In Our Genes

That there is a genetic contribution to IQ ‘cognitive performance’ has been theoretically obvious for as long as these concepts have existed. Now it has been empirically confirmed. The basic argument should be over now (but I’m not holding my breath).

As this type of information becomes a flood, the dike of ideologically-motivated obscurantism has — eventually — to break. Watch for the smart rats to start jumping off first.

September 10, 2014admin 26 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations

TAGGED WITH : , , ,

26 Responses to this entry

  • Chris B Says:

    epigenics…

    [Reply]

    Orthodox Reply:

    When the proggies go full retard. Although wasn’t this tried in Australia with the Stolen Generations? Maybe they didn’t try hard enough.

    [Reply]

    Wen Shuang Reply:

    yup. nailed it. Also, be prepared for “Colonialism created the conditions for underdevelopment. Interventions (forced integration and redistribution) are necessary.”

    [Reply]

    Wen Shuang Reply:

    Or see:

    Gravlee, Clarence C. “How race becomes biology: embodiment of social inequality.” American journal of physical anthropology 139.1 (2009): 47-57.

    [Reply]

    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    It’s not insensible. The cultural conditions over a long time will shape the genetic content of the group.

    1. How much? (i.e. you can’t create new genetic information you don’t have)
    2. How long does it take? Significant changes could take a very long time if selection pressure isn’t high enough
    3. The ‘positive’ factors in making a group/race more fit do not align with progressive morality at all (i.e. Malthus)

    Epigenetics is a scream. Epigenetics is just delayed phenotyping that may or may not emerge, but it still relies on the genetics underlying it. So you may never become autistic, but if you do, it’s because you have the genes, not really because of the trigger. The trigger being present without the genes does nothing.

    Prog science has become ever more laughable…

    Chuck Reply:

    I trust you are joking.

    (Epigenics can’t alter GACT sequences.)

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 10th, 2014 at 8:04 am Reply | Quote
  • Jaymo Says:

    If IQ tests are racist, finding genes that allow you to score higher on IQ tests means nothing to the progressive mind.

    Of course, further correlations with memory and lack of dementia in old age will be ignored.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Good point, but it’s worth skimming the paper — the ‘cognitive performance’ criteria might withstand progressive ‘criticism’ better than a straightforward g proxy (or, at least, pose a disconcertingly unfamiliar challenge).

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 10th, 2014 at 11:58 am Reply | Quote
  • darius Says:

    That a genetic basis for intelligence exists hardly seems controversial. What is less straight forward, however, is that this genetic basis for intelligence is racial. This serious research you link to Nick has nothing to do with race, unlike the other article you link to, which provides no evidence of race-specific intelligence measures.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Taking it one step at a time would be fine.

    [Reply]

    Chuck Reply:

    “This serious research you link to Nick has nothing to do with race,”

    Context matters.

    The 3 top replicated alleles, plus one other mentioned by the authors, were already shown to vary globally in the predicted directions: Piffer, D. (2014). Estimating strength of polygenic selection with principal components analysis of spatial genetic variation. bioRxiv, 008011.

    The question now is whether the next x well-replicated ones will show the same pattern.

    (More context: if there was polygenic selection, it would have pushed most alleles in the same direction; thus, to show that there was, you merely need to establish that “enough” — this is more of an epistemic, then scientific issue — alleles vary concordantly across populations.)

    We were discussing this here:

    http://www.openpsych.net/forum/showthread.php?tid=153

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 10th, 2014 at 1:34 pm Reply | Quote
  • Hanfeizi Says:

    OT:

    This seems like Land-bait of the first order right here. A perfect example of the descent towards left-singularity:

    [Link fixed]

    Enjoy.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    ‘Nice’ catch — it’s almost the perfect photographic negative of neoreaction. “We should remain attached like limpets to all the socio-cultural advances of modernity, but it’s time to start chucking out all the hideous techno-commercial stuff.”

    [Reply]

    Porphy's Attorney Reply:

    So then if we had to bet, that rubbish will be the next thing and NRx will only have a chance once it fails miserably.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 10th, 2014 at 3:46 pm Reply | Quote
  • Aeroguy Says:

    I don’t know any progs that deny a genetic basis for IQ. However, plenty still deny the usefulness of IQ, or say there are many types of intelligence (this is why we need socialism because HR should make as much money as engineering, stop privileging male dominated types of intelligence). Of course they are also shocked, shocked that anyone might insinuate races have different overall levels of intelligence as opposed to seeing any observations we may bring as being evidence of education, wealth, and privilege (privilege being the favorite since it can’t be experimentally controlled for) gaps that must be addressed first.

    Nothing will change their minds quickly and by the time they do accept HBD they’ll go full circle back to white man’s burden or say that intelligence is for machines and won’t matter when we get “post-scarcity” (every time a prog says post-scarcity I rupture a blood vessel).

    [Reply]

    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    Even though there probably is an emotional intelligence (cognition applied to understanding and utilizing emotional states) most very intelligent people can probably be shown to excel in most of these categories.

    I suspect the intelligence difference between men and women would hold across all intelligence types, since there’s no reason to assume that emotional intelligence would not also rely on the base capacity itself, particular disabilities (autism etc) limiting it nonwithstanding.

    The assumption seems to be that ’emotional intelligence’ = ‘lovecaring’, but good fighters have high ’emotional intelligence’ – it’s how they read their opponents’ actions.

    They will literally have to engineer a new being to get what they want, humans are too… human (even the perfect.)

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 10th, 2014 at 4:01 pm Reply | Quote
  • Wen Shuang Says:

    @

    @E. Antony Gray (@RiverC)

    Re: Gravlee. Not insensible at all, and you’re exactly right. In fact, he’s a really bright guy in general.

    My point was only that the smart rats can accommodate new data without abandoning progressivism. The front just changes to something new. The funny thing is, if there is enough selection pressure to affect biological change in Gravlee’s account, than surely Harpending’s argument can’t be denied.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 10th, 2014 at 5:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • Dan Says:

    Are you joking?

    Reality carries no weight with proggies, you should know that by now. The Cathedral is united in the non-existence of gender in spite of the fact that the gender chromosome is repeated in humans trillions of times.

    “In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is…in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”
    ― Theodore Dalrymple

    Proggies are not smart: they are our intellectual inferiors. Indeed what they have cannot properly be deemed to be an intellect at all because it does not seek truth. A lot them have cognitive hardware with enormous potential that does not seek to determine what is true.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    It’s only really the scientific establishment I’m concerned with here. The rank and file progs will believe whatever social feels tell them to (but eventually they’ll do what they’re told).

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 10th, 2014 at 8:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • darius Says:

    Sorry, in layman’s terms, how does this relate to race? How is genetic diversity – sorry, variation, to use a less loaded term – related to race? There is surely a huge amount of genetic variation, for example, between different ‘black’ populations, not just in Africa but also (and especially) between ‘black’ Africans with ancestors who didn’t mix with non-‘black Africans and ‘black’ people in the West who may look the same but have genetic markers from European ‘whites’. I get that genetic variation can produce brains that can perform differently, as evidenced in IQ tests or educational results, but I don’t see the link with race, given that the term ‘race’ is so visually determined. Looks betray variation. What am I not getting here?

    [Reply]

    Erik Reply:

    The quick and dirty use of ‘race’ is visually determined. But there’s a genetic pattern underneath.

    http://jaymans.wordpress.com/jaymans-race-inheritance-and-iq-f-a-q-f-r-b/#racesocialconstruct

    This relates to race because there’s massive evidence that there are large racial differences in average intelligence (compare e.g. japanese to australian aborigines) that the progs have been blaming on environment/oppression/racism/nonprogs/etc.

    [Reply]

    darius Reply:

    Thanks Erik, I found that and the links in it useful. Time to do more reading. I found this very interesting:

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/05/why-race-as-a-biological-construct-matters/#.VBG-lmSSxZI

    Can you direct me to any sources which compare intelligence between Japanese and Aboriginal Australians or the like?

    [Reply]

    Erik Reply:

    Lynn&Vanhanen’s books, “IQ and Global Inequality” and “Race Differences in Intelligence” are the first that spring to mind. They’re a bit superficial, sometimes using a test of 100-ish people as a proxy for an entire country or the like, but there’s an absence of better data because studying the subject is… shall we say, not exactly a brilliant career move. And the pattern is fairly clear anyway. Maps based on those books:

    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:National_IQ_Lynn_Vanhanen_2006_IQ_and_Global_Inequality.png (current estimate)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AverageIQ-Map-World.png (native estimate)

    Japanese have an average of something like 40 IQ points on Australian Aborigines, and I use them as an example because those two groups are both nonwhites fairly distant from Europe and in relative proximity of one another, which further undermines a lot of excuses about how it’s because IQ tests are made by whites (sometimes in emphatic form: made by dead white male heterosexual Christian Europeans) and test white culture or something rather than intelligence.

    More locally to America, the white population averages 100 and the african-american population 85 (the difference, about one standard deviation, has been dubbed the “fundamental constant of sociology”). People who deny this can quickly twist themselves into angry knots about the institutionally oppressive subliminal racism that must be to blame for different outcomes of whites and blacks in America.

    Erik Reply:

    Short version while my post with links goes through moderation: some estimates of the average IQ of various population groups

    Ashkenazi Jews 110 (small sample size, but the hard science Nobels bear it out)
    East Asians 105
    Whites 100
    South Asians 90
    African-Americans 80
    Sub-Saharan Africans 70ish (data sparse)
    Aboriginal Australians 65ish (data sparse)

    Chuck Reply:

    “but I don’t see the link with race, given that the term ‘race’ is so visually determined. Looks betray variation. What am I not getting here?”

    That race, as the etymology of the term should suggest, is defined in terms of ancestry.

    Darwin: “Grant all races of man descended from one race; grant that all structure [i.e., physical features] of each race of man were perfectly known—grant that a perfect table of descent of each race was perfectly known— grant all this, & then do you not think that most would prefer as the best classification, a genealogical one. Generally, we may safely presume, that the resemblance of races & their pedigrees would go together.”

    Biological race, like any other natural biological division (e.g., species), isn’t defined by phenotypic resemblance, but rather by genetic relationship; phenotypic resemblance is just used as evidence of this. Similarly, one uses twin phenetic similarity to evidence whether they are MZ or DZ, but twins classes are not defined in terms of appearance.

    Whatever the case, I don’t see how it would necessarily matter if races were defined morophologically — in which case they would be biological morphs not races. For example, the light and dark human pigment morphs (roughly: historic North versus South Hemispherians) were subject to an array different selection pressures, which would have acted on multiple traits — plausibly, via cold winter selection, including behavioral ones.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 11th, 2014 at 11:49 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment