What evidence exists that Blacks and Whites have equal intelligence?

Agreed.

#1, there's no evidence that IQ is a meaningful measure of intelligence, evolutionarily-speaking.

#2, there's no evidence of such a mutation.

#3, once you reach a certain level of intelligence, I don't think it's clear that adding a point or two of IQ necessarily increases reproductive success -- you could easily reach a point of diminishing returns, where the marginal advantage provided by that extra point or two is offset by disadvantages. There are no "free lunches" in evolution, and that additional IQ is paid for in some way -- perhaps by a need for better nutrition to feed the bigger brain, or higher childbirth death rates because that larger brain has a harder time fitting through the birth canal, or a thousand other direct and indirect effects.

To be clear, there will always be differences between groups, even arbitrarily defined groups. Take 100 random people, randomly divide them into 10 groups, and you'll be able to point to differences between the groups in average height, weight, gender mix, age, etc. The mistake is thinking that the differences reflect some trait inherent to that group, rather than being an artifact of an arbitrary classification method.

Race is an arbitrary classification method. It may not feel like it, but it is. That's because the definition of who is "black" and who is "white" and who is "asian" is arbitrary. How much "black" blood do I have to have before I am "black", racially?

Just like eye color and height, a particular person's outward appearance is dependent on the particular mix of genes they got from their parents, and the dominant/recessive interplay between those genes. You can have someone who is genetically mostly "white" look more black than someone who is genetically mostly "black", depending on how their genes were inherited and expressed.

A good way to test whether a trait is significant or not is to ask, "Can I use this general trait to predict the traits of individuals?"

For instance, if you take two parents who have mostly white skin, you can predict that their children are likely to have mostly white skin.

If you take two parents who are intelligent, you can predict that their children are likely to be intelligent (this despite not knowing whether intelligence is mostly nature or mostly nurture).

But if all you know is the parent's race, you cannot confidently predict the probable intelligence of their children. Thus, intelligence does not seem to be a race-based trait.

 

Genetic drift cannot be invoked to explain racial differences in intelligence either.

As I mentioned before I emailed the scholars who wrote the article criticizing Gould's analysis of Morton's data. This is what one of them had to say:

From: Jason Lewis [jason.lewis@rutgers.edu]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 15:05
To: EgalitarianJay02
Cc: degusta@berkeley.edu; Marc Meyer; Janet Monge; Alan E. Mann; Ralph L. Holloway
Subject: Re: Do you consider Gould to be a fraud?

Good day EgalitarianJay02,

Thank you for your interest in this work and your questions. Firstly, I would greatly appreciate it if you could send along some links to websites that you describe as "using this article to claim that Morton's work confirmed racial hierarchies in brain size and intelligence". I have been trying to monitor the blogosphere for potential misunderstanding or misuse of our work, and haven't really come across anything like that, so would like to see what you are referring to.

As for your specific questions:

1) Do you consider Gould to have been a credible scholar (vs. a fraud)?: In the PLOS Biology article, the coauthors and I obviously didn't want to commit the same offense that we are demonstrating that Gould did, namely making accusations of bias and fraud against deceased scholars. What we do show is that at least his work on Morton was riddle with errors and some (we didn't have time to go into all of them in the PLOS piece, we will publish a longer and more detailed version soon) could only be interpreted as either very, very sloppy scholarship, intense bias, or intentional misconduct. As our data are only relevant to the Morton case, I can't go beyond that to say whether Gould was an overall fraud vs. a credible scholar (e.g. I have little reason to doubt his measurements of shells), but a growing number of people are taking a second look at much of his body of work and finding similar inconsistencies or problems. An article by Will Saletan will be coming out in a month in Discover Magazine addressing exactly that issue. So, we will have to decide as an entire academic community, after all of his work has received a similar amount of detailed reanalysis, whether Gould was a 'fraud', but at least we know for now that there are some factual reasons to look into it in the first place.

2) What is your personal opinion on the use of cranial capacity and brain size to claim racial differences in intelligence?: As we state in the article, there is no reason to believe that cranial capacity is highly correlated with intelligence. Morton did not believe so; Gould invents that as a reason to use Morton's work as a straw man. Personally, I don't even know if what we measure as intelligence today is an appropriate measure of 'cognitive capacity', which is what we are really after. In any case, I in no way endorse the idea of racial differences in intelligence, nor using any measure, whether they be cranial capacities, brain sizes, or even IQ scores themselves, to claim such differences. Again, as we stated in the article, neither did Morton. His purpose in measuring skulls and reporting data was to show that the groups of humans around the world were created separately by God, in order to work around the Biblical discrepancy of 'if we are all descended from Adam and Eve 4,000 years ago, how did we all come to look so different?'.

I hope this helps you with your personal research. If you have any further questions or comments, please let me know...


Yours,
Jason Lewis
Department of Anthropology
and Center for Human Evolutionary Studies
202 Ruth Adams Building
Douglass Campus
Rutgers University
New Brunswick, NJ 08901
office: 732-932-9886
cell: 650-796-8445


So the authors in question are not writing Gould off as a fraud. Logically neither should you if you are basing your claim on their work. Gould is not alive to defend his scholarship against their criticisms. In my opinion even if Gould made errors in his analysis of Morton's data that does not discredit him as a scholar. People can make mistakes. As it pertains to Leonard Lieberman's paper, he doesn't rely heavily on Gould so Gould's alleged mistakes are irrelevant to the validity of the research in the article.

I think it is truly bizarre that Rayznack would use such a line of reasoning to discredit Lieberman (I still want to know also what in the world Lieberman's surname has to do with anything. I have my suspicions but I want Rayznack to explain himself). Rayznack, you also said that you didn't read the rest of my post. Did you even read Lieberman's article? How are we supposed to take you seriously as an objective analyst on this matter if you can't even read the sources and posts of people who took the time to respond to your thread?

 

It can be assumed that Afroamericans are superior and more intelligent than Whiteamericans because Afroamericans are in charge of the United States. He who has the power makes the rules.

 

Having certain advantages doesn't make one superior. Particularly when they come with disadvantages as well.

As a property owner, I think I'd prefer federal or state funding for education, along with national standards for proficiency.

 

Well, history proves your 1st point wrong. High-tech groups of people with thousands of creative geniuses allowed for the innovations (ships, guns and so on) that allowed them to dominate the planet.

Your second point is common to all socialists. All about income redistribution. I'm for government for the people, by the people in each community. Those in the urban ****holes that hire incompetent adminstrators, uninspired teachers (unionized) and lazy maintenace workers should only be wasting their own tax dollars collected by the lazy and morally debased people in these communities that allow for this waste.

Bad neighborhoods and bad schools only exsist because too many bad people live in them.

 

Really? History proved my first point wrong? The Russians beat the Germans in WW2 because they were smarter? Better check your history book again. They won in the east because they were willing to suffer massive casualties to overcome a technically superior enemy: better equipped and led, the Germans lost.

You do realize it's the middle class that generally lives in the 'burbs and owns property, right? I'm not about income redistribution, I own my own business. Most of my local property tax (80%) goes to my local school districts. Why should the children of people who don't own property be educated on my dime?

 

I'm asking you to support a claim.

That is not me making a claim.

Go ahead, find evidence that Blacks and Whites have equal cognitive ability; however, that is not making a claim that they don't.

 

Pray tell how you determined this as fact.

 

So you can provide MRI studies on Blacks and Whites showing no difference in average brain volume?

Perhaps you're not aware that Lieberman took an assumption Gould made of Morton and passed Gould's assumption as fact based off research?

But hey, there's this great thread where you can show actual studies and research on average inter-racial skull size and brain volume; I suggest you use it.

 

Did you read my first post? Go back and look at the email by Joseph Graves, particularly this passage:

As for supposed physical differences in head (or brain size). First, there has been no systematic measurement of cranial sizes for sufficient numbers of populations in humans. This is important because Africa and Asia are huge continents with many populations/ethnic groups. No physical measurement taken from 1 or a few populations could be expected to represent all Africans or Asians.

So there has been no study with a large enough sample size to represent every population across entire continents. The largest I know of Beals, Smith and Dodd (1984) concluded that cranial size correlated with climate rather than race. This research is mentioned in the Lieberman article:

3. Rushton’s cranioracial variation is contradicted by evolutionary anthropology.

Rushton (1990:786) takes cranial measurements from a study by Beals, Smith, and
Dodd (1984) without mentioning that study’s finding that while climate variables were strongly correlated
with cranial variation, “race” and cranial variation had low correlations. The relationship between latitude and
cranial size is an example of Bergmann’s principle that crania are more spherical in cold climates because mass
increases relative to surface area to conserve core temperatures:

“A slight increase in head size combined with a rounder cranium has a disproportionate effect upon
volume” (Beals, Smith, and Dodd 1984:312). “The closer a structure approaches a spherical shape, the lower will
be the surface-to-volume ratio” affecting radiation of metabolic heat and temperature regulation, which is especially
important in colder climates because as much as “80 percent of body heat may be lost through our heads
on cold days” (Molnar 1998:202). Beals, Smith, and Dodd emphasize that this relationship is independent of
“race.” “In fact, several of their climatological-cranial correlations reach .60, much higher than any relationship
Rushton has been able to report for race, except for one study” (Weizmann et al. 1996:196). Rushton argues
that “Mongoloids” have superior, larger brains because in their evolution they had to adapt to a cognitively demanding
but predictable cold Pleistocene climate (1997a). An alternative scenario is provided by Brace (1998:112): “the mode of subsistence of all human populations was essentially the same throughout the entire range of human occupation over the past 200,000 years.

This was conditioned by adaptation to the selective pressure engendered by the cultural ecological niche. For these reasons, then, cognitive capabilities should . . . be the same in all the living populations of the world.” Brace points out (p. 4) that 100,000 years ago early moderns at Qafza “were making the same tools, hunting the same animals . . . as their Neanderthal contemporaries,” and therefore we can conclude that human cognitive capabilities are distributed in a nonclinal way. Similarly, Dobzhansky and Montagu (1947:112) had suggested that natural selection in human societies favored “maturity of judgment and ability to get along with people.” The complex ability to adapt to relationships within a group was a selective factor operating everywhere. How is it possible that cranial size varies with latitude while intelligence is nonclinal in its distribution? Cranial size is a response to natural selection in a cold climate, while
variations in the size of the brain do not determine intelligence within the species-normal range of 1,000–2,000 cm3, especially considering the role of cultural environment.


Additionally Tobias (1970) looked at the available literature at the time for brains weighed at autopsy and concluded that there are no differences between Black and White brains in size or structure:

Tobias concluded his study on brain weight with this
comment in relation to studies of blacks and whites
(1970:22): “I have emerged with the conviction that vast
claims have been based on insubstantial evidence. I conclude
that there is no acceptable evidence for such structural
differences in the brains of these two racial groups;
and certainly nothing which provides a satisfactory anatomical
basis for explaining any differences in IQ or in
other mental and performance tests, in temperament or
behavior.”

Source: How “Caucasoids” Got Such Big Crania and Why They Shrank: From Morton to Rushton Current Anthropology Volume 42, Number 1, February 2001

I am not aware of any MRI studies that have attempted to look at brain scans for subjects representative of European and African populations.

He took a conclusion Gould made about Morton's work as fact. His article was written in 2001 before Jason Lewis and his colleagues conducted their research claiming Gould's conclusions had been falsified. But that in no way invalidates Lieberman's own research.

In fact if you look at Lewis et al's study and the email I posted it is clear that they agree with Lieberman's conclusions:

In reevaluating Morton and Gould, we do not dispute that racist views were unfortunately common in 19th-century science [6] or that bias has inappropriately influenced research in some cases [16]. Furthermore, studies have demonstrated that modern human variation is generally continuous, rather than discrete or “racial,” and that most variation in modern humans is within, rather than between, populations [11],[17]. In particular, cranial capacity variation in human populations appears to be largely a function of climate, so, for example, the full range of average capacities is seen in Native American groups, as they historically occupied the full range of latitudes [18]. It is thus with substantial reluctance that we use various racial labels, but it is impossible to discuss Morton and Gould's work without using the terms they employed.

Source: The Mismeasure of Science: Stephen Jay Gould versus Samuel George Morton on Skulls and Bias

I have looked in to it. For instance check out this article:

3. Brain size

Rushton (this issue) claims that global differences in IQ and
development can be explained in terms of (race) differences in
brain size. Rushton (2000) has gone to great lengths to show that
race groups differ on average in terms of brain size, with Whites
averaging 1347 cm3 and Blacks averaging 1267 cm3. The mean difference
may appear impressive, but it is virtually meaningless
without knowledge of the typical spread of brain size within populations,
which is around SD = 130 cm3. So the Black-White difference
in brain size is approximately 80/130  .6 SD units. Rushton’s
figures are based not on contemporary MRI measurements of
white and gray matter volume, but rather on outdated external
or postmortem cranial measurements. Given the correlation between
cranial capacity as measured externally and intelligence of
around .20 (Rushton & Ankney, 2009), the Black-White gap in brain
size cannot explain much of the IQ gap. Even if cranial capacity had
a causal effect on g, then the Black-White gap in brain size cannot
explain more than: .6*.2*15 = 1.8 IQ points. If we were to believe
that the IQ gap between Africans and European Whites is 33 IQ
points (Lynn & Vanhanen, 2006), then the brain size gap could explain
a staggering 1.8/33 = 5% of the IQ gap. Thus, even under these
terms, 95% of the IQ gap is left unexplained by brain size. With a
correlation of .33 between brain volume and IQ as based on modern
techniques (McDaniel, 2005), the gap in brain size can explain
only 2.98 IQ points or 9% of the IQ gap. However, we are not familiar
with studies that used modern methods to measure brain size
in both European Whites and Africans, and we are not familiar with
any studies of the heritability of IQ and/or brain size among Africans.
Although race differences in brain size are in line with Rushton’s
hypothesis, his hypothesis fails to impress us.

Source: Evolution, brain size, and the national IQ of peoples around 3000 years B.C Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 104–106

 

I thought I told you I did not read your post after you published a discredited author.

Try again. This isn't even about Gould's fraudulence; Gould never made any claims that he actually re-examined Morton's skulls.

Lieberman discredits himself by taking Gould's assumptions - Gould never claims he did research - as facts based upon research.

How do you not understand that this discredits Lieberman regardless of Gould's fraud?

 

Indeed you did which makes me question your objectivity in this discussion. Lieberman has not been discredited just because he referenced Gould's conclusions about Morton and if you actually read my post (which you admit you didn't) you would have an informed understanding of my position.

Go back and read the entire post.

What are you talking about? This is what Lieberman said about Morton in his article:

Morton’s cranial ranking was the result of his sampling error and his acceptance of the hierarchical thinking of his time.

This is based on Gould's conclusions about Morton's work not an assumption. Again just because other scholars dispute Gould's conclusions doesn't mean Lieberman has been discredited. If Gould is wrong that is his error. Lieberman is simply reporting what he read from Gould. It is absolutely ridiculous for you to use this as a basis to dismiss Lieberman and gives the impression that you are trying to dodge addressing the research I posted. And what were you trying to say about his surname? You never addressed why you put it in bold.

 

If Lieberman's paper cites Gould before the latter's analysis was contested, does this really invalidate everything Lieberman says? It's not like Lieberman cited Gould while cognizant of the latter's flaws. Again, Lieberman's paper isn't dependent on Gould.

And I still haven't seen you explain why Lieberman's surname discredits him as a scientist in your view.

Yes, you did make a claim in your OP. You started spewing all these unsupported claims about scientific evidence for African intellectual inferiority, and then told us to find evidence against them.

 

IQ is regarded as the best gauge of intelligence by a consensus of academic psychologists. 'Evolutionarily-speaking' variation in this trait is going to have an effect.

There is evidence of thousands of such mutations. See Visscher et al.

What are you trying to say? Alleles have a downside therefore no alleles have a selective advantage therefore evolution doesn't happen? This is wrong. Obviously selective advantage by defintion has a net positive effect.

This is correct. This doesn't mean races don't differ in IQ related gene frequencies. Further, since genes tend to spread within races before between them, it is perfectly sensible to use race to give a rough description of the complex patterns of variation.

No it isn't arbitrary and correlated patterns of variation fracture along traditional race lines. Selected genes which are not universally shared tend to be universal within one or two races and absent in others.

True, although rare in reality. Correct classification uses genetic ancestry tests.

This is false and you can predict someone's IQ knowing their race better than not knowing their race.

 

Assuming what you say is true, then yes obviously. If Liberals have a higher IQ then Liberals are more intelligent. All of those Dem voting Mexicans and African-Americans are more intelligent, or less intelligent, depending on whether what you say is true.

IQ tests are cultural, evolutionary, and genetic. Would we have IQ tests without any of these things? This much is absolutely obvious. Could you be a little more clear in what you are trying to say?

 

This is the fallacy you keep engaging in. You post the views of a couple guys and keep pretending as if they represent the consensus on the topic.

What of this do you not understand?

You posted Gould as valid, which was also destroyed. Your sources are so far not faring very well, especially in the last 48 hours.

 

You're saying this in reference to my email correspondence with the scholars who critiqued Gould?!

My sources are credible scholars and their statements are consistent with mainstream consensus.

No, I didn't.

They're fairing just fine. Rayznack won't even comment on my sources even though I answered his questions and you aren't saying anything of substance.

 

Learn to read. Gould's fraud is only on him; however he never claimed to have done 'bench science' and re-measured Morton's skulls. That others cited Gould's assumptions as if they were fact is what I'm criticizing.

Gould and Lieberman's surnames speak for themselves.

Sure; I claimed I haven't found any shred of evidence that Blacks and White cognitive and intellectual abilities were equal. Do you have any evidence or will I have to rely on previous threads I've started:

http://www.politicalforum.com/race-...ognitive-iq-differences-appear-early-age.html

http://www.politicalforum.com/race-relations/348538-regression-toward-mean-race-iq.html

http://www.politicalforum.com/science/317838-race-iq-gap.html

 

So you're asking me what I'm talking about when you prove my point?

Gould assumes, matter of factly, that Morton made errors in favor of his personal bias.

That's an assumption. Gould never claims to have done anything more than to dismiss Morton's work out of hand.

Pond scum like Lieberman in turn propogate Gould's garbage/assumptions as if Gould had proven through experiment that he looked at Morton's skulls.

Gould's conclusions were assumptions; he never claimed to have looked at Morton's skulls.

Do you seriously not get this? This is how shoddy Gould and Lieberman were.

This would literally be as if I dismiss your post because I made the assumption your post is biased based off your personal beliefs. My assumption is my conclusion.

Others (Lieberman/Leftist scum) in turn take my assumption/conclusion and pass it off as if I had actually proven your post was factually inaccurate before dismissing it.

Would you take those others (Lieberman/Leftist scum) seriously?

 

I think this is such a hugely complex issue, on the intersection of genetics, psychology and sociology, that there really isnt any good scientific evidence yet that wouldnt have alternative explanations. At least I havent seen any in this thread or elsewhere.

 

I can't take you seriously because you refuse to read posts that answer your questions and dismiss scholars as biased based on their surnames. You haven't discredited Lieberman. All you've done is use faulty logic to avoid addressing the research in question and resorted to name-calling. If I called you racist scum does that refute your argument? No, I carefully and methodically addressed your OP and additional issues you brought up with me in this thread but you ignored them. That makes you biased and unworthy of consideration as an objective analyst. You don't have to agree with me but if you had an ounce of objectivity you would read what I have written and atleast attempt a response.

For the record Gould looked at Morton's data on skull measurements and came to the conclusion that he was biased based on his own observations. Those observations may or may not be wrong. They have been recently disputed but they were accepted as scientific fact for decades including when Lieberman wrote his paper. Your dismissal of Lieberman and refusal to read the rest of my post which went beyond Lieberman is illogical and intellectually dishonest. I feel that you have disqualified yourself from any serious consideration as a legitimate debate opponent until you start addressing arguments directed toward you.

I agree that it is a complex issue however I see a pattern with the racialist side of the debate, especially in this thread. They ignore sources or try to discredit them based on faulty reasoning probably because they can not address the scientific arguments. In a proper debate if you disagree with a source you try to refute it, you don't just ignore it and pretend like an argument hasn't been directed towards you.

 

What is the very good evidence?

 

I am well studied on WW2---esp. the Eastern Front. The former Soviet Union was a mixture of both West and East. Although man for man not as intelligent as the average German (or their allies), the Russians from the Westernized parts controlled the country, the industry and the technology. The Siberians and others from the Tiaga and parts East were just cannon fodder. The Soviets had very good tanks, planes, small arms that were as good or better than anything else at the time. You can't forget too that FDR loved Russia (as an ardent Socialist himself) and gave the billons of supplies in Lend Lease starting months before Pearl Harbor. The countless Studabaker trucks given to the Soviets allowed them as great an advantage as anything else. Even though the Soviets lost ten times as many troops in battle, they won because they were allied with the UK and America.

My first point has to do with how easy Europeans walked over the Natives in Africa and North and South America. The Japanese were also able to the same in in SE Asia and the Western Pacific.

AS for education, half of my property taxes goes to the schools, and the rest to the county. It is State and Federal funds (from those who pay income and other taxes) that fund the majority of schools in poor areas.

Certain schools in Hawaii and California get 70 to 90% from the State and Federal tax dollars.

https://thenotebook.org/blog/136238/among-city-leaders-little-movement-calls-school-aid-increase

 

He cites Tobias (1970) who studied brain weight at autopsy and found no size or structural differences between races.

He also cites Beals, Smith and Dodd (1984) who found that variance in cranial capacity shows a strong correlation with climate rather than race.

Additionally Lieberman shows that the research of Rushton was based on an aggregation of studies that are not controlled or comparable.

When analyzing the scientific literature on race and brain size in its totality it becomes clear that there's no scientific basis to claim racial hierarchies in brain size nor does brain size determine intelligence within the normal species range of variation.

 

Being technologically superior and aggressive is not indicative of greater intelligence. It is indicative of greater luck. The period we call the Dark Ages was only dark in Europe. A lot of the world was more advanced than us at that time, the Arab world particularly. Did the West somehow 'smarten up' for no apparent reason?

As far as intelligence goes, it may not be the advantage you seem to think it is, except against other humans. We have yet to wipe out the cockroach, the common cold, mice or rats. It's a safe bet we're smarter than any of those, but they seem to be successful in a world where we are at the top of the food chain. In fact, the biomass of insect life is far greater than that of human life. Wouldn't this tend to argue against IQ as a factor necessary for superiority?

Russian planes and tanks were inferior to the Germans for the beginning of WWII. Even when they reached rough equivalency, the Germans were often defeated by a badly trained, poorly led force with a deficient tactical doctrine. Badly trained, poorly led and deficient doctrine would be the same as less intelligent, yes?

Education: IMO it should be handled at the state or federal level with funding to follow results. Those schools/districts showing a greater number of more proficient pupils would receive more funds.

How do you feel about funding a kids education through your taxes when his parents don't pay property tax? Isn't that what you complain about when 'income redistribution' is mentioned?