possible Hispanic genetic gap falls into the intermediate range.

    The hereditarian hypothesis for B-W was originally 50%-75%:

    All the major facts would seem to be comprehended quite well by the hypothesis that something between one-half and three-fourths of the average IQ difference between American Negroes and whites is attributable to genetic factors, and the remainder to environmental factors and their interaction with the genetic differences

    – Jensen, 1973, p. 363

    Later Jensen revised this to 80%:

    Jensen’s (1998b, p. 443) latest statement of the hereditarian model, termed the default hypothesis, is that genetic and cultural factors carry the exact same weight in causing the mean Black–White difference in IQ as they do in causing individual differences in IQ, about 80% genetic–20% environmental by adulthood.

    It seems between-group heritability in general (not B-W specific) he estimated 50%:

    Based on research models used in behavioural genetics, this view contends that a substantial part (say 50%) of both individual and group differences in human behavioural traits is genetic… a 50% genetic–50% environmental etiology for the hereditarian view…

    – Jensen and Rushton, 2005

    More recently however, the hereditarian hypothesis has been lowered to above 20%:

    Rather, we attempt to make the philosophical and theoretical case that hereditarianism—the view that a substantial proportion (20% or more) of differences in psychological traits within and among human popu-lations is caused by genes—is more fruitful, parsimonious, and pro-ductive than is environmentalism—the view that almost all of the dif-ferences in psychological traits either within or among human populations is caused by environmental force

    – Winegard et al. 2020
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339502675_Dodging_Darwin_Race_evolution_and_the_hereditarian_hypothesis

    So this leaves:

    0-19% environmentalism
    above 20% hereditarianism

    I consider this range to be too high for the environmentalist view. As I mentioned elsewhere my cut- off would be 12.5% based on Loehlin et al. 1975.

    0-12.5% environmentalism
    above 12.6% hereditarianism

    It seems though since hereditarianism is such a big range (either using my own or Winegard et al. ranges), this can be split into ‘moderate’ and ‘strong’ divisions. The latter would refer to Jensenism i.e. the original hereditarian hypothesis.

    Perhaps we can agree the environmentalist view was never only 0.

    • 回复: @Oliver D. Smith
    , @res
  264. @Oliver D. Smith

    I don’t support the idea proponents of hereditarianism are censored or persecuted – they’re clearly not because they have had their articles published in mainstream journals. However, there’s no denying Jensen’s hereditarian hypothesis is widely considered to be racist and its proponents are commonly labelled white supremacists, Nazis, far-right, and so on. Considering I spent 5 years looking into people who support Jensenism and writing their RationalWiki articles – I found this to be virtually always the case. The hereditarian hypothesis with very few exceptions is supported by people with extreme right wing views.

    What is interesting to me is how 中度 proponents of hereditarianism (not Jensenism) have avoided all these labels and are not accused of racism. Loehlin et al. 1975 are a good example since they argue the evidence best favours either environmentalist or moderate hereditarianism interpretations. They estimate B-W heritability is 0.125. These ‘moderate’ (or weak) hereditarians have avoided the racist label because their more moderate viewpoint doesn’t seem to attract white nationalists and the far-right. I cannot find any bad racist-type ‘associations’ for John C. Loehlin nor has he ever made any offensive comments on race, although he’s a eugenicist which I find distasteful.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Loehlin

    In contrast, the typical Jensenite will be connected to racist/white supremacist groups like the Pioneer Fund etc., the dodgy OpenPsych, Mankind Quarterly, etc., while having a history of making racist comments. Davide Piffer calling immigrants from Africa to Italy “gorillas” is a good example. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Davide_Piffer#Racism

    If hereditarianism is ever to be taken serious, it needs more Loehlin’s and less Piffer’s.

  265. res 说:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    You might want to pay more attention to this point.

    2. Individual pairs of populations vary greatly by how strong/weak the IQ hypothesis is in their particular case (e.g. my comments are full of statements about the Europe/Africa IQ differences having a more significant environmental component than the US B/W IQ differences).

    0-12.5% environmentalism
    above 12.6% hereditarianism

    Keep moving those goalposts. You just make it more likely that “hereditarianism” is correct by decreasing that threshold.

    Perhaps we can agree the environmentalist view was never only 0.

    No. Plenty of evidence to the contrary. I might be able to agree with something like: “the sane environmentalist view in private conversation was never only 0.”

    • 同意: lavoisier
    • 回复: @Oliver D. Smith
  266. @Charles Martel France

    You are probably talking about the white Hamites of North Africa, who have to a certain extent also mixed with sub-Saharan Africans (especially in the Horn of Africa). Pure Negroids with no Hamitic admixture have no Neanderthal admixture.

  267. @res

    2. Individual pairs of populations vary greatly by how strong/weak the IQ hypothesis is in their particular case (e.g. my comments are full of statements about the Europe/Africa IQ differences having a more significant environmental component than the US B/W IQ differences).

    Hence Jensen estimated 50% in general for populations, but 50-75% and later 80% specifically for US B-W.

    Keep moving those goalposts. You just make it more likely that “hereditarianism” is correct by decreasing that threshold.

    I’m not a proponent of hereditarianism – it is proponents of hereditarianism themselves who are now lowering the threshold and weakening their hypothesis:

    “…the view that a substantial proportion (20% or more) of differences in psychological traits within and among human populations is caused by genes” – Winegard et al. 2020 [note by “among” it is clear in their paper they mean between, so they are talking about both within/between-group heritability being above 20%]

    A much similar occurrence is in the more broad debate about whether races exist (my position is they don’t, but it is not me weakening my viewpoint, instead it’s you pesky ‘race realists’ again…):

    “The problem with weak versions of racial naturalism is that they do not contrast with anti-realism about biological race. When race naturalists weaken their position they end up agreeing with their opponents about human biology, and defending a trivialised definition of race.”
    – Hochman, 2014

    It is not environmentalists weakening their hypothesis, but hereditarians. Since Winegard and other hereditarians move the thresholds and weaken the hereditarian hypothesis – I might as well play along. As I explained, my preference would be to now divide moderate hereditarianism from Jensenism because otherwise the hereditarianism range is too big.

    No. Plenty of evidence to the contrary. I might be able to agree with something like: “the sane environmentalist view in private conversation was never only 0.”

    Disingenuous. You know this is a straw-man. The environmentalist view was never zero heritability. And usually when you find someone who claims 0, they don’t deny the 可能性 of above 0 – this includes a Marxist scientist:

    “Theorists such as Lewontin have never denied the possibility of genetic influences; what they have denied is that there is any convincing evidence of any genetic influences.”
    – Knapp et al. (1996)

    • 回复: @mikemikev
  268. @Ron Unz

    I hope I remembered to thank you many years ago for saving me the time and effort of finishing Lynn & Vanbenen’s book looking accusingly at me from the bedroom mantel piece when I remember reading of Australian Aborigines and Khoi San peoole having IQs under 60 and being told solemnly by Rushton that it wasn’t absurd or just useless. Your observations of rapid large increases in measured IQs that obviously weren’t genetically caused made immediate and convincing sense. And, as you know, I came to h-bd with respect for Eysenck and Jensen and a principal interest in defending Australia from continued dysgenics (as well as immediate cultural retrogression) by – inter alia – maintaining de facto selection of immigrants for IQ. Now I have a request to you, being so much better read and otherwise equipped on these questions than I, that you give us your analysis and solution of the big Flynn Effect puzzle that presumbly nobody mentions because old lefty Flynn is no man’s yes man when it comes to saying the fashionably acceptable.

    The problem is this. The Flynn Effect is strongest on the supposedly culture fair Raven s Matrices rather than on the tests which are at least in part of crystallised intelligence such as typical verbal and math tests. How come? And it is quite obvious to anyone who tests himself that Raven’s Matrices, even if “culture fair” (as to which I would have a few questions of experienced psychometricians**) that there can be a big training effect.

    ** one question would be how far age of test taker and cultural background affects the time it takes to neutralise the training effect and achieve level playing field.

    Here, for the more committed amti-IQists is something which should keep up their courage though not I think likely to do much for the confronting evidence about African-Americans. From today’s Australian Finan city Review:

    20 mins ago – 5.51pm
    Rwandan researcher creates algorithm to save precious tests
    路透社

    Like many countries, Rwanda is finding it impossible to test each of its citizens for the coronavirus amid shortages of supplies. But researchers there have created an approach that’s drawing attention beyond the African continent.

    They are using an algorithm to refine the process of pooled testing, which tests batches of samples from groups of people and then tests each person individually only if a certain batch comes back positive for COVID-19. Pooled testing conserves scarce testing materials.

    Rwanda’s mathematical approach, the researchers say, makes that process more efficient. That’s an advantage for developing countries with limited resources, where some people must wait several days for results. Longer waits mean a greater chance of unknowingly spreading the virus.

    Those behind the algorithm have expressed some pride that a potential solution to a dogged problem in the global crisis is coming from Africa. Experts have noticed. Sema Sgaier, a Harvard assistant professor of global health, called the Rwanda approach an example of the “incredible solutions in very resource-poor settings” that have come out of the continent.

    The method developed by Wilfred Ndifon, a mathematical epidemiologist and director of research at the African Institute for Mathematical Sciences Global Network in Rwanda’s capital, Kigali, is now being turned into software that will guide lab technicians, minimising human error.

    Rwanda has one of the lowest confirmed virus caseloads in Africa with over 2,100 infections, and the World Health Organisation has pointed to the country as one that has done well in responding to the pandemic. Rwandan authorities have credited citizens with cooperating with the government’s guidelines.

    The East African nation has conducted more than 300,000 tests for the virus. Each test costs about \$US50, Ndifon said, but their approach saves more than half of that money.

  269. @Ron Unz

    PS Many of the extreme IQ ists fail to even mention the fact that – apart from lacking Neanderthal and Denisovan contributions , genetic variety in Africa is huge and greatly in excess of Eurasian variety. They must be very boring people not to notice how gorgeous a high proportion of East African women are. Many, even if they aren’t winning marathons have beautiful fine noses that they must have got from the Nilotics even when they identify as Bantu.

  270. mikemikev 说:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    20% or more doesn’t mean 20% it means 20-100%.

    • 回复: @Oliver D. Smith
  271. @mikemikev

    Yes I know, although arguably the range is 20-99% since virtually no hereditarian argues 100%. There’s a quote from Hans Eysenck in one of his books who criticises 100%.

    None of this matters to me as this range isn’t realistic.

    There’s no evidence for above-0 between-group heritability-

    仍然没有充分的理由相信黑白智商差异是由于基因引起的
    https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/6/15/15797120/race-black-white-iq-response-critics

    My personal view though is genetic factors are trivially involved based on probability, but this is only based using Jensen’s reasoning ‘High within-group heritability cannot prove between-group heritability, but it does increase the a priori likelihood of finding genetic components in the average difference between groups.’ I see no contradiction between this and acknowledging there’s “no good reason” to believe black-white IQ differences are due to genes because we lack any direct scientific evidence while strong claims of hereditarianism >50% are arguably falsified by transracial twin adoption studies and various other things I’ve already discussed in my comments above.

    • 回复: @mikemikev
  272. mikemikev 说:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    Another thing is that Bo’s numbers are the range of estimates which could be called hereditarian, versus Jensen’s estimate, so you’re comparing things in different categories, i.e. not making sense.

  273. @res, @mikemikev or anyone else who thinks this like Thompson:

    This is a very important study. I have had to summarize, and the detail about dealing with precise methods and possible confounding is in the text of the paper. Does this paper wrap up the issue of genetic factors in racial differences in intelligence? It is hard to see what else the authors could have done to carefully test the genetic hypothesis. It appears to be a solid result.

    If Lasker et al. 2019 is an important study and “wraps up the issue of genetic factors in racial differences in intelligence” –

    1. Why is it published in a low-tier journal with a bad reputation?
    2. Why are virtually no scientists (excluding Kevin Bird) citing or taking serious the results of the study? The paper has 9 citations but 8 of them are self-citations by co-authors or are from 人类季刊.

    https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=3407205024582536480&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en

    • 回复: @mikemikev
  274. @res

    I have found Oliver doesn’t lie about his accounts, but at the same time isn’t exactly truthful since he knows the person behind accounts that aren’t him are his 孪生兄弟.

    Oliver has a twin (born 1990); Ben and Bo Winegard’s RationalWiki articles were created by the twin named Darryl who edits RationalWiki as Johns (formerly John66). So while Oliver is telling the truth he didn’t create these pages, he doesn’t point out his brother did-

    https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Johns&target=Johns
    https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Ben_Winegard&action=history

    17:47, 30 July 2020‎ Johns (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,078 bytes) (+2,078)‎ . . (Created page with “{{race}} ”’Benjamin Mark Winegard”’, best known as ”’Ben Winegard”’ is an American right-wing psychologist and HBD pseudoscience advocate. He writes articles for Qui…”)

    There is a blogger (an old man) who has spent hundreds of hours going through the accounts and matching them to Oliver’s brother:

    http://coldfusioncommunity.net/anglo-pyramidologist/darryl-l-smith/skeptic-from-britain/john66/
    http://coldfusioncommunity.net/anglo-pyramidologist/rationalwiki-smith-brothers-conspiracy-theory/

    Some people confuse Oliver with his brother’s accounts on RationalWiki, and Emil Kirkegaard seems to have done this. For example, the user ‘Skeptical’ who Kirkegaard criticises for making edits on his RationalWiki hit-piece, is Darryl, not Oliver.

  275. @Colin Wright

    “To put it differently, try driving around a town like Tuskegee, Alabama, and studying the local fauna. The best and the brightest did not stay down home on the farm.”

    Where did these supposed “best and brightest” go?

    底特律?

    I’ll take the farm boys any day.

  276. mikemikev 说:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    Why do you change the subject when shown to be false, only to make the exact same point at another time? Are you going to admit that what you were saying is false?

    • 回复: @Oliver D. Smith
  277. res 说:
    @Anon

    It lasted less than half an hour (per the Fossil record).

    This is like a soap opera. If only I was able to just change the channel.

    These links provide some more background (in addition to the links in comment 294).
    http://coldfusioncommunity.net/anglo-pyramidologist/identity/
    https://www.tefter.io/bookmarks/45215/readable

    • 回复: @Oliver D. Smith
  278. res 说:
    @Dugan

    It is worth noting that regression to the mean moderates those trends in the next generation. For both cases.

  279. vinteuil 说:
    @Old Palo Altan

    Fortunately, they didn’t rape him, or challenge him to dueling banjos.

  280. @mikemikev

    No, because nothing I posted was false:

    20% or more doesn’t mean 20% it means 20-100%.

    I never said 20% or more means only 20%.

    Another thing is that Bo’s numbers are the range of estimates which could be called hereditarian, versus Jensen’s estimate, so you’re comparing things in different categories, i.e. not making sense.

    I was simply discussing different estimates for between-group heritability in the literature. Jensen has 50% (but 50-75% and later 80% specifically for B-W) while Winegard et al. have above 20% (20-100%).

    I then said it would make more sense to split Winegard’s and Jensen’s ranges into “moderate” (or weak) and “strong” hereditarianism. The latter being Jensenism.

    0-20%:环保主义者
    21-49%: moderate hereditarianism
    50-100%: strong hereditarianism (aka Jensenism)

    I said though I would prefer to lower environmentalist to 12.5%.

    • 回复: @mikemikev
  281. @TG

    1. If white people are so darned smart, how come they are losing

    My working hypothesis for this (and I agree with you, compared to the astonishing lead countries of European origin had over the rest of the world in spring 1914, the current situation of Japan, Taiwan, Singapore being more productive per capita and better places to live means the west is clearly losing) is that our (speaking as a citizen of one of the less astonishing western countries) advantage was the systemic prejudice in favour of men.

    This prejudice died away (for no good reason apart from fashion, there was little to nothing to demonstrate any economic advantage to it) with feminism, and several decades out this has made itself manifest in societal leadership positions. And Angela Merkel lets in 400,000 middle eastern young men to Germany, what a surprise, they end up attacking young German women, and Theresa May manages to make no decisions at all regarding Brexit.

    But I don’t think the big systemic decisions are actually the issue. I believe that the economic advantage higher IQ countries enjoy is a result of the compounding of individual decisions, and Theresa May and (my personal) interaction with any institutional body heavy on women demonstrate that women prefer to make fewer decisions than do men. So fewer decisions, less to compound, less relative advantage.

    I also believe that the differential between the sexes is likely smaller in East Asia, in large part because of the female suicide figures. China is likely the only country in the world where female successful suicide is close to that of men. In every western country, women commit suicide at a much lower rate than do men (women *试图* suicide, by measure of report attempts, at a much higher rate); that counts strongly towards the decisiveness of East Asian women.

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
  282. mikemikev 说:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    Winegard wasn’t making an estimate, he was defining the word hereditarian. One could agree with that definition while being an environmentalist, or having no opinion on BGH. They’re two different things. True or not?

    • 回复: @Oliver D. Smith
  283. @canspeccy

    I am amused though not particularly surprised that neither Ron Unz nor anyone else has risen to the challenge of showing that G, or general intelligence, which is what IQ tests are supposed to estimate, is more than a triviality likely accounting for no more than 10%, and certainly no more than 20% of the variation among individuals in specific manifestations of intelligence.

    • 同意: Oliver D. Smith
  284. @Aidan Kehoe

    You raise an interesting question, but there is probably much more to the answer than you suggest. Among the advantages of the West in the year 1900 was the fact that they got the industrial revolution first, were able therefore to accumulate great quantities of capital thereby to raise the productivity of labor and the standard of living though infrastructure and industrial investment.

    However, this fundamental advantage diminished in significance as:

    (a) globalization transferred technology from West to East;

    (b) a Western assumption of intellectual and moral superiority allowed social developments that had huge negative impacts on labor productivity — union labor monopolies, for example;

    (c) the West abandoned meritocracy for “social democracy,” a system that handicaps the best and the brightest, while imposing a huge overhead on economic activity, e.g., the UK ridiculous Health Service, among the most dysfunctional holy cows on earth;

    (d) the Western nations murdered a large proportion of their most able men in the trenches during WW1, while the Russians and the Germans repeated the insanity in WW2.

  285. @mikemikev

    They define hereditarianism (or the “hereditarian view”) by the estimate.

    Here’s what Winegard et al say:

    We do not attempt to provide a completely comprehensive tour of the evidence on cognitive ability differences among human populations(see Jensen, 1998; Nisbett et al., 2012;Rushton & Jensen, 2005). Rather, we attempt to make the philosophical and theoretical case that hereditarianism—the view that a substantial proportion (20% or more) of differences in psychological traits within and among human populations is caused by genes—is more fruitful, parsimonious, and pro-ductive than is environmentalism—the view that almost all of the differences in psychological traits either within or among human populations is caused by environmental forces. We therefore urge scholars to overcome their understandable squeamishness and dis-comfort with hereditarianism to discuss it honestly and judiciously, so that researchers can fulfill the promise of the Darwinian revolution in psychology

    Now compare Jensen and Rushton:

    Based on research models used in behavioural genetics, this view contends that a substantial part (say 50%) of both individual and group differences in human behavioural traits is genetic… a 50% genetic–50% environmental etiology for the hereditarian view…

    Not sure why you find this difficult to understand.

    • 回复: @mikemikev
  286. mikemikev 说:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    You’re taking general statements about hereditarianism and pretending they’re estimates (trying to imply that 20-100% is something like 20%, bizarrely) so you can pretend your opponents made some kind of retreat and “changed their views”. I notice you like to spin this “changed their views” lie from misrepresented evidence. Is it some kind of projection? And right in the OP you’ve got hereditarians actually estimating 50-70%. And yet you still cherry pick some general statement and claim hereditarians retreated and “changed their views”. Your lies are so transparent it’s laughable. Why do you bother?

    • 回复: @Oliver D. Smith
  287. @res

    All these comments are off-topic, but the individuals on those URLs are disgruntled trolls who sued me and lost. As I mentioned in #246 I don’t much care about these people writing claims about me on their blogs since I know none of them are true.

    I’ve had 3 defamation suits filed against me – I won one by discontinuance, while the other two were dismissed before any service of process. In other words, I’ve effectively won every lawsuit. What does that tell you?

    The crazy blogger behind coldfusioncommunity filed a lawsuit against me and 9 other c0-defendants, including the WMF. Unsurprisingly the case was dismissed.

    http://coldfusioncommunity.net/w/index.php/User:Abd/Lomax_v._WikiMedia_Foundation/Amended_Complaint
    https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14573324/lomax-v-wikimedia-foundation-inc/

    Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant acted with actual malice in publishing the statement is conclusory and he has not alleged sufficient facts from which the court can plausibly infer actual malice; instead, he relies on mere speculation, which is insufficient. See Amherst Coll., 238 F. Supp. 3d at 27; see also Shay v. Walters, 702 F.3d 76, 82-83 (1st Cir. 2012).Lastly, as to the conspiracy claim, Plaintiff has not alleged facts from which the court can plausibly infer Defendant joined any underlying tort or knowingly provided substantial assistance or encouragement in the alleged scheme.

    Of course someone who files a lawsuit and loses is going to be pissed off, so that blogger now spends virtually his entire time online spreading lies and false allegations about me.

  288. metagross 说:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    100 years of the same IQ scores, with affirmative action and better environments all the time. From WW1 black IQ scores to today: 85 IQ.

    You clearly do support dysgenics and nothing else.

    Some people will still deny genetics even with PGS score. Deny science all you want retard. Some people just can’t be helped.

  289. You complain about lies and false allegations being made against you, yet seem oblivious to the fact that you make frequent insulting personal attacks on others. Try to stick to evaluating arguments.

    • 回复: @Oliver D. Smith
    , @canspeccy
  290. res 说:
    @res

    Speaking of evaluating arguments…I would be very interested in getting opinions on an issue I raised here earlier. Especially from people who have deeper background in the IQ literature than I do.

    Any thoughts on my concern about the Jensen Mexican-American work being vulnerable to influence by differing ability profiles?

    To that end, let me lay out my reasoning in more detail. In comment 263 I gave a specific reference and an extended excerpt. The reference.

    Jensen’s 1973 book Educability and group differences has a great deal of discussion about “Mexicans.” This page from Emil has a link and some comments.
    https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=4132

    I was unable to find the exact paper underlying this work (if anyone has a reference please let me know, especially if full text is available) so I will focus on the account on pp. 306-312 in that book.

    The methodology is to use a pair of IQ tests–one relatively culture-free and the other relatively culture-loaded–to evaluate the relative importance of genetics and environment on phenotypic IQ. Here is an excerpt.

    The best we can do at present is to use two tests which differ most conspicuously in culture-loading. (The most culture-loaded test corresponds to P in Figure 17.3 and the least culture-loaded test corresponds to G.) For this purpose we have chosen Raven’s Matrices and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT). We have already pointed out that the Raven is one of the most culture-reduced tests available. The PPVT provides a striking contrast. It is probably the most culture-loaded among all standardized IQ tests currently in use.

    This is a good idea so I can see why Eysenck found it convincing. But I see some problems with this approach.

    First, the emphasis on culture ignores non-cultural environmental influences (e.g. diet or environmental toxins). I don’t know of any way to address this other than to try to minimize the level of those non-environmental differences. This issue would tend to underestimate environmental differences in some cases (small cultural difference, larger other differences), but might overestimate them in other cases (large cultural differences, small other differences).

    Second (and I think more important), the two tests chosen target different parts of the IQ ability profile (in simple form I would say PPVT is more verbal and Raven more spatial, but am interested in a more nuanced take from an expert). If the groups under evaluation have different average ability profiles with respect to those two tests then that would introduce a bias which would distort the apparent genetic and environmental conclusions. I believe this to be the case.

    As evidence for a small genetic contribution to the white-Mexican differences Jensen presents regressions of the two test scores vs. each other in Figure 17.5 (page 310, also includes “Negro”). There we see that Mexican’s score (relative between the two tests) slightly better than whites on Raven vs. PPVT, but significantly worse than whites on PPVT vs. Raven.

    This is consistent with Jensen’s environmental hypothesis so he concludes (roughly, I find the lack of explicitness regarding whites vs. Mexicans in his conclusions interesting) the environmental factors are more important for the white-Mexican difference.

    On the other hand, for these data at least, the hypothesis of only an environmental difference is compatible with the Mexican-white comparison.

    That is a novel and pretty good argument. I found it fairly compelling on my first read. But after reflection I came up with the following issue.

    Different ability profiles could influence the relative test results in a way which would mimic the G/E differences Jensen is trying to evaluate. I believe Amerindians are relatively stronger in spatial abilities compared to verbal (also see Ron’ comment 251 on this) vs. whites. Here that would (I believe) show up as a higher relative Raven vs. PPVT score for Mexicans (Amerindian admixed) compared to whites. Which would cause exactly the same effect which Jensen sees in Figure 17.5 and uses to conclude environmental factors are more important. The further problem is by this reasoning a cultural difference might cause observers to conclude there is a difference in 遗传 ability profile. So as I see it the two effects are severely entangled.

    Now, the problem is that both effects (different ability profiles as well as G/E balance between the groups) are likely to be present. The issue is evaluating their relative importance. The best way I can think of is to perform the comparison on groups that are as culturally similar as possible then look at the relative group averages for those tests. A difference in those averages might be used as correction to the Raven vs. PPVT offfset. Also the PPVT vs. Raven plot where blacks score close to whites with both being significantly above Mexicans (more evidence ability profiles are affecting the results? Blacks tend to be relatively stronger in verbal than spatial skills).

    As I also mentioned above, the lack of later references to this argument concern me. For example, I can’t find it in The g Factor (written 25 years later). Does anyone see it there? Why would Jensen not include it or offer other follow up work on what seems a novel, interesting, and relevant observation? Does anyone familiar with the literature know what happened to this argument over the years?

    To be clear, I am not saying Jensen’s conclusion is “wrong.” Rather that I think it likely overstates the environmental importance to a degree which has not been quantified, but IMHO is likely to be large enough to be important.

    What does everyone think of this argument?

    P.S. While writing this comment I came across this (68 page) book chapter from 1986 which appears to be highly relevant. I have not had time to look at in detail yet. It mentions Jensen’s 1973 work, but does not go into detail (that I see) beyond this excerpt.
    Cultural Influences on Patterns of Abilities in North America
    https://www.ets.org/research/policy_research_reports/publications/report/1986/hwnx
    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/j.2330-8516.1986.tb00196.x

    The 1973 Jensen study included not only samples of whites and blacks but also of Mexican-Americans, who obtained their lowest scores on verbally-loaded tests of crystallized intelligence and relatively higher scores on nonverbal tests of fluid intelligence. Jensen’points out that English was spoken exclusively in only 16% of the Mexican-American homes in his sample, suggesting that limited English proficiency is largely responsible for the lower Mexican-American scores on the verbal tests. Despite the fact that the Mexican-Americans were found to be more socioeconomically disadvantaged than either the whites or the blacks in this study, this proved to have little effect on their fluid intelligence scores. Blacks, on the other hand, obtained their lowest scores on the nonverbal tests. This pattern of results suggests that white-black differences in fluid intelligence cannot readily be attributed solely to SES differences.

    • 回复: @James Thompson
  291. @James Thompson

    Where are these examples of “insulting personal attacks”? You mean facts or honest opinions you don’t like?

    • 回复: @Oliver D. Smith
  292. @mikemikev

    You’re taking general statements about hereditarianism and pretending they’re estimates (trying to imply that 20-100% is something like 20%, bizarrely) so you can pretend your opponents made some kind of retreat and “changed their views”.

    我从来没有说过 所有 proponents of hereditarianism have changed their views. However, undeniably some have done and I provided Winegard et al. 2020 as an example. They define hereditarianism as above 20% rather than 50% like Jensen and Rushton (2005). Anyone can simply read the quotes I provided to see this.

    I notice you like to spin this “changed their views” lie from misrepresented evidence. Is it some kind of projection? And right in the OP you’ve got hereditarians actually estimating 50-70%. And yet you still cherry pick some general statement and claim hereditarians retreated and “changed their views”. Your lies are so transparent it’s laughable. Why do you bother?

    Good luck finding where I said Lasker et al changed their views. I only provided Winegard et al. as an example. I also repeatedly clarified there are still ‘strong’ hereditarians (see my comment #301):

    I then said it would make more sense to split Winegard’s and Jensen’s ranges into “moderate” (or weak) and “strong” hereditarianism. The latter being Jensenism.

    Yes there’s still Jensenites around, particularly individuals associated with 人类季刊. And I’m well aware you haven’t changed your view, nor are likely to since you’re a self-described neo-Nazi. Moderate forms of hereditarianism are less compatible with your extreme politics.

    • 巨魔: mikemikev
  293. @Oliver D. Smith

    I’m not qualified to debate these topics, that’s why I primarily focus not on the scientific arguments but who is making them and what journals they publish in. I’m currently an MA student of Tolkien studies. I have no background in science. If I point out 迷幻 is a low-tier journal (and it’s publisher has a long history of controversy) I don’t see this as a personal attack. I don’t also see it as a personal attack to point out the co-authors are dodgy people, who lack scientific credentials and are associated with controversial (widely considered to be racist and eugenics) groups.

    I noted my criticisms have been repeatedly made by Kevin Bird.

  294. @res

    I saw your comments earlier, when I was looking at the Nijenhuis paper on Hispanics which I think you linked to later, so will need some more research on this. If the paper on the regression results is not in Jensen’s g factor I will see if it is in any other papers of his in a few day’s time. He sent me some long ago, but I don’t recall a Hispanic one.

    Regarding the method of comparing different groups on tests that differ in their supposed culture-bound-ness, I think it is worth trying, but determining the culture loading of tests often boils down to 1-h2, where h2 is a heritability estimate. The remnant is culture (plus error). Rushton tried this on an item by item basis. Again, I will have to look that up.

    The interesting thing about the environmental argument is that it is very hard to pin down. Sometimes it is thought to reside in the item. For example, I was shown a WAIS item in which the lamp bulb lacked the part which fitted in to the socket. In South America all lamp bulbs used the Edison screw. In England most used a bayonet fitting. Clearly, a culturally loaded item in that rather rare case. The Peabody is culturally loaded, but more importantly it lacks the logical structure of the Ravens. Raven showed me his item analyses in 2007 at an ISIR conference, and said only 3 or 4 of 60 showed any cultural effects.

    Sometimes the environmental effects are said to be present in the test setting, but I think that is better controlled now. Finally, the one you mention, that bad environments in a very general sense depress health and thereby brain functioning. Not sure that that is a strong factor in the US, but very probably a factor in much of the world even 30 years ago, but less the case now.

    Will try to get to this, but these are my comments for now.

    • 谢谢: res
  295. @James Thompson

    Try to stick to evaluating arguments.

    Some hope! But, yes, it would greatly improve the quality of discussion here at the Unz Review.

    But concerning arguments, James, I would be really interested to know how you would respond to the questions I raise at #276.

    In particular: (1) Is intelligence “a trait,” as Ron Unz puts it, or is it a collection of traits?

    and (2) Is the trait (or are the traits) of intelligence independent of the environmental history of the individual, e.g., education, but by no means limited to that?

    In response to (1) my contention is that there are multiple traits of intelligence that are not necessarily closely correlated, hence the development of multiple SAT tests that focus on different aspects of scholastic aptitude.

    I would say, further, that there are many traits of intelligence that have little or nothing to do with scholastic aptitude and that are more or less unrelated to scholastic aptitude. These would include forms of memory such as musical, visual, olfactory, etc.; situation awareness, whether on a battlefield, the soccer field, or a cocktail party; emotional awareness and the capacity for emotional manipulation; and many other things.

    In response to (2) my contention is that most manifestations of intelligence reflect learning, and that variation in forms of intelligence that fall outside the regular academic curriculum will show much greater variation than forms of intelligence evaluated by an IQ test, all of which are modified by formal education.

    From these assumptions, it follows that variation in forms of intelligence other than those cultivated by universal education will be much greater than the variation in scholastic aptitudes evaluated by an IQ test. What that means is that IQ test results must be even less useful in assessing non-academic, than academic, forms of intelligence.

    Are these conclusions not correct?

    • 回复: @James Thompson
  296. @Oliver D. Smith

    As I also mentioned at #180:

    科学不仅仅是数据,还有学术诚信,包括研究标准和伦理。 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_integrity

    The individuals I criticised lack this which is (1) why they publish in dodgy/bad reputation journals (some don’t even have formal peer-review), (2) excessively self-cite themselves to deceptively make it seem lots of scientists pay attention to their work when virtually none are, and (3) are prone to bad research (serious methodological flaws, confirmation bias etc), the list goes on.

    One of the few (moderate) hereditarians who understands this is Loehlin (1992).

    Should we do research on race differences in intelligence?
    https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1992-34984-001

    Presents arguments for and against research on racial differences in intelligence and concludes that such research is desirable if appropriately motivated, conducted honestly and in a quantitative perspective, and presented tactfully. Tactful presentation of the research will decrease the probability of the reader feeling aggrieved.

    Note ‘tactful presentation’ e.g. don’t publish in OpenPsych, Psych or Mankind Quarterly.

    • 回复: @James Thompson
  297. @canspeccy

    No, in my view your conclusions are not correct! I thought we had discussed them before, and decided we could not agree. Anyway, let me explain why, because we might be at odds because of definitions, or matters of degree.

    Whenever a broad range of people are tested on a broad range of intellectual tasks, a common factor emerges. This usually accounts for 40% of the variance. Group factors, usually no more than 3 or 4 account for roughly another 40%. The rest is individual task variance plus error.

    If you don’t want detail, just extract one general factor for epidemiological work. That is, collapse some of the factors into a general one. If you want detail, (or the appearance of detail when giving feedback to a client) bump up the importance of 4 to 5 factors, which gives you more to talk about.

    Could there be skills not yet tested? Of course. Might they amount to anything very much? Yet to be proved. All the candidates: multiple intelligence, emotional intelligence, rational intelligence, practical intelligence have disappointed, and contributed little in the way of extra variance accounted for.

  298. @Oliver D. Smith

    So, your self-perception is that you present facts and honest opinions, and the people with whom you disagree are “dodgy”?

    • 回复: @Oliver D. Smith
  299. @James Thompson

    不,先生。

    I’m saying the dodgy/bad individuals associate with Mankind Quarterly, Richard Lynn’s Ulster Institute for Social Research, Pioneer Fund, OpenPsych and Psych (= OpenPsych 2.0). Look these up on Google to see they have incredibly bad reputations. The non-dodgy ones don’t publish in those journals or become associated with those controversial groups. I only ever criticised people on RationalWiki connected to OpenPsych and MQ.

    OpenPsych became inactive primarily because of my criticisms and exposure. https://www.clinpsy.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20914 Psych is the same dodgy people (they couldn’t even come up with much a different name).

    • 回复: @res
  300. res 说:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    OpenPsych became inactive primarily because of my criticisms and exposure.

    But there is no persecution of researchers with those views. It is funny how often your disavowals of persecution and need to brag about doing so conflict.

    • 同意: James Thompson, lavoisier
    • 回复: @Oliver D. Smith
  301. Menes 说: • 您的网站
    @res

    You mean the same test results that indicated he had two X chromosomes?

    Again, you show your dishonesty and your inability to think rationally.

    Genetic tests are far more of a science than the IQ tests you swear by. What Kari Stefansson, founder of deCODE, the genetic testing company that revealed Watson’s african ancestry, said was that the online genome of Watson used for his test had some errors. Not that it was unusable. It only means that the percentage numbers of Watson’s african and asian ancestries, that his test found, may be a bit off. Not that it proves that Watson did not have any african ancestry at all as you are so stupidly assuming. As if a prominent DNA testing business would risk it’s reputation by lying brazenly about something that can be so easily disproved. It has been 13 years and no one has disproved that finding. What does that tell you?

    I am quite surprised there has been no followup.

    And you drew an illogical conclusion from that fact. Which made you look like a retard.

    There are so many racists, such as yourself, who have an ideologically vested interest in disproving Watson’s african ancestry. And it is so easy to do that. Yet no one has been able to do it. Again, what does that tell us?

    • 哈哈: res
    • 回复: @res
  302. mikemikev 说:

    Again, what does that tell us?

    That you’re lame at trolling?

  303. Menes 说: • 您的网站
    @res

    You don’t even need a genetic test to conclude that James Watson was mixed race. Just the picture of his grandmother is enough proof:

    James Watson has written about his Appalachian ancestry. That implies that his ancestors may be Melungeons, a tri-racial ethnicity largely concentrated in Appalachia:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melungeon#:~:text=Melungeons%20(%2Fm%C9%99%CB%88l,Southwest%20Virginia%2C%20and%20eastern%20Kentucky.

    Some melungeons:

    Two of the most famous melungeons (claimed) are Abraham Lincoln and Elvis Presley; Lincoln fought and defeated the system that enslaved blacks, and Elvis brought black music to a white audience.

    • 回复: @Menes
  304. res 说:
    @Menes

    There is a simple solution to this disagreement. Rerun the analysis (both the DNA test and ancestry determination) with current technology. Let’s do it and see who is correct.

    I think I backed up my points well enough. Let’s just finish with what Kari Stefansson actually said (from comment 206). Emphasis mine.

    According to deCODE’s Kari Stefansson, the analysis relied on an error-ridden version of Watson’s full genome sequence, and Stefansson ‘doubts . . . whether the 16 percent figure will hold up,’ adding that based on the data used ‘it appears that Watson has two X chromosomes, which would make him a woman.’”

    P.S. Ad hominems, the best way ever to say to someone arguing with you: “you win.”

    • 回复: @Menes
  305. mikemikev 说:

    The study of Ahn et al. (2009) suggests that the pairwise distances among three individuals, a Korean (“SJK”), Craig Venter and James Watson, measured by multilocus ASD, are roughly similar despite the distinct geographical origin of SJK in relation to Venter and Watson (see also their Fig. 2E). These results are surprising in light of our model for n, which predicts that for worldwide distant populations (FST > 0.13) the probability for such an occurrence is virtually zero given as little as 200 independent and informative SNPs (Appendix F, Fig. F.1). In fact, with roughly 3.5 million SNPs sequenced in each individual genome,the pairwise distances Venter–Watson and Venter–SJK (or Watson–SJK) must show substantial discrepancy, since the ratio of average pairwise distances RAD is above 1.3 already at FST = 0.10 (see Fig. 5A). 矛盾的结果很可能是 Watson 的 SNP 调用中高错误率和低覆盖率的产物 (Yngvadottir 等人,2009 年)。

    https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/two-complementary-perspectives-on-inter-individual-genetic-distance.pdf

    • 回复: @res
  306. res 说:
    @mikemikev

    Thanks. The reference at the end of your excerpt (Yngvadottir et al., 2009) is:
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26782786_The_promise_and_reality_of_personal_genomics
    Their take is (emphasis mine):

    As Figure 1 reveals, Venter falls within the European region, whereas the Watson genome sequence displays, in addition to the expected major European component, a strong minor ancestry component corresponding to the dominant component in African populations. This could be regarded as support for the notion that Watson has considerable African admixture, a claim made previously in the mainstream media but never (to our knowledge) formally supported in the literature。 但是, plausible alternative explanation is that this component is an artifact of the low coverage and poorer sequence quality in the Watson genome.

  307. Menes 说: • 您的网站
    @res

    Let’s just finish with what Kari Stefansson actually said…… ‘doubts . . . whether the 16 percent figure will hold up,’

    Shameless dishonesty yet again. Those are the words of the author of the following article, yet you put them in quotation marks as if Kari Stefansson “actually said” that. Have you no shame man?

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2007/12/what-does-it-mean-to-say-that-james-watson-is-16-percent-african.html

    As for the 16 percent figure not holding up because of a few errors in the genome tested I already tackled that in my previous response above.

    Rerun the analysis (both the DNA test and ancestry determination) with current technology. Let’s do it and see who is correct.

    Lol. Do it! Who is stopping you? The burden of disproof is on you racists who are in denial. Its been 13 years, yet none of your gang of deplorables has done it. Why? Because it can’t be done. Just look at the picture of Watson’s grandma….

  308. anon[330]• 免责声明 说:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    I’m not qualified to debate these topics, that’s why I primarily focus not on the scientific arguments but who is making them and what journals they publish in.

    Do you find argumentum ad hominem to be credible in general, or just in this situation?

    I’m currently an MA student of Tolkien studies. I have no background in science.

    Have you ever heard of “irony”?

    If I point out Psych is a low-tier journal (and it’s publisher has a long history of controversy) I don’t see this as a personal attack. I don’t also see it as a personal attack to point out the co-authors are dodgy people, who lack scientific credentials and are associated with controversial (widely considered to be racist and eugenics) groups.

    Do you troll other sites, or just this one?

    • 回复: @Oliver D. Smith
  309. Menes 说: • 您的网站
    @Menes

    That is Elvis with his beloved mother in the picture.

    More about Elvis and his relation with black american music, from a black fan:

    https://www.elvis.com.au/presley/why-i-stopped-hating-elvis-presley.shtml

    [更多]

    Growing up, I was conditioned to loathe Elvis Presley. The lightest criticism I heard of Elvis was that he ‘stole Black people’s music’.

    I viewed white folks’ obsession with him as evidence of their inherently racist preference for black music without a black face. Even as I became a fan of 1960s British Invasion bands, part of my praise of the Beatles, Stones, and ‘The Who’ was that they openly acknowledged the Black influence in their music – ‘unlike Elvis Presley’.

    But it wasn’t until years later that I really had to learn about Elvis beyond what I’d been told. I was working on a piece about his supposed racism and racist legacy and started doing research for proof. You can’t imagine my surprise at what I eventually discovered.

    …he did an interview with Jet (yes, the black-owned Jet magazine) in which he spoke openly about the controversy and the origins of rock ‘n’ roll as black music. ‘I never said anything like that, and people who know me know that I wouldn’t have said it’, he told Jet. ‘A lot of people seem to think I started this business. But rock ‘n’ roll was here a long time before I came along. Nobody can sing that kind of music like colored people. Let’s face it: I can’t sing like Fats Domino can. I know that’.

    I found quotes from notable black musicians and celebrities, detailing their experiences with Elvis, which ranged from respectful to affectionate. James Brown said, ‘I wasn’t just a fan, I was his brother’. B.B. King was also close to Presley throughout his life and Ike Turner reportedly let Elvis carry his band’s gear early on and claimed he was the first man to put Elvis on a stage. 穆罕默德·阿里, who let Elvis live with him while he trained for a bout against Joe Frazier, said, ‘Elvis was my close personal friend. I don’t admire nobody, but Elvis Presley was the sweetest, most humble and nicest man you’d want to know’.

    Additionally, though artists like Fats Domino, Big Joe Turner, and Jackie Brenston had been recording rock ‘n’ roll long before Elvis, the painting of Elvis as no more than a white culture thief of black music, while not being completely erroneous, was at the very least overstated. I’d always been led to believe that rock ‘n’ roll was a sea of Black faces until this one gyrating white guy came along. But Elvis wasn’t the first white man to sing rock ‘n’ roll; Bill Haley was charting two years before anybody had heard of Elvis.

    Elvis had looks and charisma – in addition to being a young white guy. So, is it blasphemy to call him ‘The King’ of a genre he didn’t invent? I don’t believe Michael Jackson invented pop music; and I don’t believe Aretha Franklin invented soul. So are they also not allowed to lay claim to their royal titles?

    I’d even been led to believe that Otis Blackwell, the man who wrote many of Elvis’ early hits, died penniless largely because he was screwed financially by the nefarious Presley. But Blackwell received royalties for his songs for years, and was at one point substantially well-off due to those royalties.

    There will never be a time when Elvis doesn’t spark discussion and debate. He should. His musical legacy is a defining moment in our history; that moment when Black music, vernacular, and culture became the driving force in how all American youth began to see themselves. The trickle that had begun with jazz as far back as the ’20s was, by the late 1950s, a flood that couldn’t be denied. Which is why the white establishment fought so hard against it.

  310. @res

    I don’t consider fair criticism to be ‘persecution’.

    Note some guy named Meng Hu who used to review papers for OpenPsych, left, raising some of my same criticisms:

    Bad experience at OpenPsych journals
    http://archive.is/YcIDb

    On bias of reviewers:

    One problem with OP is that most (if not all) reviewers have an “hereditarian side”. I would like to see reviewers hostile to the genetic theory. Otherwise, people may think OP looks like a Mankind Quarterly bis.

    On lack of anonymity and the fact most authors at OP are regular reviewers:

    Lack of anonymity and conflicts of interests This is the weakest point. For instance, John Fuerst (Chuck), Dalliard, and myself, we are co-bloggers at Human Varieties, originally created by Chuck, although now it’s Jason Malloy who is the administrator. The three of us are reviewers at OP journals. Dalliard and I, we have reviewed some of Chuck’s papers. No one says anything, but I think everyone knows that other people may not necessarily trust our opinions, even if the review is open-access. Everyone knows who is commenting, and some people, such as Chuck, may fear retaliation if they disapprove (see above; Kirkegaard & Tranberg 2015). This is especially true if the person X is reviewer of person Y and then Y becomes reviewer of author X. One possible way to attenuate (somewhat) this problem is to have reviewers who are not authors at OP and are somewhat independent with regard to the authors. As far as I know, I saw Gerhard Meisenberg, Peter Frost (publishes very little, almost nothing, at OP), and Kenya Kura to a lesser extent.

    The journal Pysch seems to have solved these two issues. Hence I accept Psych as peer-reviewed, but not OpenPsych (its claim to be peer-review is clearly a sham). However, Psych is a low-tier journal with a controversial publisher often accused of predatory open access publishing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI And the quality of its peer-review is questionable. There’s also the fact it’s the dodgy people from OpenPsych who are publishing in it. Not sure why you think me pointing any of this out is ‘persecution’.

  311. CanSpeccy 说:

    Whenever a broad range of people are tested on a broad range of intellectual tasks, a common factor emerges. This usually accounts for 40% of the variance.

    So that common factor is g, general intelligence. right? In that case one is left with 60% of the variance to explain. So does that not confirm my contention that intelligence is not one trait, i.e., g, but multiple traits, five at least according to the evidence you cite.

    And then there is the question of what is meant by a broad range of intellectual tasks. You don’t state what these tasks are, so we don’t know whether broad range covers everything that is a manifestation of intelligence, as that term is defined by the dictionary, although pretty certainly it does not.

    For example, path finding, something at which Australian aboriginals and Canadian Inuit are said to excel, is probably not included. Neither would musical memory be included, for example the ability in exceptional cases to hear a complex composition just once and write it down or play it from memory, or the capacity for perfect pitch — the ability to identify the pitch of a note heard without a standard tone to compare it with. And so many other things.

    But the idea that g accounts for even 40% of variance in performance on multiple tests is surprising. Here for example the variance attributable to a single factor is surely much less than 40%:

    图片来源

    • 回复: @James Thompson
    , @res
  312. @Menes

    Shameless dishonesty yet again. Those are the words of the author of the following article, yet you put them in quotation marks as if Kari Stefansson “actually said” that. Have you no shame man?

    Au contraire, it is you who is shamelessly dishonest. Either that or you are a moron.

    Here is what the article said:

    The company that did the sequencing claims that each base was read an average of 7.4 times, but 卡里·史蒂芬森(Kari Stefansson), whose company assessed Watson’s heritage, says he found enough errors in the public genome to have doubts about whether the 16 percent figure will hold up.

    Can you even read? The author is claiming that Kari Stefansson said ‘… to have doubts…’ so it was appropriate for Res to quote that material.

    • 谢谢: res
  313. Ron Unz 说:
    @Menes

    缺乏跟进证明与您的想法完全相反。 很容易反驳发现沃森 25% 是非白人的基因测试结果。 目前还没有人能够做到这一点。 为什么?

    Well, I don’t want to get drawn into this comment-thread, but I can’t let stand that ridiculous claim that James Watson was 25% non-white and 16% African.

    The empirical reality of the last 100 years is that many of the most influential “anti-racists” such as Boas, Montague Francis Ashley-Montagu (Israel Ehrenberg), Gould, and Lewontin were notorious pathological liars in service to their ideological beliefs, so much so that virtually all claims made by “anti-racist” scientists should be treated with extreme suspicion. As I wrote a few years ago:

    In a further parallel to the Soviet case, Gould and his Marxist circle of friends and allies, including Richard Lewontin, Steven Rose, and several others, regularly sought to purge or otherwise silence their most honest and courageous colleagues. During the 1970s, Harvard’s Wilson became their particular target for daring to publish his landmark book Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, and their wild ideological charges led radical student demonstrators to demand the university fire one of its brightest tenured stars and even to physically assault the mild-mannered Wilson at a meeting of the American Academy of Sciences. Although Gould seems to have been a rather mediocre scientist, some of his radical allies such as Lewontin were first-class researchers, but also ideologues who allowed their politics to dictate their science.

    While I was a graduate student at Cambridge University during the mid-1980s, these events occasionally came up in casual discussions across the dining tables. On one such occasion, a former grad student of Lewontin’s said that during the height of the sociobiology controversy he had asked his mentor why he was leveling such ridiculous accusations against a colleague, with the reply being that those accusations were admittedly scientific nonsense, but they served the political interests of Marxism, which was far more important.

    https://www.unz.com/runz/does-race-exist-do-hills-exist/

    Racial traits come in a multigene bundle, and we have photos of both of Watson’s parents. I’d say there is zero chance that Watson had even a sliver of African ancestry, let alone 16%.

    • 回复: @Menes
    , @Oliver D. Smith
  314. Ron Unz 说:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    And I’m well aware you haven’t changed your view, nor are likely to since you’re a self-described neo-Nazi….I’m currently an MA student of Tolkien studies. I have no background in science.

    Well, science is a complex and difficult subject, rendered even more difficult when quite a number of the dominant figures of the last 100 years have been pathological liars for ideological reasons.

    But offhand, it sounds like you have a certain mental framework of the twentieth century, which I think actually happens to be mostly upside-down and backwards. Evaluating competing scientific hypotheses often requires a great deal of technical expertise, but history is a field much more open to the intelligent layman. So you really might want to take a look at a long article I published last year on the history of World War II:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-understanding-world-war-ii/

    It’s part of a very long series of related articles on other historical matters:

    https://www.unz.com/page/american-pravda-series/

    • 回复: @Brás Cubas
    , @lavoisier
  315. Menes 说: • 您的网站
    @Ron Unz

    we have photos of both of Watson’s parents. I’d say there is zero chance that Watson had even a sliver of African ancestry, let alone 16%.

    We also have a photo of Watson’s grandmother:

    What does she look like to you?

    • 回复: @Oliver D. Smith
  316. @CanSpeccy

    I assume you know about the Seashore tests of musical ability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Seashore

    They have been used in group differences research.

    Path finding has been studied in neuro-psychology. For example, Freda Newcombe’s 1969 Missile Wounds of the Brain. I remember her presenting her work.

    In the 1920 a very broad range of tasks were used as test of ability. Eventually research started concentrating on the most effective, a pragmatic decision depending on what the aims of the research were.

    Ian Deary has good summaries of the history of intelligence testing. The eventual final working model was the The Cattell-Horn-Carroll model of intelligence. The field is wide open for new tests. Indeed, there is a premium placed on new tests which appear to go beyond the CHC model.

    Perhaps my memory fails me (I would not be surprised) but I think we have gone through this before!

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
  317. @Ron Unz

    pathological liars for ideological reasons

    It’s unclear to me what you mean by that phrase. Are their ideologies pathological? Or perhaps are their pathologies ideological?

  318. @Ron Unz

    The empirical reality of the last 100 years is that many of the most influential “anti-racists” such as Boas, Montague Francis Ashley-Montagu (Israel Ehrenberg), Gould, and Lewontin were notorious pathological liars in service to their ideological beliefs, so much so that virtually all claims made by “anti-racist” scientists should be treated with extreme suspicion. As I wrote a few years ago:

    Boas and the early works of Montagu (1940s-1950s) never denied the existence of races, what they were arguing against was racism, Nazi eugenics, in particular Nordicism. Yes no doubt they were ‘anti-racists’.

    In fact, C. Loring Brace criticised Montagu for dividing mankind into the same traditional Caucasoid/Mongoloid/Negroid divisions in his early work.

    Here’s a quote from an early text by Montagu:

    THE DIVISIONS OF MANKIND Three main divisions of mankind may be distinguished: The Negroid, the Caucasoid and the Mongoloid.

    An Introduction to Physical Anthropology (1945) p. 159

    In the 1950s, Montagu was behind UNESCO’s statement on race.

    The statement supported ‘race realism’ and defended the idea the human species is split into Caucasoid/Negroid/Mongoloid.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Race_Question#Criticism_and_controversy

    The first version did not reject the idea of race biology, a biological basis to racial categories. It defined the concept of race in terms of a population defined by certain anatomical and physiological characteristics diverging from other populations; it gives as examples the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negroid races

    It wasn’t until Brace and Frank Livingstone in the 1960s there was actually race denialism. Montagu then shifted his viewpoint having read Brace and Livingstone.

  319. CanSpeccy 说:
    @James Thompson

    I think we have gone through this before.

    Yes, you have offered a similar response before. Unfortunately, your response does not seem responsive to the questions I raised. For instance:

    Whenever a broad range of people are tested on a broad range of intellectual tasks, a common factor emerges. This usually accounts for 40% of the variance.

    So that common factor is g, general intelligence. right? In that case one is left with 60% of the variance to explain. So does that not confirm my contention that intelligence is not one trait, i.e., g, but multiple traits, five at least according to the evidence you cite.

    And then there is the question of what is meant by a broad range of intellectual tasks. You don’t state what these tasks are, so we don’t know whether broad range covers everything that is a manifestation of intelligence, as that term is defined by the dictionary, although pretty certainly it does not.

    • 回复: @James Thompson
  320. res 说:
    @Menes

    Shameless dishonesty yet again. Those are the words of the author of the following article, yet you put them in quotation marks as if Kari Stefansson “actually said” that. Have you no shame man?

    As Peripatetic Commenter said, the quotes are in the original. Pay particular attention to the single quotes before the d in doubts and at the end.

    So you are either reading challenged or a liar. Not sure which is worse.

    Thanks for being so blatant about it in this case. It is good to have such clear examples.

    And in case I have not mentioned it lately ; ) The projection is breathtaking.

    Lol. Do it! Who is stopping you?

    James Watson? To redo the genetic test we would need a sample of his DNA.

    • 回复: @Menes
    , @Menes
  321. @Menes

    It upsets many self-identified ‘White Americans’ knowing they have ‘African-American’ ancestry.

    We estimate that a substantial fraction, at least 1.4%, of self-reported European Americans in the US carry at least 2% African ancestry. Using a less conservative threshold, approximately 3.5% of European Americans have 1% or more African ancestry (Figure S8).

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4289685

    Note the above study did not include White Americans with 0.1-0.9% (trivial) AA ancestry and this figure apparently is much higher. Shriver et al. (2003) calculated up to 30% of self-identified White Americans have a AA ancestry; in 1950s this was calculated to be 21% by a sociologist.

    Stuckert, Robert S. (1958) “African Ancestry of the White American Population”. Ohio Journal of Science; 55:155-160

    • 同意: Menes
  322. @anon

    I prefer if everyone lay (one’s) cards on the table. I’ve always pointed out I’m a layperson and non-scientist. I can’t say I’ve seen many HBD/hereditarians do the same thing.

    Mikemikev who posts here and I’m familiar with is a neo-Nazi/white supremacist who denies the Holocaust, yet he never points this out when debating race and IQ and tries to pass himself off as some apolitical ‘race realist’. Highly deceptive to say the least.

    • 回复: @Ron Unz
    , @James Thompson
    , @anon
  323. Ron Unz 说:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    It upsets many self-identified ‘White Americans’ knowing they have ‘African-American’ ancestry.

    We estimate that a substantial fraction, at least 1.4%, of self-reported European Americans in the US carry at least 2% African ancestry. Using a less conservative threshold, approximately 3.5% of European Americans have 1% or more African ancestry (Figure S8).

    Sure, that sounds very reasonable and I don’t doubt that’s correct, sometimes with much higher ratios. For example, I think it’s quite likely that J. Edgar Hoover had substantial black ancestry, perhaps in the 10-15% range. Elvis Presley seems another possibility, though probably somewhat lower. Numerous other prominent American “whites” would fall into that same category. For obvious reasons, human beings have evolved effective mechanisms for visually detecting ancestry, and that includes racial ancestry, a helpful tool in such matters.

    But it’s totally ridiculous to believe that James Watson had 16% black ancestry, especially since that would probably imply that one of his parents was roughly 1/3 African. That’s the equivalent of believing that the Earth is Flat. It simply illustrates that racial disputes are overflowing with lies and distortions, and that gullible people will believe almost anything that the media tells them.

  324. Ron Unz 说:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    Mikemikev who posts here and I’m familiar with is a neo-Nazi/white supremacist who denies the Holocaust

    Ha, ha, ha… Here’s another one of my long articles you really might want to consider reading:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/

    • 回复: @Oliver D. Smith
  325. res 说:
    @CanSpeccy

    Your reference actually gets more interesting after that image. At your Image source link we have the following excerpt (emphasis mine) in the same subsection as your image appears.

    John B. Carroll factor-analyzed the WJ-R matrix presented above, using confirmatory analysis to successfully fit a ten-factor model (g and nine narrower factors) to the data (Carroll 2003):

    Loadings on the g factor range from a low of 0.279 (Visual Closure) to a high of 0.783 (Applied Problems). The g factor accounts for 59 percent of the common factor variance, while the other nine factors together account for 41 percent. This is a routine finding in factor analyses of IQ tests: the g factor explains more variance than the other factors put together. (Note that in addition to the common factor variance, there is always some variance specific to each subtest as well as variance due to random measurement error.)

    In Carroll 2003 your image appears as Table X-4. Table X-5 looks at a model for that data with 10 orthogonal factors. Their top line result (g factor accounts for 59 percent of the common factor variance) is in the excerpt above, but note the common factor variance part (i.e. the variance left after the first 10 factors are accounted for is simply being ignored). Two thoughts I had were.

    1. Make a worst case estimate for the missing variance by assuming the remaining 19 factors all explained less variance than the lowest factor given (2.1% of CCV). This would give a worst case estimate for g explaining 59.33% * (100 / (100 + 2 * 19)) = 43% of total variance.

    2. Enter the intercorrelation matrix by hand and do my own factor analysis looking at how much of the TOTAL variance the first factor explained.

    But after thinking about this a while I decided looking at the combined kindergarten to adult sample was a bad idea given that the factors vary differently with age. So I propose the following for addressing the question of how much variance g explains for the purposes of this discussion.

    I will do a factor analysis (using PCA to give an objective and unique set of factors) of the WJIV correlation matrix for ages 20-39 described below for both the 29 and 47 test versions. We will consider the 29 test version as most important since that was the version CanSpeccy cited, but the 47 test version will also be worth discussing. I think the sample size of 1,251 is adequate for giving usable results.

    What does everyone think? Anyone want to place bets concerning what I find?

    一些笔记。

    The R EFAtools package includes correlation matrices for a number of the WJ tests, but not the one above.
    https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/EFAtools/EFAtools.pdf
    WJIV_ages_20_39 should be Table E-5 below (N = 1,251)
    Note that EFATools requires R >= 3.6.0
    Rather than updating my R installation I just downloaded the data file directly from
    https://github.com/mdsteiner/EFAtools/blob/master/data/WJIV_ages_20_39.RData
    A quick visual check indicates the data is from Table E-5.
    WJIV_ages_3_5 is the 29 variable version for ages 3-5. Also downloaded that.
    更多信息,请访问
    https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/EFAtools/vignettes/EFAtools.html

    The 389 page WJIV Technical Manual is available at
    https://www.wjscore.com/Files/WJIVTechnicalManual.PDF
    Some interesting material in that. For example, Figures 5.4 and 5.4 on page 137 give age trajectories from 6-90 for a number of the factors. Many more similar plots.
    Table E-5 on page 313 has the intercorrelation matrix for 47 tests for adults aged 20-39.

    The 47 test version of the WJIV appears to be a superset of the 29 test version.

    > setdiff(rownames(WJIV_ages_20_39\$cormat), rownames(WJIV_ages_3_5\$cormat))
    [1] “NUMSER” “LETPAT” “ANLSYN” “OBJNUM” “PAIRCN” “CALC” “WRTSMP” “WRDATK” “ORLRDG” “SNRDFL” “MTHFLU” “SNWRFL” “RDGREC” “NUMMAT” “EDIT”
    [16] “WRDFLU” “SPLSND” “RDGVOC”
    > setdiff(rownames(WJIV_ages_3_5\$cormat), rownames(WJIV_ages_20_39\$cormat))
    character(0)

    Some notes on performing PCA on the correlation matrix using R.
    https://aaronschlegel.me/principal-component-analysis-r-example.html
    Note that with their example using the correlation matrix gives a substantially lower value for variance explained by the first component than using the covariance matrix.

    What is readily noticeable is the first eigenvalue accounts for 30% of total variance compared with 50% of the variance of the S matrix.

    Some discussion of the correlation vs. covariance choice at
    https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/53/pca-on-correlation-or-covariance

    P.S. One additional thought is that it looks like a small number of tests are especially divergent from g. Might be worth discussing those tests in particular.

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
  326. @Ron Unz

    Similarly, for decades I had always read the undeniable fact that the Nazis had exterminated 4 million inmates at Auschwitz, with most of the victims being Jews, and Lipstadt certainly treated that number as absolutely rock-solid historical reality. But in the early 1990s after the fall of Communism, the official total was quietly revised downwards to as little as 1.1 million. The fact that a sudden reduction in the official Holocaust body-count by 3 million has had so little impact upon our public Holocaust media narrative hardly seems to inspire great confidence in either the total figures or the media reporting of them.

    In reality, —>

    In a quick survey of nineteen historical references (see appendix) only two listed the total Auschwitz dead at four million [7], [8] One of these, Friedman’s “This Was Oswiecim: The Story of a Murder Camp,” was published in 1946, well before more reliable estimates were available. Most list figures from 1 to 2.5 million, and they arrived at these figures in a variety of methods .

    https://archive.is/Wwiy5

    I see the same victim/persecution-complex among Holocaust deniers like hereditarians.

    As noted on above URL:

    Another issue is the denier notion that anyone who dared to stray from the “Four Million” was labeled an anti-Semite and then hounded into submission by some mainstream historians, the media, or Jews. This soon becomes a laughable idea once one sees the wide-ranging estimates in the mainstream literature. If no one dared question the Soviet Commission’s “four million,” one must wonder why Reitlinger would be so bold as to call it “ridiculous,” and also why so few historians believed that figure.

    • 回复: @anarchyst
  327. @res

    Good points, Res. But my point remains that this analysis deals only with a narrow slice of the broad range of abilities that have to be recognized as manifestations of intelligence. So even if we accept James’s estimate that g generally accounts for 40% of the variance in abilities tested by an IQ test, that still leaves most of the variance unaccounted for.

    但是之后 g must be quite trivial if the forms of intelligence that are not evaluated by an IQ test are added in, for example, the artistic genius of a Stephen Wiltshire, (an imbecile, according to the IQists);

    or the musical gifts of a of a Derek Paravacini (IQ unmeasurably low);

    the physical coordination and situation awareness of a Pelé, and so many other abilities excluded from an IQ test.

    So taking all these other factors into account what has become of g</b>? It’s become a rather minor factor. It means, furthermore, so much for the argument that with an IQ of 125, Richard Feynman could not have been a genius, or conversely that as a genius, Richard Feynman’s IQ could not have been the reported 125.

    And so much also for the idea that with IQ’s over 150, the Terman kids were all geniuses despite the fact that none of them did anything in the least bit remarkable.

    • 回复: @res
  328. @Oliver D. Smith

    When you see someone using the terms 种族主义者 or 种族主义 you know they are intellectually bankrupt.

    别管他们。

    • 同意: mikemikev
    • 回复: @Oliver D. Smith
  329. @Peripatetic Commenter

    Not really, if the 传统 definition is used. I oppose SJW attempts to re-define the word where they claim only ‘white people’ can be racist.

    Racism: The marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges white people.

    https://www.adl.org/racism

    Above definition is garbage.

    Instead I stick with dictionary definitions:

    1. the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others
    2. abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief

    – Collins English Dictionary

    1. belief in or doctrine asserting racial differences in character, intelligence, etc. and the superiority of one race over another or others: racist doctrine also, typically, seeks to maintain the supposed purity of a race or the races
    2. any program or practice of racial discrimination, segregation, etc., specif., such a program or practice that upholds the political or economic domination of one race over another or others
    3. feelings or actions of hatred and bigotry toward a person or persons because of their race

    – Webster’s New World College Dictionary

    By these definitions strong forms of hereditarianism are certainly racist. I guess it’s debatable whether more moderate forms are though. Someone arguing the B-W IQ gap is 80% genetics is racist, but someone arguing 14% probably isn’t. Proponents of strong versions of hereditarianism/Jensenism describe environmentalists as “egalitarians”, e.g. according to J. Philippe Rushton (1995) it is a “politically correct equalitarian fiction” that “races are genetically equal in cognitive ability”. This viewpoint is undeniably racist.

  330. @Ron Unz

    Are you suggesting in a very diplomatic and non-hostile manner that perhaps Oliver should focus his intellectual energies on disciplines where he might have the requisite training to be taken more seriously?

    Getting published on rational wiki does not seem to be that much to be proud of outside the SJW class of scholarship.

    Your suggestion to read some of your essays on history is a good one as I have found these essays to be quite interesting.

  331. @CanSpeccy

    Let’s have a look at publications on large samples which show that these extra skills have predictive value over and about tests of general mental ability.

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
  332. res 说:
    @CanSpeccy

    So even if we accept James’s estimate that g generally accounts for 40% of the variance in abilities tested by an IQ test, that still leaves most of the variance unaccounted for.

    I ran my analysis for the 29 and 47 test versions and the first factors explained 45.4 and 44.0 percent of variance respectively. Here is the variance explained for all of the factors in each case.

    ## [1] 0.453801088 0.063057160 0.046210584 0.041217967 0.038829702 0.036937542
    ## [7] 0.030892265 0.027047476 0.025391355 0.022830888 0.020293474 0.018589980
    ## [13] 0.018551723 0.016857358 0.016429781 0.014280199 0.013990204 0.012629053
    ## [19] 0.012144089 0.010680409 0.009298614 0.008780256 0.007977796 0.007339386
    ## [25] 0.006704824 0.005619223 0.005269721 0.004914395 0.003433487

    ## [1] 0.4402517730 0.0645364315 0.0505726862 0.0370259283 0.0364028092
    ## [6] 0.0275008666 0.0261660902 0.0226362273 0.0210689769 0.0195246280
    ## [11] 0.0176624371 0.0163307403 0.0151687692 0.0141377659 0.0133534098
    ## [16] 0.0122083194 0.0117492028 0.0111061277 0.0106822138 0.0102487205
    ## [21] 0.0094289394 0.0087193149 0.0085464986 0.0080227096 0.0078707284
    ## [26] 0.0076255996 0.0067976466 0.0061076677 0.0056483947 0.0055027808
    ## [31] 0.0051835161 0.0049427273 0.0046608460 0.0039641261 0.0036375853
    ## [36] 0.0036285032 0.0033071043 0.0029161137 0.0027997257 0.0023071675
    ## [41] 0.0020604996 0.0020343942 0.0017637621 0.0015706683 0.0010108140
    ## [46] 0.0008917199 0.0007163228

    It is easy to see how much g dominates the other factors.

    As an experiment I removed the lowest correlating two tests (PICREC and RPCNAM, both also present in the 29 test version) from the 47 test version. That only increased variance explained from 44.0 to 45.3 percent.

    Here is a list of the 47 tests with descriptive names.

    WJIV_short | WJIV_long
    --------
    ORLVOC | Oral Vocabulary
    NUMSER | Number Series
    VRBATN | Verbal Attention
    LETPAT | Letter-Pattern Matching
    PHNPRO | Phonological Processing
    STYREC | Story Recall
    VISUAL | Visualization
    GENINF | General Information
    CONFRM | Concept Formation
    NUMREV | Numbers Reversed
    NUMPAT | Number-Pattern Matching
    NWDREP | Nonword Repetition
    VAL | Visual-Auditory Learning
    PICREC | Picture Recognition
    ANLSYN | Analysis-Synthesis
    OBJNUM | Object-Number Sequencing
    PAIRCN | Pair Cancellation
    MEMWRD | Memory for Words
    PICVOC | Picture Vocabulary
    ORLCMP | Oral Comprehension
    SEGMNT | Segmentation
    RPCNAM | Rapid Picture Naming
    SENREP | Sentence Repetition
    UNDDIR | Understanding Directions
    SNDBLN | Sound Blending
    RETFLU | Retrieval Fluency
    SNDAWR | Sound Awareness
    LWIDNT | Letter-Word Identification
    APPROB | Applied Problems
    SPELL | Spelling
    PSGCMP | Passage Comprehension
    CALC | Calculation
    WRTSMP | Writing Samples
    WRDATK | Word Attack
    ORLRDG | Oral Reading
    SNRDFL | Sentence Reading Fluency
    MTHFLU | Math Facts Fluency
    SNWRFL | Sentence Writing Fluency
    RDGREC | Reading Recall
    NUMMAT | Number Matrices
    EDIT | Editing
    WRDFLU | Word Reading Fluency
    SPLSND | Spelling of Sounds
    RDGVOC | Reading Vocabulary
    SCI | Science
    SOC | Social Studies
    HUM | Humanities

    The 29 test subset is:

    [1] “ORLVOC” “VRBATN” “PHNPRO” “STYREC” “VISUAL” “GENINF” “CONFRM” “NUMREV” “NUMPAT” “NWDREP” “VAL” “PICREC” “MEMWRD” “PICVOC” “ORLCMP”
    [16] “SEGMNT” “RPCNAM” “SENREP” “UNDDIR” “SNDBLN” “RETFLU” “SNDAWR” “LWIDNT” “APPROB” “SPELL” “PSGCMP” “SCI” “SOC” “HUM”

    P.S. Thanks for including the image source link in your earlier comment. I appreciate having links to sources.

  333. @Oliver D. Smith

    You seem oblivious to your perpetual ad hominem attacks. Try to answer the points people make.

    • 回复: @Oliver D. Smith
  334. @James Thompson

    You seem oblivious to your perpetual ad hominem attacks. Try to answer the points people make.

    I disagree. See here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Criticism_as_a_fallacy

    Walton has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,[30] as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject’s words.

    The philosopher Charles Taylor has argued that ad hominem reasoning (discussing facts about the speaker or author relative to the value of his statements) is essential to understanding certain moral issues

    The latter issues I’ve discussed such as academic integrity including research standards and ethics.

    • 同意: Menes
    • 回复: @James Thompson
    , @Anon
  335. @Oliver D. Smith

    Since the current ‘consensus’ (Note, consensus is not a part of the scientific method) is that homo sapiens evolved in Africa and the spread around the world and admixed with populations that had earlier left Africa, it seems like claiming people who identify as white or European should have some SNPs and genes in common with existing African populations.

    So, it seems like you simply do not understand the science.

    What effort did the authors go to eliminate the possibility that those common gene sequences or SNPs were ancestral and not recent?

    • 回复: @Menes
  336. @Oliver D. Smith

    有多少天使可以在针头上跳舞?

    How many angels are racist?

  337. anon[126]• 免责声明 说:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    I prefer if everyone lay (one’s) cards on the table.

    Alles klar….

  338. syonredux 说:
    @Menes

    There’s no real evidence for the notion that Bass Reeves was the basis for the Lone Ranger. The actual influences were Zorro and Tom Mix:

    [更多]

    低音通和
    独行侠:
    揭穿神话

    一个这样的
    例子是关于一个非裔美国人美国副元帅的功绩的误解
    名为巴斯里夫斯(Bass Reeves),由最近因虚假带来的种族偏见影响的民间传说触发
    信念和对事实验证的真正担心。 除了记录真实的
    里夫斯(Reeves)的成就,十年前出版,引起了不必要的混乱
    错误地暗示他是《孤独游侠》小说角色的灵感来源。 历史学家
    预计将避免在很大程度上误认为民间文学艺术是事实的陷阱。
    避免猜测。 但是,《低音里夫斯》传记的作者最终–
    无意间–误导成千上万的读者相信是虚假的。

    要素
    构成《独行侠》特色的影片来自纸浆杂志的票价。 一封信
    从Jewell到Striker(日期为21月XNUMX日)验证了Trendle的要求,该要求类似于Zorro标记的幸福,幸运,可笑的危险蒙面警惕者。 Jewell提供了可行的建议
    根据日常广播剧的物理需求,Striker提供了粗略的草图。 独行侠
    变相工作的游侠源于这封信,是杰威尔对马克的引用
    佐罗

    The greatest influence on the formation of The Lone Ranger was Tom Mix, evident in a
    21年1933月XNUMX日的一封信中,Jewell告诉Striker:“我们将宣传以下事实:
    游骑兵是汤姆混合类型。” 汤姆·米克斯(Tom Mix)是好莱坞电影界的明星,他定义了
    电影早期的西方人。 Mix是年幼的孩子和Jewell崇拜的偶像
    试图反映同样的成功故事。

    https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/41b57b_65fd2f2e944846ddbfa937d8449a43cf.pdf

  339. Menes 说:
    @res

    As Peripatetic Commenter said

    Lol. The Peripatetic buffoon is as dishonest as you. I showed very clearly how you lied.

    the quotes are in the original. Pay particular attention to the single quotes before the d in doubts and at the end.

    How can it be a quote without quotation marks, you dishonest con artist? You added the quotation marks where there were none in the original paraphrase by the author of the article, and claimed Stefansson “actually said” those words within the quotation marks. And you are shameless enough to stubbornly continue to deny your dishonesty. Here’s the relevant paragraph again:

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2007/12/what-does-it-mean-to-say-that-james-watson-is-16-percent-african.html

    Kari Stefansson, whose company assessed Watson’s heritage, says he found enough errors in the public genome to have doubts about whether the 16 percent figure will hold up. For example, he says there are places where it appears that Watson has two X chromosomes, which would make him a woman.

    Anyone can go to that link and confirm there are no quotation marks. Yet you lied again that there are! Probably expecting that no one would bother to check. Shameless, amoral crook. Perhaps you also think that you are doing “God’s work” like the stubborn liar RobbieSmith who you were egging on a few weeks ago. I should have asked that wicked man who this God was that wanted him to lie and hate on his behalf. Can you tell us?

    By the way, the author does not provide a link for us to confirm his claim about Kari Stefannson, and I can’t find it on the internet either. I gave him the benefit of the doubt because Slate is not a site for racist deplorables such as you and the Peripatetic fool, as far as I know. Can you show us where Stefannson says what Wilson claims he said?

    • 回复: @res
  340. Menes 说:
    @res

    To redo the genetic test we would need a sample of his DNA.

    Get a saliva swab from him, or his sons, or his relatives. Send it to 23&me, AncestryDNA etc and await the results.

    It’s a fool’s errand though. There is no doubt James Watson is part-african. His maternal grandmother’s photo is enough evidence. There are millions of white americans, especially from the South like Watson’s paternal ancestors, who have some african ancestry.

    Including the First Lady of the Confederacy, Varina Davis:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varina_Davis

    White residents of Richmond freely criticized Varina Davis; some described her appearance as resembling “a mulatto or an Indian ‘squaw’.”[7]

  341. @James Thompson

    Let’s have a look at publications on large samples which show that these extra skills have predictive value over and about tests of general mental ability

    Are you saying that there is a SAT-type test to assess such things as:

    the ability to:
    identify the pitch of a musical tone;
    memorize a rythmic pattern, a melody, an entire complex musical work, a landscape, a conversation, or pages of text verbatim;
    conceive a pleasing melody, a poetic turn of phrase, or merely a joke;
    find a way in the wilderness;
    weave a way through an opposition line on the sports ground;
    command a battle;
    win an argument, sway a crowd;
    formulate a productive scientific hypothesis?

    And what is “general mental ability”? You seem to assume the existence of what remains to be shown to exist.

    • 回复: @James Thompson
  342. anon[291]• 免责声明 说:
    @Menes

    There is no doubt James Watson is part-african.

    What difference does that make? Who cares?

    • 同意: acementhead
  343. Menes 说:
    @Peripatetic Commenter

    Since the current ‘consensus’ (Note, consensus is not a part of the scientific method) is that homo sapiens evolved in Africa and the spread around the world and admixed with populations that had earlier left Africa, it seems like claiming people who identify as white or European should have some SNPs and genes in common with existing African populations.

    So, it seems like you simply do not understand the science.

    What effort did the authors go to eliminate the possibility that those common gene sequences or SNPs were ancestral and not recent?

    Lol. What’s so funny is that this moron actually thinks he understands the science and is making a great point.

    Hey idiot, if ancient ancestry was not eliminated in these genetic tests every white person tested would show african ancestry, not just a fraction of whites.

  344. Menes 说:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    It upsets many self-identified ‘White Americans’ knowing they have ‘African-American’ ancestry.

    Especially the ones who fly the Confederate and/or Nazi flags. And that’s a good reason to rub it in. As Oxford geneticist does in the following video. He found that all the whites he tested in the South had some african in them, in some cases a large percentage. Which makes a lot of sense considering the history of the South:

    • 回复: @mikemikev
  345. mikemikev 说:
    @Menes

    About 95% of white Americans have zero detectable non-white ancestry and the remainder averages around 1-2%.

    BTW you didn’t answer my question about whether Confucius was black.

    • 回复: @Oliver D. Smith
  346. @mikemikev

    The ~5% estimate is for >1% ‘African-American’ ancestry. So about 5% of ‘White Americans’ have at least 1% AA ancestry. If you though include the lowest/negligible range of 0.1-0.9% – up to 30% of ‘White Americans’ have AA ancestry.

    The average varies depending on the state.

    When looking at individuals you can find some self-identified ‘White Americans’ with a fairly large proportion of AA ancestry. The population geneticist Mark Shriver discovered he was around ~20%.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_D._Shriver#Personal_life

    • 巨魔: mikemikev
    • 回复: @res
  347. @CanSpeccy

    There are many ways of testing the abilities you list. Some are in standard test format, as the musical test already described; some like way-finding have been tested in open fields by Freda Newcombe, as already described; there are tests of “photographic memory” and ways of confirming whether the memory is indeed photographic (most of it is not); there are extensive psychometric studies of pilots and their later success in service; and long term studies of outcome in very bright people. Lubinski and Benbow very good on all this.

    There are individuals with specific high abilities who are poor on general intelligence. Fascinating individuals, but not a refutation of finding which apply to most people.

    • 回复: @CanSpeccy
  348. res 说:
    @Menes

    Lol. The Peripatetic buffoon is as dishonest as you. I showed very clearly how you lied.
    ...
    How can it be a quote without quotation marks, you dishonest con artist?

    LOL! I gave my full reference and an extended excerpt in comment 206. Let’s reproduce it here for the benefit of the reading challenged. You are familiar with single quotes, right? If you would like your very own PDF copy to check then go to
    https://libgen.lc/ads.php?md5=587BBC5562731829DA821D866F44E044

    在“拉直钟形曲线:黑人男性气质的刻板印象如何推动种族和智力研究”的第 113-114 页中有此注释

    5 乔纳森·利克,“DNA 先驱詹姆斯·沃森比他想象的更黑”,星期日泰晤士报,9 年 2007 月 16 日。某些研究人员对 9% 的数字提出了质疑。 参见维基百科关于 Watson 的文章:“一些期刊就此事发表了意见。 2007 年 16 月 9 日,《星期日泰晤士报》的一篇文章报道了 deCODE Genetics 声称 Watson 的 DNA 中有 99.5% 来自非洲,16% 来自亚洲。 必须根据解释单核苷酸多态性 (SNP) 起源的统计模型来理解 Watson(或任何人的 DNA)起源的说法,它在任何两个人之间至少具有 XNUMX% 的相同性。 基于这个模型,沃森 DNA 中 SNP 的解释是“我们可以得出结论,在过去几百代左右的时间里,他的祖先中约有六分之一来自非洲”。 这种分析方法对个体基因组测序中的错误相当敏感; deCODE 的方法没有报告,分析的细节也没有公布。 根据 deCODE 的 Kari Stefansson 的说法,该分析依赖于 Watson 全基因组序列的错误版本,而 Stefansson 对此表示怀疑。 . . XNUMX% 的数字是否能站得住脚,'根据使用的数据补充说,'沃森似乎有两条 X 染色体,这将使他成为一个女人。'”

    Do you not trust Constance Hilliard?
    https://www.blackpast.org/author/hilliardconstance/

    The Sunday Times (UK) article she references is unfortunately paywalled. Does anyone have a subscription to check how it appeared in the original?

    Note that the Slate article appeared 12/14/2007 and the Sunday Times article appeared 12/9/2007.

    Skipping more truly epic projection…

    By the way, the author does not provide a link for us to confirm his claim about Kari Stefannson, and I can’t find it on the internet either. I gave him the benefit of the doubt because Slate is not a site for racist deplorables such as you and the Peripatetic fool, as far as I know. Can you show us where Stefannson says what Wilson claims he said?

    See above. Was a book and page reference accompanied by a complete excerpt of the relevant note really not sufficient?

    As I noted above in comment 220, I am also bothered by the absence of a complete quote from Stefannson anywhere. For both this and your original claim.

    P.S. Your blind willingness to trust Slate (of all sources!) helps make some things clear.

    • 回复: @Menes
    , @acementhead
  349. @James Thompson

    There are individuals with specific high abilities who are poor on general intelligence. Fascinating individuals, but not a refutation of finding which apply to most people.

    So, if you add more abilities to the range of those tested, the common factor, what you refer to as general intelligence, diminishes in significance.

    There are individuals with specific high abilities who are poor on general intelligence.

    And, presumably, individuals with specific high abilities who score well on what you call a test of general intelligence. In other words, general intelligence does not measure what makes the intellectually exceptional individual exceptional.

  350. res 说:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    The selective credulousness is fascinating. Just how much do you trust ancestry assessments under 1%? Being willing to trust those yet not believing there are racial clusters (or that they are arbitrary) seems rather odd.

    One interesting thing about your link is it cites a 2002 article from Steve Sailer.

    Notice the 2002 date. I wonder what methodology he used. I see this paper from 1998:
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707616280
    and this from 2003
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12579416/

    I think the 2003 paper is the one based on its mention of the Duffy allele (FY-NULL). See below.

    Where things get even more interesting is looking at the other Wikipedia reference (you do check the references when you use Wikipedia, right?).
    http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Code+of+many+colors:+can+researchers+see+race+in+the+genome%3F-a0132049840

    There they give a figure of 11% rather than ~20% (Steve’s article says “22 percent of his relatively recent ancestors were African”, which is not the same as % admixture).

    RACISM REALISM Risch’s results have stirred up controversy among many geneticists. For instance, Mark Shriver of Pennsylvania State University in State College says that Risch’s method “can overcluster people,” making associations between individuals and their race that don’t exist with other types of analyses. Shriver and others haven’t found similar clusters when they applied a different computer program to similar data.

    Shriver also contends that the study’s separation of people into four racial groups shrinks the natural range of genetic variation, making people within each group seem more alike than they really are.

    Rather than there being clear racial lines, says Shriver, “there’s really a continuum of variation across the globe.” If researchers sampled only people in Africa and Sweden, the genetic differences between the two groups would be striking. However, a sampling of people from Africa, Sweden, and everywhere in between would reveal only small differences between each population and its neighbors. “You won’t see a place where you’ll say, ‘There’s the racial divide,” says Shriver.

    Nevertheless, Shriver works with a company that uses what variation there is among populations to trace people’s ancestry. The company, DNA Print Genomics in Sarasota, Fla., starts with DNA from a customer’s inner cheek. After comparing the sample’s genetic markers with those in a data set collected from people around the world, the company estimates what percentage of the person’s ancestry is African, East Asian, European, or Native American.

    The results can be surprising. When Shriver, who considers himself to be white, analyzed his own DNA, he found that it contained the Duffy null allele, found only in descendants of sub-Saharan Africans. “The test estimated that I have 11 percent west African ancestry,” says Shriver.

    In spring 2003, Shriver and his colleagues applied the test to an urgent task–they were instrumental in catching a Louisiana serial killer. After analyzing DNA from semen at the crime scenes, Shriver and his colleagues estimated that the killer was 85 percent African and 15 percent Native American. Officers eventually arrested Derrick Todd Lee, a black man whose DNA matched that left at the scenes. As testament to the uncertainty of eyewitnesses, Lee was convicted although several people had reported seeing a white man at the scene of several of the murders.

    Although an ancestry test had put police on the right track in this case, Shriver expresses concern about the test’s potential for misuse in other social realms. One danger, he notes, is attempting to correlate ancestry with qualities such as intelligence, athletic performance, or musical ability. “It’s hard to know what the right use is. We have to be vigilant,” he says.

    Researchers may never nail down a precise connection between race and genetics, but there’s little chance that the concept of race will ever go away, says Charles Rotimi of Howard University’s genome center. Over the centuries, some people have used race to set discriminatory categories and then give themselves privileges and take privileges from others. People who have been advantaged by racism aren’t likely to give it up, Rotimi says.

    “Look at the Hutus and the Tutsis,” he adds, referring to two Rwandan tribes that have been fighting each other for decades. “You don’t need genetics to be racist.”

    Given the focus on a single allele, I again have to wonder how that result would compare to modern methods.

    • 回复: @Oliver D. Smith
  351. Ron Unz 说:
    @Menes

    It’s a fool’s errand though. There is no doubt James Watson is part-african. His maternal grandmother’s photo is enough evidence.

    Well, you provided a small B&W photo of an elderly woman who looks entirely white, and you’re apparently claiming she’s actually 1/3 African, thereby allowing Watson to be 16% black. That’s totally ridiculous.

    “Menes” was an Egyptian pharoah, so I assume you’re one of those ridiculous Afrocentricists, who believes that the ancient Egyptians were substantially Negroid, which they obviously weren’t. From what I recall, the DNA studies have demonstrated that they were Mediterranean, closely related to all the other entirely Caucasian peoples of that region, just like everyone had always assumed.

    • 回复: @res
    , @Menes
    , @Menes
  352. res 说:
    @Ron Unz

    Since the picture is of his 盛大mother wouldn’t she need to be 2/3 African for Watson to be 16% African?

    • 回复: @lavoisier
    , @Ron Unz
  353. @res

    Since the picture is of his grandmother wouldn’t she need to be 2/3 African for Watson to be 16% African?

    No. His grandfather was almost certainly African too.

    Any white person who does anything of merit MUST have recently inherited a large number of Sub-Saharan African genes otherwise he or she would be just another worthless hateful racist.

  354. @res

    The selective credulousness is fascinating. Just how much do you trust ancestry assessments under 1%? Being willing to trust those yet not believing there are racial clusters (or that they are arbitrary) seems rather odd.

    Bryc et al. 2015 estimate ~3.5% of self-identified ‘White Americans’ have >1% AA ancestry [I assume this is where Mikemikev got his 5% estimate from]:

    尽管平均水平因州而异,但至少有3.5%的美国人拥有非洲血统。 在南卡罗来纳州和路易斯安那州,约12%的美国人拥有至少1%的非洲血统。 同样在路易斯安那州,大约8%的美洲裔至少携带1%的美洲原住民血统。

    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/12/genetic-study-reveals-surprising-ancestry-many-americans

    We estimate that a substantial fraction, at least 1.4%, of self-reported European Americans in the US carry at least 2% African ancestry. Using a less conservative threshold, approximately 3.5% of European Americans have 1% or more African ancestry (Figure S8). Individuals with African ancestry are found at much higher frequencies in states in the South than in other parts of the US: about 5% of self-reported European Americans living in South Carolina and Louisiana have at least 2% African ancestry. Lowering the threshold to at least 1% African ancestry (potentially arising from one African genealogical ancestor within the last 11 generations), European Americans with African ancestry comprise as much as 12% of European Americans from Louisiana and South Carolina and about 1 in 10 individuals in other parts of the South

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4289685/

    So 1% ‘African’ ancestry equates in these autosomal DNA tests to having a single AA ancestor within the past 11 generations, say 330 years ago. Once though you go beyond about 10 generations only a very small fraction of your ancestors have contributed directly to your DNA, so this is probably why Bryc et al. made the cut-off. My simple point is the number of ‘White Americans’ with ‘African’ ancestry sharply increases if you don’t make a cut-off. Hence I would additionally look at different types of evidence. The sociologist Robert P. Stuckert for example in 1958 estimated that 21% of ‘White Americans’ — so approximately one out of every five — have ‘African American’ ancestry.

  355. dearieme 说:

    Suggesting that Watson was partly black is a dangerous game. He always allowed that Crick was much cleverer than he was. Do you see what Watson-was-black proponents could be accused of?

  356. anon[251]• 免责声明 说:
    @Menes

    I must say you have disappointed me greatly. Because you have not poasted this famous monologue by James Watson in his younger days.

    提、提、提!

  357. Ron Unz 说:
    @res

    Since the picture is of his grandmother wouldn’t she need to be 2/3 African for Watson to be 16% African?

    Oops! You’re 100% correct. I was very careless and assumed that the photo was of Watson’s mother. Since it looked almost entirely white, that seemed ridiculous enough, but my brain couldn’t process it was allegedly the grandmother who contributed his 16% African ancestry.

    Presumably, this “Menes” fellow is relying upon the standard theory that all humans are originally African in origin, automatically placing Watson, Confucious, and Dolph Lundgren in that category.

  358. Ron Unz 说:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    Instead I stick with dictionary definitions:

    1. the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others

    Well, if you focus on that particular definition, then “racism” is at least substantially true according to scientific evidence.

    This directly relates to an important empirical fact I noted upthread. As far as I can tell, many of the most prominent “anti-racist” scientists of the last 100 years have become notorious for the fraud and dishonesty they used in promoting their views, a situation almost entirely absent from their scientific opponents in the “racist” camp.

    The obvious reason for this discrepancy is that when you are ideologically committed to supporting a scientific doctrine that happens to be false, you must necessarily employ numerous falsehoods or propagandistic tricks in promoting your theory. I assume that Creationists who attempt to debunk Darwinism suffer from many of these same difficulties.

    • 同意: lavoisier
  359. @Menes

    White residents of Richmond freely criticized Varina Davis; some described her appearance as resembling “a mulatto or an Indian ‘squaw’.”[7]

    You really are confused or worse.

    You show a picture of a woman who looks to me to have some East Asian ancestry and quote some people who can’t really decide what her ancestry is and you claim that as support for Watson being 16% black?

  360. Menes 说:
    @Ron Unz

    Thanks for the laughs:

    you provided a small B&W photo of an elderly woman who looks entirely white

    She doesn’t even look “entirely” Mediterranean, much less “entirely” northwestern european (Irish):

    who believes that the ancient Egyptians were substantially Negroid, which they obviously weren’t………...they were Mediterranean, closely related to all the other entirely Caucasian peoples of that region

    For your information Ancient Egypt was not a meditteranean civilization, it was a riverine civilization (Nile River) that originated in the deep south close to a thousand miles from the Mediterranean Ocean. And no one ever compared the ancient egyptians to “all the other entirely Caucasian peoples of that region”, instead they were compared to the Nubians to their South.

    • 回复: @mikemikev
    , @Oliver D. Smith
  361. Menes 说:
    @Ron Unz

    you’re apparently claiming she’s actually 1/3 African, thereby allowing Watson to be 16% black.

    I never claimed that. However that sounds about right, and that would explainof Watson’s 16% african ancestry. What you are overlooking is Watson’s other three grandparents. The other half of his african ancestry could come from one, two or all of them.

    That’s totally ridiculous.

    What’s totally ridiculous is your insistence that “there is zero chance that Watson had even a sliver of African ancestry, let alone 16%”.

    In other words you are claiming the genetic test that found his african and asian admixture is 100% false. On what rational basis do you make that charge?

  362. Anon[794]• 免责声明 说:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    Oliver, did you create the Ben Winegard RationalWiki article?

    • 回复: @Oliver D. Smith
  363. Menes 说:
    @res

    Was a book and page reference accompanied by a complete excerpt of the relevant note really not sufficient?

    It is sufficient to prove that I was wrong to accuse you of dishonesty for inserting quotation marks. I based it on the Slate article whereas you were quoting from Dr Hilliard’s book.

    But the authenticity of that quote has not yet been established. The quote was embedded in Dr Hilliard’s quotation from Wikipedia’s James Watson entry, but Wikipedia doesn’t have anything about that genetic test anymore.

    I am also bothered by the absence of a complete quote from Stefannson anywhere.

    It’s very strange. There is no mention by anyone else of the supposed errors in his online genome either. Why don’t you email Stefansson and ask him about it?

    • 回复: @res
  364. @Anon

    没有

    I also don’t “email people under pseudonym”. I only own one email under my real name – like I post under like here. Good article that explains what Kirkegaard has been doing to me for years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

  365. anarchyst 说:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    I devalue and debunk the “holohoax” from an engineering standpoint. For thinkers, this is a sure way to prove that it never happened.
    The impossibilities of the claims made by “holohoax” “survivors” are easily proven. From lampshades, soap and shrunken heads made from jews to using “bug spray” as an execution agent in unventilated shower rooms, all can be proven to be fabrications of the highest order. Let’s not forget the “electric floors”, “masturbation machines” and other wildly impossible execution methods.
    将“受害者”运送成百上千英里,然后由一个能源匮乏的国家执行他们的后勤工作是值得怀疑的。
    这些声称的“死亡集中营”有医院、娱乐设施、游泳池和其他供居住者使用的设施。
    Add to that, the advent of “holohoax” “thoughtcrimes” which prosecute and incarcerate those who go against the “original holohoax story”. Most people are unaware that, in many countries, it is a crime to go against the “official holohoax narrative”. I use prominent cases, mentioning Ursula Haverbeck, Monika Schaefer, and lawyer Sylvia Stolz, all who have been incarcerated for “holohoax” “thoughtcrimes”.
    These avenues in which to invalidate the “holohoax” among thinking people usually work to plant the seeds of doubt about the greatest “hoax of the twentieth (and twenty-first) centuries”.

  366. res 说:
    @Menes

    It is sufficient to prove that I was wrong to accuse you of dishonesty for inserting quotation marks. I based it on the Slate article whereas you were quoting from Dr Hilliard’s book.

    At least you are man enough to admit that. Do you agree that I was very clear about the source of my quote in my original reference to it in comment 206?

    The quote was embedded in Dr Hilliard’s quotation from Wikipedia’s James Watson entry,

    No. The quote was clearly from the Sunday Times article (see Note 5 which I included in its entirety). Which still exists (but is paywalled) if you search for the article title. Not sure how you missed my multiple references to “the Sunday Times article” in comment 371.

    Why don’t you email Stefansson and ask him about it?

    Because I doubt he would answer. How about you do it?

  367. @Menes

    For your information Ancient Egypt was not a meditteranean civilization, it was a riverine civilization (Nile River) that originated in the deep south close to a thousand miles from the Mediterranean Ocean. And no one ever compared the ancient egyptians to “all the other entirely Caucasian peoples of that region”, instead they were compared to the Nubians to their South.

    My view is Lower (Nile Delta) Egyptians were most closely related to eastern-Mediterranean/south Levant populations while Upper Egyptians to their southern neighbours like Nubians. I know craniometrics and other physical anthropology data is laughed at these days, but those studies from the 1930-1990s consistently showed Lower Egyptians plot closest to ancient Aegean and Syro-Palestine groups, while Upper Egyptians, to Nubians and some Horn African groups. None of this is very surprising given the geography. Ancient Greeks and Romans described Lower Egyptians as also being lighter brown skinned (bronze complexion) than the dark brown Upper Egyptians.

    What is totally obsolete as you probably know is labelling things ‘Caucasoid’ or ‘Negroid’. Yet whenever you look around on the internet about the Egyptian ‘race’ debate, most laypersons are still doing this unfortunately.

    Greene, D. L. (1981). A critique of methods used to reconstruct racial and population affinity in the Nile Valley. Bull, et Mem. de la Soc. d’Anthrop. de Paris. 8(XIII): 357-365.
    https://www.persee.fr/doc/bmsap_0037-8984_1981_num_8_3_3842

  368. MrVoid 说:
    @Menes

    这些头脑简单的傻瓜在这里无法理解的是,心灵与皮肤、肌肉、头发、骨骼、色素沉着等不属于同一类别。心灵是一个属于自己的类别,科学对此一无所知,因为它无法解释意识。

    I agree that concious phenomena are not part of the physical world. (I actually think that the physical world is a sort of illusory holograph projecting out concious phenomena). However, I don’t believe that concious phenomena feed back into the brain as information, and I don’t think that they play any particular role in intelligence or intellect. That’s what brains do. As a Swami once told me, conciousness is not the doer. I can think of nothing that is the doer, other than the nervous system.

  369. @res

    “…adding that based on the data used ‘it appears that Watson has two X chromosomes, which would make him a woman.’”

    The above quote from Jonathan Leake is just flat out wrong. XXY is male.

    And, as somebody said above, why on earth does it matter at all that James Watson has African heritage.

    • 回复: @res
  370. res 说:
    @acementhead

    The above quote from Jonathan Leake is just flat out wrong. XXY is male.

    That’s a fair criticism. But going by the “think horses not zebras” approach I think his comment is close enough for a newspaper article. The point is, the data was significantly in error. Unless you think Watson has Klinefelter syndrome.

    And, as somebody said above, why on earth does it matter at all that James Watson has African heritage.

    Not sure, but the media sure was gleeful about trumpeting the news based on questionable data back in 2007.

    As for why I care, I don’t like lies and liars. And those media articles seem likely to be wrong.

    I actually just ran across some more background on this. The second comment on this post is very much on point.
    http://blogs.nature.com/news/2007/12/james_watson_16_black_claim.html

    I find the wide reporting of this story quite disturbing, with no actual description of the analysis that was done. As far as I can tell, the original source is this blog: http://science-community.sciam.com/thread.jspa?threadID=300005381

    and the title “file under hearsay” should be heeded! But it appears major newspapers are reporting the story without checking any further.

    What does that say about how DNA information will be used and interpreted for any one of us? This is not something that scientists, reporters, or editors should be sloppy about!

    That “original source” disappeared about a month after it originally appeared (which is itself interesting), but happily there is an archive page.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20080112052929/http://science-community.sciam.com/thread.jspa?threadID=300005381

    Here is the relevant part of the post.

    File Under: Hearsay: Earlier this week, Kari Stefansson, a well-known geneticist and the founder of deCODE, an Icelandic company specializing in translating human genetics into drug development and diagnostic tools, stopped by the Scientific American offices to talk about a new project: For less than \$1,000, anyone can send his company a cheek swab and get his or her genome scanned. Then, via the decodeme.com website, they can review a number of predetermined complex genetic disorders to assess his or her relative risk for developing maladies such as diabetes, myocardial infarction and even restless leg syndrome.

    In addition, you can check your ancestry to get an idea of the geographical distribution of their forefathers. According to Stefansson, when he put in James Watson’s genome, which was sequenced earlier this year and made publicly available, the legendary geneticist turned out to be 20 percent African. (When we checked his claim, it was more like 16 percent, but with rounding, fine.) Stefansson remarked that the ancestry test suggests that Watson had at least one African ancestor within two or three generations of his birth.

    Like I said, this is just gossip. But it would be ironic. Don’t cha think? A little too ironic.

    Reread that final sentence. Does anyone here think that newspapers reporting this as news were adhering to reasonable journalistic standards?

    • 回复: @dearieme
  371. dearieme 说:
    @res

    I’m trying to follow the logic. People who dislike genetics, and accuse people such as Watson of racism, decide that they can best insult Watson by claiming he has a touch of the tar brush.

    Isn’t there a bit of inconsistency or hypocrisy there?

    • 同意: res
  372. phil 说:
    @CanSpeccy

    您是否阅读了这篇文章的目标文章?

  373. Chuck 说:

    “Testing it in other samples should happen quickly, so that if it does not replicate, we can discard it.”

    As an update, we posted our peer-reviewed but not approved (“may… lead to unnecessary controversy”) follow up:
    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.24.312074v1

    We also recently replicated the results on a separate, large, nationally representative sample.

    所以,
    1) the results replicate nationally in the USA
    2) the results hold for (at least some) Latin American populations
    3) we are unable to identify obvious confounds
    4) more research is needed, but this is proving to be a productive — if difficult to publish — line of research

  374. Chuck 说:
    @CanSpeccy

    Ya, we tried sending some of these papers to PAID, since they published Colman (2016):

    “Several lines of research, notably racial admixture studies, racial crossing studies involving interracial parenting or adoption…”

    But they deemed that admixture/crossing studies, “especially investigations using more recent techniques of molecular genetics,” were uninteresting or uninformative. Go figure.

  375. thotmonger 说:
    @thotmonger

    This essay offers another explanation for the bias in Nobel prize awards:

当前评论者
说:

发表评论 -


 记得 我的信息为什么?
 电子邮件回复我的评论
$
提交的评论已被许可给 Unz评论 并可以由后者自行决定在其他地方重新发布
在翻译模式下禁用评论
通过RSS订阅此评论主题 通过RSS订阅所有James Thompson的评论