Race and IQ

[Norepinephrinistania]

I have.
Jared prefaces the book by saying "We must not consider any racist alternatives"
We'll, that shows it's not proper science if only one view is considered. That's not even proper sociology.
It makes some decent points, and that's why I tailor my approach on individual differences and not cultural success.

It's not proper science to refuse to entertain pseudoscience?

If you can't come up with a reasonable scenario where genetics play no part (you haven't), you are peddling pseudoscience, because your environmental arguments would only account for 20-50% of the difference.
Jared's line was typical SJW moral high ground BS.

[Threlizdun]

Biological race doesn't exist, so the idea that IQ could be related to it as a genetic factor is absurd. IQ is largely environmental in the first place, and is clearly shown as such with the the IQ disparity between socioeconomic levels.

[Flyover]

It's not proper science to refuse to entertain pseudoscience?

If you can't come up with a reasonable scenario where genetics play no part (you haven't), you are peddling pseudoscience, because your environmental arguments would only account for 20-50% of the difference.
Jared's line was typical SJW moral high ground BS.

"I don't think racism is good, or scientific"
"YOU'RE A SJW OMG EVIL CENSORSHIP"

[Norepinephrinistania]

No study. An opinion piece.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 9604001357

That's not a study either. That's a meta-analysis.

Generally even more conclusive.

[Mavorpen]

If you can't come up with a reasonable scenario where genetics play no part (you haven't),

I haven't because I don't care to because it's irrelevant to anything I've ever said.

you are peddling pseudoscience,

Please don't project.

because your environmental arguments would only account for 20-50% of the difference.

And still no actual evidence in support of this.

Jared's line was typical SJW moral high ground BS.

There's that boogeyman word again.

[Laerod]

Jared's line was typical SJW moral high ground BS.

There's that boogeyman word again.

Scary Justice Warriors! D=

[Mavorpen]

If you can't come up with a reasonable scenario where genetics play no part (you haven't), you are peddling pseudoscience, because your environmental arguments would only account for 20-50% of the difference.
Jared's line was typical SJW moral high ground BS.

"I don't think racism is good, or scientific"
"YOU'RE A SJW OMG EVIL CENSORSHIP"

I feel like a young girl on a school playground meeting a male classmate and the classmate yells "EWWWW COOTIES!"

That about represents the amount of value and maturity his posts hold at this point.

[Unified Soviet Socialist Republics]

Do you support David Duke? Do you think what he says is truth?

[Luna Amore]

Women's Brains
By Stephen Jay Gould*
IN THE PRELUDE to Middlemarch,
George Eliot lamented the unfulfilled lives of talented
women:
Some have felt that these blundering lives are
due to the inconvenient indefiniteness with
which the Supreme Power has fashioned the
natures of women: if there were one level of
feminine incompetence as strict as the ability to
count three and no more, the social lot of women
might be treated with scientific certitude.
Eliot goes on to discount the idea of innate limitation,
but while she wrote in 1872, the leaders of European
anthropometry were trying to measure "with scientific
certitude" the inferiority of women. Anthropometry, or
measurement of the human body, is not so fashionable a
field these days, but it dominated the human sciences for
much of the nineteenth century and remained popular
until intelligence testing replaced skull measurement as a
favored device for making invidious comparisons among
races, classes, and sexes. Craniometry, or measurement
of the skull, commanded the most attention and respect.
Its unquestioned leader, Paul Broca (1824-80), professor
of clinical surgery at the Faculty of Medicine in Paris,
gathered a school of disciples and imitators around
himself. Their work, so meticulous and apparently
irrefutable, exerted great influence and won high esteem
as a jewel of nineteenth-century science.
Broca's work seemed particularly invulnerable to
refutation. Had he not measured with the most
scrupulous care and accuracy? (Indeed, he had. I have
the greatest respect for Broca's meticulous procedure.
His numbers are sound. But science is an inferential
exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves,
specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with
them.) Broca depicted himself as an apostle of
objectivity, a man who bowed before facts and cast aside
superstition and sentimentality. He declared that "there
is no faith, however respectable, no interest, however
legitimate, which must not accommodate itself to the
progress of human knowledge and bend before truth."
Women, like it or not, had smaller brains than men and,
therefore, could not equal them in intelligence. This fact,
Broca argued, may reinforce a common prejudice in
male society, but it is also a scientific truth. L.
Manouvrier, a black sheep in Broca's fold, rejected the
inferiority of women and wrote with feeling about the
burden imposed upon them by Broca's numbers:

* from The Panda’s Thumb, 1980. W.W. Norton, pp. 152-159.
Women displayed their talents and their
diplomas. They also invoked philosophical
authorities. But they were opposed by numbers
unknown to Condorcet or to John Stuart Mill.
These numbers fell upon poor women like a
sledge hammer, and they were accompanied by
commentaries and sarcasms more ferocious than
the most misogynist imprecations of certain
church fathers. The theologians had asked if
women had a soul. Several centuries later, some
scientists were ready to refuse them a human
intelligence.
Broca's argument rested upon two sets of data: the larger
brains of men in modern societies, and a supposed
increase in male superiority through time. His most
extensive data came from autopsies performed
personally in four Parisian hospitals. For 292 male
brains, he calculated an average weight of 1,325 grams;
140 female brains averaged 1,144 grams for a difference
of 181 grams, or 14 percent of the male weight. Broca
understood, of course, that part of this difference could
be attributed to the greater height of males. Yet he made
no attempt to measure the effect of size alone and
actually stated that it cannot account for the entire
difference because we know, a priori, that women are
not as intelligent as men (a premise that the data were
supposed to test, not rest upon):
We might ask if the small size of the female
brain depends exclusively upon the small size of
her body. Tiedemann has proposed this
explanation. But we must not forget that women
are, on the average, a little less intelligent than
men, a difference which we should not
exaggerate but which is, nonetheless, real. We
are therefore permitted to suppose that the
relatively small size of the female brain depends
in part upon her physical inferiority and in part
upon her intellectual inferiority.
In 1873, the year after Eliot published Middlemarch,
Broca measured the cranial capacities of prehistoric
skulls from L'Homme Mort cave. Here he found a
difference of only 99.5 cubic centimeters between males
and females, while modern populations range from
129.5 to 220.7. Topinard, Broca's chief disciple,
explained the increasing discrepancy through time as a
result of differing evolutionary pressures upon dominant
men and passive women:
The man who fights for two or more in the
struggle for existence, who has all the
responsibility and the cares of tomorrow, who is
constantly active in combating the environment
and human rivals, needs more brain than the
woman whom he must protect and nourish, the
sedentary woman, lacking any interior
occupations, whose role is to raise children,
love, and be passive.
In 1879, Gustave Le Bon, chief misogynist of Broca's
school, used these data to publish what must be the most
vicious attack upon women in modern scientific
literature (no one can top Aristotle). I do not claim his
views were representative of Broca's school, but they
were published in France's most respected
anthropological journal. Le Bon concluded:
In the most intelligent races, as among the
Parisians, there are a large number of women
whose brains are closer in size to those of
gorillas than to the most developed male brains.
This inferiority is so obvious that no one can
contest it for a moment; only its degree is worth
discussion. All psychologists who have studied
the intelligence of women, as well as poets and
novelists, recognize today that they represent the
most inferior forms of human evolution and that
they are closer to children and savages than to an
adult, civilized man. They excel in fickleness,
inconstancy, absence of thought and logic, and
incapacity to reason. Without doubt there exist
some distinguished women, very superior to the
average man, but they are as exceptional as the
birth of any monstrosity, as, for example, of a
gorilla with two heads; consequently, we may
neglect them entirely.
Nor did Le Bon shrink from the social implications of
his views. He was horrified by the proposal of some
American reformers to grant women higher education on
the same basis as men:
A desire to give them the same education, and, as a
consequence, to propose the same goals for them, is
a dangerous chimera .... The day when,
misunderstanding the inferior occupations which
nature has given her, women leave the home and
take part in our battles; on this day a social
revolution will begin, and everything that maintains
the sacred ties of the family will disappear.
Sound familiar?**

* *When I wrote this essay, I assumed that Le Bon was a
marginal, if colorful, figure. I have since learned that he was a
leading scientist, one of the founders of social psychology, and
best known for a seminal study on crowd behavior, still cited
today (La psycho1ogie des foules, 1895), and for his work on
unconscious motivation.
I have reexamined Broca's data, the basis for all this
derivative pronouncement, and I find his numbers sound
but his interpretation ill-founded, to say the least. The
data supporting his claim for increased difference
through time can be easily dismissed. Broca based his
contention on the samples from L'Homme Mort
alone-only seven male and six female skulls in all.
Never have so little data yielded such far ranging
conclusions.
In 1888, Topinard published Broca's more extensive
data on the Parisian hospitals. Since Broca recorded
height and age as well as brain size, we may use modern
statistics to remove their effect. Brain weight decreases
with age, and Broca's women were, on average,
considerably older than his men. Brain weight increases
with height, and his average man was almost half a foot
taller than his average woman. I used multiple
regression, a technique that allowed me to assess
simultaneously the influence of height and age upon
brain size. In an analysis of the data for women, I found
that, at average male height and age, a woman's brain
would weigh 1,212 grams. Correction for height and age
reduces Broca's measured difference of 181 grams by
more than a third, to 113 grams.
I don't know what to make of this remaining difference
because I cannot assess other factors known to
influence brain size in a major way. Cause of death has
an important effect: degenerative disease often entails a
substantial diminution of brain size. (This effect is
separate from the decrease attributed to age alone.)
Eugene Schreider, also working with Broca's data,
found that men killed in accidents had brains weighing,
on average, 60 grams more than men dying of
infectious diseases. The best modern data I can find
(from American hospitals) records a full 100-gram
difference between death by degenerative
arteriosclerosis and by violence or accident. Since so
many of Broca's subjects were very elderly women, we
may assume that lengthy degenerative disease was more
common among them than among the men.
More importantly, modern students of brain size still
have not agreed on a proper measure for eliminating the
powerful effect of body size. Height is partly adequate,
but men and women of the same height do not share the
same body build. Weight is even worse than height,
because most of its variation reflects nutrition rather
than intrinsic size -- fat versus skinny exerts little
influence upon the brain. Manouvrier took up this
subject in the 1880s and argued that muscular mass and
force should be used. He tried to measure this elusive
property in various ways and found a marked difference
in favor of men, even in men and women of the same
height. When he corrected for what he called "sexual
mass," women actually came out slightly ahead in brain
size.
Thus, the corrected 113-gram difference is surely too
large; the true figure is probably close to zero and may
as well favor women as men. And 113 grams, by the
way, is exactly the average difference between a 5 foot
4 inch and a 6 foot 4 inch male in Broca's data. We
would not (espcially us short folks) want to ascribe
greater intelligence to tall men. In short, who knows
what to do with Broca's data? They certainly don't
permit any confident claim that men have bigger brains
than women.
To appreciate the social role of Broca and his school,
we must recognize that his statements about the brains
of women do not reflect an isolated prejudice toward a
single disadvantaged group. They must be weighed in
the context of a general theory that supported
contemporary social distinctions as biologically
ordained. Women, blacks, and poor people suffered the
same disparagement, but women bore the brunt of
Broca's argument because he had easier access to data
on women's brains. Women were singularly denigrated
but they also stood as surrogates for other
disenfranchised groups. As one of Broca's disciples
wrote in 1881:
"Men of the black races have a brain scarcely heavier
than that of white women." This juxtaposition extended
into many other realms of anthropological argument,
particularly to claims that, anatomically and emotionally,
both women. and blacks were like white children—and
that white children, by the theory of recapitulation,
represented an ancestral (primitive) adult stage of human
evolution. I do not regard as empty rhetoric the claim
that women's battles are for all of us.
Maria Montessori did not confine her activities to
educational reform for young children. She lectured on
anthropology for several years at the University of
Rome, and wrote an influential book entitled
Pedagogical Anthropology (English edition, 1913).
Montessori was no egalitarian. She supported most of
Broca's work and the theory of innate criminality
proposed by her compatriot Cesare Lombroso. She
measured the circumference of children's heads in her
schools and inferred that the best prospects had bigger
brains. But she had no use for Broca's conclusions about
women. She discussed Manouvrier's work at length and
made much of his tentative claim that women, after
proper correction of the data, had slightly larger brains
than men. Women, she concluded, were intellectually
superior, but men had prevailed heretofore by dint of
physical force. Since technology has abolished force as
an instrument of power, the era of women may soon be
upon us: "In such an epoch there will really be superior
human beings, there will really be men strong in
morality and in sentiment. Perhaps in this way the reign
of women is approaching, when the enigma of her
anthropological superiority will be deciphered. Woman
was always the custodian of human sentiment, morality
and honor."
This represents one possible antidote to "scientific"
claims for the constitutional inferiority of certain groups.
One may affirm the validity of biological distinctions
but argue that the data have been misinterpreted by
prejudiced men with a stake in the outcome, and that
disadvantaged groups are truly superior. In recent years,
Elaine Morgan has followed this strategy in her Descent
of Woman, a speculative reconstruction of human
prehistory from the woman's point of view—and as
farcical as more famous tall tales by and for men.
I prefer another strategy. Montessori and Morgan followed
Broca's philosophy to reach a more congenial
conclusion. I would rather label the whole enterprise of
setting a biological value upon groups for what it is:
irrelevant and highly injurious. George Eliot well
appreciated the special tragedy that biological labeling
imposed upon members of disadvantaged groups. She
expressed it for people like herself—women of
extraordinary talent. I would apply it more widely—not
only to those whose dreams are flouted but also to those
who never realize that they may dream—but I cannot
match her prose. In conclusion, then, the rest of Eliot's
prelude to Middlemarch:
The limits of variation are really much wider than
anyone would imagine from the sameness of
women's coiffure and the favorite love stories in
prose and verse. Here and there a cygnet is reared
uneasily among the ducklings in the brown pond,
and never finds the living stream in fellowship with
its own oary-footed kind. Here and there is born a
Saint Theresa, foundress of nothing, whose loving
heartbeats and sobs after an unattained goodness
tremble off and are dispersed among hindrances
instead of centering in some long-recognizable deed.

[Norepinephrinistania]

Biological race doesn't exist, so the idea that IQ could be related to it as a genetic factor is absurd. IQ is largely environmental in the first place, and is clearly shown as such with the the IQ disparity between socioeconomic levels.

No, it isn't.
IQ is 50-80% genetic.

"Race isn't real" is a cop-out argument that doesn't disprove biological differences between human groups.

[Mavorpen]

Biological race doesn't exist, so the idea that IQ could be related to it as a genetic factor is absurd. IQ is largely environmental in the first place, and is clearly shown as such with the the IQ disparity between socioeconomic levels.

No, it isn't.
IQ is 50-80% genetic.

"Race isn't real" is a cop-out argument that doesn't disprove biological differences between human groups.

>Calls it a cop out argument
>Has ignored virtually every single post proving that it's pseudoscientific garbage, especially ones citing peer reviewed research

kek

[Norepinephrinistania]

If skull size matters in intelligence as it has been proven to, then why are blacks intellectually equal? Are their smaller brains superior?

[Unholy Byzantium]

Ok, so I have to ask the OP: have you ever read Jared Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel?

Because it completely disproves your hypothesis. Your argument is based on the false notion that it is more difficult to survive in Eurasia and thus its inhabitants had to evolve to be more intelligent to adapt to live there. Putting aside for a second the absurdity of it even being possible to evolve noticeably different intelligence in the span of a few tens of thousands of years, what evidence do you have that Eurasia is even harder to live in?

Diamond states, and I agree with him, that the reason Eurasians came to dominate is actually the complete opposite of what you are saying. They had access to more resources, a better climate for agriculture, a better climate for Trade. Africa was cut off by the Sahara and Australia had, and still has, an incredibly erratic climate for growing crops. That is the reason some people came to dominate others. It has nothing to do with the pseudo science surrounding their skull shape.

I have.
Jared prefaces the book by saying "We must not consider any racist alternatives"
We'll, that shows it's not proper science if only one view is considered. That's not even proper sociology.
It makes some decent points, and that's why I tailor my approach on individual differences and not cultural success.

So you'd prefer it if an author considers racist alternatives? Racism clouds rational judgement more than just about anything I can think of. If there is one bias that can irrevocably poison one's work it is racism. Diamond is right to dismiss it.

[Laerod]

Biological race doesn't exist, so the idea that IQ could be related to it as a genetic factor is absurd. IQ is largely environmental in the first place, and is clearly shown as such with the the IQ disparity between socioeconomic levels.

No, it isn't.
IQ is 50-80% genetic.

"Race isn't real" is a cop-out argument that doesn't disprove biological differences between human groups.

"about 75%"
"50-80%"

Very convincing.

[Norepinephrinistania]

I have.
Jared prefaces the book by saying "We must not consider any racist alternatives"
We'll, that shows it's not proper science if only one view is considered. That's not even proper sociology.
It makes some decent points, and that's why I tailor my approach on individual differences and not cultural success.

So you'd prefer it if an author considers racist alternatives? Racism clouds rational judgement more than just about anything I can think of. If there is one bias that can irrevocably poison one's work it is racism. Diamond is right to dismiss it.

Your moral panic does not change scientific fact regarding natural selection.

[Vassenor]

Biological race doesn't exist, so the idea that IQ could be related to it as a genetic factor is absurd. IQ is largely environmental in the first place, and is clearly shown as such with the the IQ disparity between socioeconomic levels.

No, it isn't.
IQ is 50-80% genetic.

"Race isn't real" is a cop-out argument that doesn't disprove biological differences between human groups.

You do realise the source you cited for "50-80% genetic" didn't even say that?

[Imperializt Russia]

That's not a study either. That's a meta-analysis.

Generally even more conclusive.

Have you read the paper?
It's nothing. Certainly not conclusive.

It's the useless witterings I'd expect from a flailing undergrad who wrote it on deadline day. I would know.

[Mavorpen]

No, it isn't.
IQ is 50-80% genetic.

"Race isn't real" is a cop-out argument that doesn't disprove biological differences between human groups.

You do realise the source you cited for "50-80% genetic" didn't even say that?

Reading is for liberal SJWs.

[The Orson Empire]

Take your racist, demeaning bullshit somewhere else, OP. Race doesn't actually exist- it is a social construct.

[Norepinephrinistania]

No, it isn't.
IQ is 50-80% genetic.

"Race isn't real" is a cop-out argument that doesn't disprove biological differences between human groups.

You do realise the source you cited for "50-80% genetic" didn't even say that?

There's no singular source for that, it's generally accepted scientific fact.

[Vassenor]

You do realise the source you cited for "50-80% genetic" didn't even say that?

There's no singular source for that, it's generally accepted scientific fact.

So how many sources for it can you find?

[Norepinephrinistania]

You do realise the source you cited for "50-80% genetic" didn't even say that?

Reading is for liberal SJWs.

So you actually believe in disproven 100 times over, tabula rasa Marxist BS?

[Mavorpen]

You do realise the source you cited for "50-80% genetic" didn't even say that?

There's no singular source for that, it's generally accepted scientific fact.

"I don't have a source, but trust me, it's generally accepted, just like it's generally accepted that tiny gnomes tie up earbud wires in your pocket."

[Mavorpen]

Reading is for liberal SJWs.

So you actually believe in disproven 100 times over, tabula rasa Marxist BS?

Oh wow, switching up the childish boogeyman tactic and introducing "EBIL MARXISTS!" are we?

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

If skull size matters in intelligence as it has been proven to, then why are blacks intellectually equal? Are their smaller brains superior?

Neanderthals had a braincase that was on average about 100 cm³ larger than ours. Were they smarter than we are?