White Men tend to succeed more because the have better morals, values, and principles

I have never claimed that Black men have bigger penises than White men. You are reading that in to the comment. I have said that racist White women need some "Black dick" to cure themselves of their racism which is obviously a joke and meant to be offensive to White Supremacists however I have never said in all seriousness that Black men have larger penises. I don't believe there is any scientific support for racial differences in penis size. My joke has more to do with making fun of the taboo over interracial sex than any idea of Black men being more well-endowed or sexually dominant.

You're really clueless on this subject. You don't know that modern humans have a common origin which includes a shared evolutionary history spanning millions of years? Unless you support the Multiregional Hypothesis (humans evolved in different regions multiple times) if you accept the Out of Africa hypothesis then you know that modern humans evolved once in Africa which means we have a common origin and a shared evolutionary history. What you are arguing is that after they left Africa certain populations evolved more including in intelligence. That's what the whole "Cold Winters" theory is based on, trying to find a selection mechanism that could explain differences in intelligence. However what the scientific evidence indicates is that humans became anatomically and behaviorally modern in Africa and that the only differences between human populations are in traits that have adaptive significance. Most human traits including the function of our organs (such as the brain) are exactly the same.

The same is true for most species. We have far more commonalities than differences.

I shouldn't have to tell you that 4% is extremely small. For example if you were 96% European genetically and 4% African how African do you think you would look phenotypically? Apply that logic to Neanderthal admixture in modern humans and you have the answer to your question. Neanderthal intelligence was comparable to humans but most scientists believe that they went extinct because they couldn't compete with modern humans intellectually. By the way the science also indicates that those modern humans were more tropically adapted than modern Europeans living today. So the ancestors of Whites looked more like Africans when they interbred with Neanderthal. Neanderthal had bigger brains than modern humans but they also had a larger visual cortex indicating that they had less intellectual ability.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...why-youre-smarter-than-a-neanderthal-1885827/


In addition, what little we know about the evolution of ‘intelligence’ in hominids seems to argue directly against his thesis. It is possible that around 300,000 years ago Homo erectus, Homo sapiens, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis were extant in different regions of the world. It is not clear whether these were true species, or geographic races of the same species (in ways that we do not have ‘races’ in modern Homo sapiens). The evidence seems to suggest that in Europe Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis coexisted between 40,000 to 30,000 years ago. Most evidence suggests that Homo sapiens originated in Africa and when it invaded Europe it brought with it culture, art, wind instruments, record keeping, symbolic and ritualistic beliefs, and a constant pattern of organization and technical improvement.

The contact between Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis seemed to always lead to the short-term replacement of the latter by the technologically advanced former (Tattersall, 2000). Why does this observation contradict Rushton’s thesis? Simply, because it was the Neanderthals who should have been living under Rushton’s K-selection regime and the culture of the Homo sapiens resulted from the r-selected tropical environment. We know, for example, that the Neanderthals had larger cranial capacities than Homo sapiens (Neanderthal cranial capacities: 1524–1640 cc for males, and 1425–1270 cc for females, as opposed to around 1325–1166 for early Homo sapiens, in Poirer and McKee, 1999). We should compare these differences with the within-species values reported by Rushton. In his Chart 1 of the abridged version (1999: 19) he shows 1267, 1347, and 1364 cc for Blacks, Whites, and Asians respectively.

This amounts to a 7.2 per cent difference between Blacks and Asians, while if we utilize the midpoint for Neanderthals and early Homo sapiens we would calculate a 15 per cent advantage for Neanderthals! These observations fly in the face of two of Rushton’s predictions: first that harsh winter climates should select for greater intelligence, and secondly that cranial volume should be correlated with intelligence. All available evidence suggests that the Neanderthals were less ‘intelligent’ than modern Homo sapiens that had smaller crania and evolved in the tropics.


Source: What a tangled web he weaves: Race, reproductive strategies, and Rushton’s life history theory. Anthropological Theory, Sage Publishers, vol. 2(2): 131-154 (2002)

You don't care about the author's opinion so you post their article which critiques and rejects the conclusions of the research you are supporting? Why not present the research of Lynn and Kanazawa instead of an article criticizing them? That's common sense.

I think you just found a link on Cold Winters Theory and presented it without even reading it.

Rushton also uses the Cold Winters Theory argument. I believe he adopted it from Richard Lynn who may have gotten it from Ellsworth Huntington. The idea is not new and is based on several false premises including:

1. That humans needed their brains to evolve more to deal with the environmental challenges of cold climates in Europe and Asia.

2. That human populations that live in the North are smarter than those in the South (how do you explain ancient civilizations that were developed in tropical climates or the fact that East Asians are supposed to be the smartest continental population yet Native Americans their most recent derivative population have lower average IQs today?).

3. That evolution is progressive rather than dependent on the selective forces operating on an organism's expression of genes for specific traits (this is a mistake made by Rushton and Lynn which my sources reject).

Graves deals directly with the Cold Winters Theory in the video I posted and with the argument that humans evolved different mental characteristics in general.

That's a lie and there is no reason to do that.

Since Rushton is not a biologist and doesn't specialize in Life History Evolution I don't think that most biologists outside of those who are interested in Scientific Racism would have heard of him.

When I made Graves aware of the idea that Reznick's article challenges his position he scoffed at the idea and noted that they were colleagues. Reznick approved of Graves' article and seemed familiar with him but stated point blank that he didn't know Rushton (he did state when I pointed out that Rushton quoted him that he misinterpreted his work). Graves has a special interest in refuting Scientific Racism. He wrote two books on the matter and debated Rushton in person as well as wrote articles critiquing his work (which Rushton never responded to). So Graves has heard of him but Graves has done a lot of research in the field of evolutionary biology unrelated to race or racism. I had never heard of Rushton until he was cited by racists I debated on message boards. He's not a biologist and hasn't published any research that would be considered relevant to the field. He simply misused scientific theories to support his racist agenda. So did Richard Lynn. They are quacks who used their academic background in the field of psychology to promote their racist ideological beliefs.

You haven't responded to my sources only complained about my use of them. And so what if a lot of professors are liberals? Are they not allowed to be? You can hold a political stance and still be an objective scholar. Should all "race-realists" be dismissed because they are considered to be conservatives or racists? What matters is the validity of the research. Theories of racial differences in intelligence are rejected by the scientific community in general because they are not considered to be legitimate science.

If you want to understand a subject you should research it before thinking you know everything. Otherwise you run the risk of sounding really ignorant. All habitable continents have what humans need to survive. The major difference between Scandinavia and Africa is the climate and you believe that the climate has some impact on human intelligence. It doesn't. I have provided plenty of scientific evidence showing that it doesn't. Interbreeding with archaic humans has no relevance to this discussion. It is essentially meaningless. Again there were archaic human species in Africa as well including Sub-Saharan Africa. If these groups interbred to the point where the archaic human genes were significantly represented they would matter. Admixture of 1-4% is not significant.

The only people who seem to be interested in making this argument are scientifically illiterate racists.

 

I would hope any decent person would be offended by such a "joke" (which wasn't really a joke). Black guys need to accept that many white women are not going to find them attractive for a multitude of reasons. You can't rape them into liking you. Really sad I need to explain that.

Why not go back billions of years when we all descended from the same single celled organism? I think the Multiregional hypothesis is fascinating, and the recent discovery that a hominid species that likely originated around the Mediterranean is hopefully going to open up more doors of discovery that I would want to read about, but even if OOA is correct, this exodus from Africa to Europe and Asia happened a long time ago. I have no problem acknowledging that homo sapiens, Neanderthals, and Denisovans come from the same ancestor. What is more meaningful, to me, is the evolutionary differences that took place after this split. Due to the radically different environments of each group, it isn't a surprise that each gained unique adaptations over a very long period of time. Each group was uniquely adapted to their respective environments. The mixing of the more numerous homo sapiens with those Neanderthals and Denisovans are likely the reasons why there are distinct differences between the races today. Some humans alive today have all 3 of these in their DNA, some have 2, while some only have 1. I think it's ridiculous to discount this as "nothing", which you did in your last post.

4% is not insignificant, and unlike with race, the percentage of Neanderthal DNA is likely to remain as long as whites and Asians reproduce with each other and not Africans. African DNA would eventually reach statistical zero if whites and Asians did not mate with Africans.

My apologies to Mr. Stromberg, but this information is out of date according to the uber right-wing racist LA Times

http://www.latimes.com/science/scie...als-smarter-than-we-think-20140501-story.html

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...600605&qsrc=990&page=5&qo=relatedSearchExpand

Read the Smithsonian article "rethinking Neanderthals". There is a lot they are discovering about that group and how they were a lot smarter than the traditional depiction, which I suspect was put forth to serve an anti-white bias. Neanderthals had to show homo sapiens how to use tools, so I highly doubt these things came with homo sapiens. Correlation does not equal causation.

No, not "all evidence" suggests that, as I have shown. Neanderthals died out in large part because they were far less numerous than homo sapiens, and did not have the trade networks or geographical range that homo sapiens had. Plus, there is increasing evidence that they were so impressive to homo sapiens that they had many opportunities for sex, and this interbreeding led to their own eventual demise as a species.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...rthals-were-too-smart-for-their-own-good.html

Here's another source stating that there is no evidence to conclude that Neanderthals died out because they were less intelligent than homo sapiens:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/apr/30/neanderthals-not-less-intelligent-humans-scientists

You're aware of that research anyway.

Oh, you *believe* that he *may* have gotten from someone. Thanks for confirming that you were simply making up the connection and have no actual evidential basis for it.

It's not a lie at all.

He was vehemently despised, so I don't believe this guy never heard of him.

So Rushton was well known to the point of debating Graves in person, but Reznick, who knew Graves, didn't know Rushton? Seems very suspicious. This is a small niche of a field of study and any information presented to it, good or bad, would have been acknowledged. Rushton was opposed by many people... I believe the term was "notorious". It's highly unlikely Reznick never heard of him. He was probably making a dismissive progressive insult by implying he was so inconsequential that he wasn't worthy of remembrance.

And you don't need to be a biologist to make contributions to this topic. That's just ridiculous. Psychologists are educated on the subjects related to the brain, cognition, and learning ability.

Liberal professors and much of their Academic curriculum are heavily biased. Their livelihoods in many cases are dependent on left-wing social goals being advanced. And, considering the dominance of Jews in Academia, especially the social sciences, it's not a surprise that Marxist racial theories are being pushed as the only acceptable answer.

 

All habitable continents do not have what humans need to survive in the same quantities, ease of procurement, and a variety of other factors. Scandinavia was a dark forest with cold temperatures, lots of snow, low light, etc. That is markedly different from the hot desert environment that sub-Saharan Africans were living in. Light skin in Scandinavia would be an advantage because of vitamin D production being easier and more efficient, whereas dark skin is an advantage in Africa to protect against things like skin cancer. Light eyes allow for better low light conditions in the forests of Scandinavia, whereas they would be a hindrance in the desert. Dark eyes are better for that environment. It's not a coincidence that these adaptations happened where they were beneficial. I believe human intelligence levels were affected by these differences. It's merely your opinion that 4% is a small, insignificant DNA difference. Small differences in DNA can add up to a lot. We have 99% of our DNA shared with chimps, yet there is a lot of difference between humans and chimps.

 

Who said anything about rape? Racist White women should experiment sexually to test out whether their racist aversion to Black men is justifiable or a product of their prejudices.This is of course a joke and meant to be offensive to White Supremacists not because I believe that Black men should take advantage of racist White women but because I think the idea of Black men having sex with them is hilarious given how angry White Supremacists are at normal White women having sex with Black men.

Every common ancestor in our evolutionary lineage is part of our shared evolutionary history however humans underwent significant evolutionary changes from early hominids to modern humans. They became anatomically and behaviorally modern in Africa. Your wanting admixture with archaic humans to have anything to do with human evolution doesn't make it so. The Out of Africa model is regarded as well-established science. There are competing theories however advances in genetic research strongly supports this model.

No, it wouldn't as admixture between Europeans, Asians and Africans has already taken place. To reach zero you would need to stop Multiracial folk from producing offspring. I know you are a racist bigot who opposes interracial relationships but you're not a genocidal maniac as well are you?

Is putting a last name in bold supposed to mean something to me? This antisemitic nonsense only hurts your credibility as a serious debater.

Really? What does the intelligence of Neanderthal have to do with White people? They were regarded as dumber than modern humans long before the discovery that there was admixture in modern humans. There are competing theories but you seem way too optimistic about the idea that Neanderthal contributed significantly to the modern human gene pool. Do you actually believe that Neanderthal were smarter than humans and that this admixture gave Whites a evolutionary boost? I have heard racists tout that opinion before. I can accept the idea that Neanderthal were smarter than originally thought but smarter than humans is a bit far-fetched.

So you're going with the idea that Neanderthal were smarter than modern humans and absorbed because they were more sexually desirable due to their superior intelligence? You are actually postulating that as a serious theory?

Considering the fact that Huntington developed his theory decades before Lynn and Rushton it is possible that they stumbled across it while reading previous racist literature.

This was actually suggested by Graves:

It seems that Rushton’s thesis for the role of harsh winter climate playing a major role
in the evolution of intelligence is an old theme. For example, Huntington (1925) presents
an analysis of the role of glaciation in the acquisition of European intelligence in his chapter entitled ‘Glaciation and the Supremacy of Europe’.

Here Huntington outlines Rushton’s present argument:


The contrast between the action of tropical and non-tropical environments, whether through natural selection or through stimulation of mutations, seems to be one of the most important causes of differences in racial character. It appears to be a biological law that a tropical environment, because of its uniformity, tends to perpetuate primitive, unspecialized forms. Since man split off from the apes his specialization has been in the size, complexity, and functioning of the brain. Other specializations, such as changes of complexion, stature, and hair, have been of minor importance. In equatorial regions the mental type of specialization has apparently been slow, largely because there have been no really great changes
throughout man’s history, not even during the severest glacial epochs. That, presumably,
is one of the chief reasons why it is so difficult to impose upon equatorial people anything more than the outer husk of northern government, northern religion, northern ideals, and northern culture. (Huntington, 1925: 50)

Huntington goes on to describe the type of characters that natural selection would
favor in this new climate:

This brings us to what I believe to be another highly important step in understanding the evolution of racial character. In Northern Asia, as well as in Northern Europe, the approach of the ice age would cause three things to happen. First, some of the inhabitants, presumably the most adventurous and intelligent, would migrate southward to milder regions. Second, a large percentage of the population, though not a large number as we count population, would be exterminated from generation to generation. Third, the remnant which survived would go through a process of regressive selection, whereby the survivors would be those in whom passive qualities of resistance to hunger and discomfort were most highly developed. The nervous, active types who lead the march of human progress would be at a disadvantage compared with those of a more phlegmatic constitution. (Huntington, 1925: 52–3)

Thus Huntington gives Rushton an entire rationale for the selection of higher
intelligence in Europeans and Asians.

Source: What a tangled web he weaves: Race, reproductive strategies, and Rushton’s life history theory. Anthropological Theory, Sage Publishers, vol. 2(2): 131-154. (2002)

Given that Rushton and Lynn are not evolutionary biologists it would not surprise me if they borrowed ideas from other people. We know that r/K selection theory was originally posed by Robert MacArthur and E.O. Wilson and that Lee Ellis tried to apply it to human races in his "Theories of Rape" so did Rushton and Lynn simply take Huntington's idea and present it as a new scientific theory? Perhaps. Either way the claim has been thoroughly refuted.

You're just being ridiculous. I present arguments in my own words and support them with credible sources. Your contention that I do this just to increase my character count is absurd as is the claim that I am plagiarizing text when I clearly give credit to every source. There is nothing wrong with that. Also given the character limit I try to avoid long-winded responses. I have a habit of writing a lot but not to tire my opponent out. I simply like to flesh out my arguments.

Being despised for proposing racist theories doesn't mean that a biologist should know who he is. Rushton isn't known throughout the scientific community. I hadn't heard of him until I started reading about racism on the internet. Reznick may very well not be interested in those ideas. I looked at his publications and he doesn't have the same interest in refuting racism that Graves does. If you read Graves book you'd know that he had racist experiences growing up dating to early childhood and could be considered an anti-racist activist or Egalitarian. Most biologists don't have that interest so I imagine that most of them don't know who Rushton was. If you think about it logically this makes sense.

I think the source of your confusion is you believe I was talking about the topic of race and intelligence. No, I am talking about biology! Reznick and Graves are colleagues through their work in the field of evolutionary biology. Scientific Racism or "race-realism" is only of interest to people who are promoting racism or opposing it. Reznick is probably familiar with the argument and given his expertise can recognize the technical failings of a scholar like Rushton when it comes to human evolution however unless he has a special interest in that particular topic he probably wouldn't have ever heard of him. Do you get it now?

I thought this was interesting given that it further establishes the fact that Rushton is a nobody in the field of biology. For a top expert like Reznick who also has an interest in r/K selection theory to have never heard of him really says something (this shouldn't be surprising as in his response to Rushton's arguments Graves noted that he is an expert on Life History Evolution and Rushton is not). But I found it even more interesting because it gave me an opportunity to talk to an expert in the field who can not be accused of bias against a position. After all he had never even heard of Rushton. The fact that his critique of Rushton was remarkably similar to that of Graves and other critics is significant because it shows that this is simply the view of experts on human evolution and not a product of Egalitarian bias.

Now Reznick could be an Egalitarian or liberal for all I know. He probably is. However he was able to give me a fresh perspective on this subject. Graves' publication history is full of criticisms of Scientific Racism. This is of special interest to him. He even admits that this research makes him angry and if you watch the video debate with Rushton he clearly got angry (he also commented on my video when I originally uploaded it and insisted that his anger shouldn't be confused with argument from emotion). Graves very much has credibility on this topic given that he is an expert however it is good to get different opinions on the subject.

 

This is hogwash and by that logic you could discredit the entire scientific community since it is dominated by Liberal professors. The idea that respected scholars can not be objective on a scientific topic despite their credentials is simply absurd. You may feel that you are fighting an uphill battle against the establishment however the reality is that your views are fringe and discredited and they are that way for a reason. Science has advanced to the point where there are parameters for acceptable academic scholarship and we can assess the credibility of a theory by seeing if it follows the Scientific Method. The work of quacks like Rushton and Lynn do not. They are advocates of a pseudoscientific tradition in academia financed by conservative think tanks with a racist ideological agenda. They have been refuted and advancing conspiracy theories about liberal bias supporting Marxism and using tactics such as "Name The Jew"' make you look like a lunatic.

This is the reality of how Scientific Racism is viewed in the scientific community:

Geneticist Joseph Graves Jr. (2002a, 2002b) has done extensive work on Life history theory and has summarized the flaws in Rushton's understanding of r- and K-selection theory. Further, he points out that over the years, reference to this r/K theory disappeared in legitimate biology journals: from 1977 to 1982 there were an average of forty-two references per year to the theory in the BIOSIS literature search service, but in the period 1984 to 1989, the average dropped to sixteen per year (Stearns 1992). In 2001, there was only one reference to the theory (Graves 2002a). In 1992, major summaries of the criticisms of this theory were published by Stearns (1992) and Roff (1992), both pointing out that the theory of r-selection and K-selection no longer served any purpose in life history theory. In 1997, Graves personally presented these and other rebuttals to this theory to Rushton. Yet in his 1999 abridged version of Race, Evolution, and Behavior, Rushton did not mention the fact that biologists rejected the theory nor did he discuss any of the criticisms of it by life history biologists (of which he is not one). He offers no justification for his use of this outmoded theory and makes no attempt to counter any of the specific criticism. In response to this, Graves (2002a, 139) writes that "the absence of such a response only supports my view that Rushton does not understand life history theory. Thus he employs it incorrectly and through this error his work serves racist ideological agendas."

I agree and add that this is exactly what he and the Pioneer Fund want to accomplish: pure propaganda for race and racism and nothing to do with actual scientific reality. They present a scientific veneer for those who don't read or understand legitimate science and who want justification for their own racial prejudice. Graves (2002a, 147) concludes: "J.P. Rushton's view of human evolution suffers from the use of antiquated and simplistic theoretical models concerning life history evolution. In addition his methods of data analysis, results and data sources call in to question the legitimacy of his research." As we have seen with many of his new colleagues, Rushton's theories follow in a direct historical line from past racist eugenicists such as Galton, Gobineau, Chamberlain, Shaler, Davenport, Laughlin, Fisher, Gunther, and Grant. History does indeed repeat itself.

Rushton's information about penis size (length and thickness), angles of erection, and hardness is based on a paper written by a French "surgeon" who used the pseudonym Dr. Jacobus X (A French Army Surgeon 1896). Dr. X does not disclose how he obtained his information, and there are contradictions throughout his paper (see Weizmann et a. [1990] 1999). However Rushton (1988) describes the work as part of the ethnographic record and uses it as a major source for most of his comparative data on male and female genital size and shape. In fact, Weizman et al. ([1990] 1999) point out that the anonymous author, Dr. X, gives his readers descriptions of human physiological traits. He gives details of "genitalia of varying size, shape, texture and color, and the strange sexual customs of a large number of 'semi-civilized' peoples" (Weizmann et al. [1990] 1999, 209). Dr. X even gives a recipe that includes eggplant and hot peppers that he claimed could be used to enlarge penis size.

This is a good example of the "scientific" literature Rushton uses. Rushton's assertions about the relationship between penis size and sexual appetite also is not supported by actual scientific data (Masters and Johnson 1966; Weizmann et al. [1990] 1999). Rushton also claims that white women have larger birth canals than black women, which enabled them to have babies with larger brains, another statement that has no scientific justification. Within human populations, among normally healthy individuals, there is no correlation whatsoever between head size, brain size, cranial capacity, and intelligence (Herskovits 1930; Tobias 1970; Brace 1999, 2005; Beals, Smith and Dodd 1984; Zuckerman and Brody 1988; Cain and Vanderwolf 1989; Gould 1996; Graves 2002a, 2002b; Weizmann et al. [1990] 1990).

Part of Rushton's suite of racist ideas is his belief (which Pearson shares), that racism has a biological basis. He claims that "xenophobia [is]....an innate trait in human beings" that enables them "to preserve 'purity' of the gene pool" (quoted in Tucker 2002, 179). Also, he believes that the racial differences allow one to naturally distinguish "friend from foe" (Miller 1995, 171). He says such things as the statement that "the Nazi army was effective in battle in World War II because it was racially homogeneous, while the U.S. army was ineffective in Vietnam because it was racially mixed" (Sautman 1995).

To his credit, and this is directly related to his lack of understanding of the power of culture, learned worldviews, and environment, Rushton states: "I guess my upbringing led me to believe there really were genetically based class, ethnic and racial differences" (Miller 1995, 170). Rushton was born and raised through the fourth grade under apartheid in South Africa. As Brace (2005, 256) points out: "Rushton's entire career has been devoted to providing proof in favor of his childhood prejudice."

Source: The Myth of Race: The Troubling Persistence of an Unscientific Idea Chapter 10. The Pioneer Fund in the Twenty-First Century p. 264-265

 

You're comparing DNA from genetic admixture to the overall genetic difference between genomes of different species. Yes, small genetic differences can result in big genetic changes and the 1% difference between Chimpanzees and Humans includes genes that code for all phenotypic traits that are different between chimpanzees and humans. The 1-4% genetic admixture in humans that have Neanderthal ancestry is comparable to genetic admixture between continental populations of humans. This admixture is very small and obviously statistically insignificant. You would have to assume that this 1-4% genetic admixture includes genes that code for specific traits including intelligence. There is simply no scientific reason to make this assumption and your sexual selection theory (e.g. Modern Humans pursued Neanderthal as mates because of their cultural sophistication) is ridiculous. Surely if Neanderthal were as intelligent as you are suggesting they would have found a way to survive regardless of the challenges they faced. If their population was small, even if they were completely absorbed through interbreeding they wouldn't have been able to pass on enough genes to affect major biological systems such as those related to brain function.

There are several studies and books you can read on this subject that support the position that humans became anatomically and behaviorally modern in Africa before they migrated elsewhere. The Cold Winter Theory is bunk and so is the Neanderthal Admixture theory. Both theories rely on the idea that humans outside of Africa have developed something mentally that humans in Africa do not possess which is ridiculous and you can't avoid the fact that there are groups with IQs lower than 100 that would be included in the non-African groups that are supposed to have superior intelligence regardless of which ever pet theory you choose to support. I have provided plenty of evidence that refutes these racist arguments. Presenting more would be overkill but I'll do it any way. Even though you already demonstrated a lack of interest in reading or responding to these sources at least I provided them.

• BRACE C.L., 1999, An anthropological perspective on “race” and intelligence: the non-clinal nature of human cognitive capabilities, Journal of Anthropological Research, 55, 245-264

Link: https://mega.nz/#!nRVH3RaZ!ZN_jzo2REdop-_iz1PWACTJ6lp8HHlxhIY-m-tntc_I

Cliff Notes:

1. There are adaptive traits all human populations have in common (ex. salinity, iron content and blood pressure and other biochemical and physiological features).

2. Human intelligence has adaptive value.

3. Modern humans evolved from Homo Erectus based on mandibular evidence.

4. Based on Archeological evidence human populations during the Pleistocene Epoch shared hunting strategies.

5. Modern humans evolved articular speech which distinguishes them from the Apes and all human populations share the evolutionary trademarks of this development (ex. Broca's area).

6. Human brain size attained modern levels and ceased to expand during the Middle Stone Age.

7. All human children learn language during the same age span and each group is capable of learning other languages.

8. Differences in human life ways around the world arose so recently from the perspective of evolutionary history that there has been no time for any differential adaptive response to have occurred.

 

People usually don't have sex with people they don't like. Your suggestion implies rape, given the context, which wouldn't be too surprising, given the statistics.

Even assuming that theory is true, "modern man" bred with these other species of early humans. You continually claim that this means nothing, but this is merely your unsubstantiated say so. There is plenty of information on the internet suggesting that people who have this admixture are more likely to possess certain qualities, even today:

https://blog.23andme.com/23andme-research/the-neanderthal-advantage/

1-3% of children born in the UK are mixed race. If non-mixed Europeans abandoned race-mixing ideology, which is something pushed on them to reduce their numbers, then they would assumedly only mate with fellow white Europeans from that point on, which will reduce their lineage's non-European genes to a statistical zero over time.

Just pointing out bias, which is an important factor to consider in in any study.

They were regarded as dumber, but that assumption is beginning to change, as the "rethinking" articles suggest. And yes, I believe Neanderthals were part of the reason why certain groups were given a boost in certain areas, namely Europeans and East Asians, the latter have, according to some studies, more Neanderthal DNA than Europeans.

Scoff all you like, the article I sourced cites this as a current theory. We know Neanderthals bred with homo sapiens in large numbers. That's why almost every white and East Asian person in the world today has a percentage of their DNA linked to Neanderthals.

And it's *possible* you're simply making up your facts.

Thanks for sharing more of your guesses. Quite fascinating.

I suspect my original claim is correct.

So he "isn't known throughout the scientific community" because you never heard of him? You're not anybody of importance, so how can you attempt to speak on behalf of the entire scientific community? Talk about liberal arrogance.

These scientific types heard of him:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Philippe_Rushton#Opinions

Rushton's book made a lot of waves when it was released, and I find it highly improbable that Reznick had never heard of him, given Rushton's contributions to the same theory that Reznick has interest in. Yes, that's a guess. As for Graves - seems like just another black guy with a chip on his shoulder against whitey. You admitted to his racial motivation. I'm sure he was "angry", most of them are.

 

And I do.

You are continually trying to redirect this thread into a discussion on Rushton, while ignoring all the other sources of information I have posted to support my arguments, but I he's completely right on racially mixed militaries. "Diversity" has notable downsides.

http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/

Having to serve a mixed country, alongside mixed people who do not belong to your tribe, and probably doesn't even speak your language, makes someone less secure and less trusting. Exactly the opposite of what a cohesive military unit should be.

 

Not true, I have substantiated my claim that even at 1-4%, Neanderthal DNA has some application even today in modern humans.

Again, I have substantiated this claim, and it is a valid theory at this time that Neanderthals were seen as sexually attractive by early homo sapiens. Are you suggesting early homo sapiens were being raped?

Bad argument. The challenges they faced included demographic replacement. We are seeing this happen today with the migration of the 3rd world into the West. More intelligent people are having less children, while less intelligent people are having more children.

No they aren't (as discussed earlier).

The only group of whites with IQ's in the 50's that I know of are those who are severely mentally retarded. That IQ level is the average IQ of African bushmen, which means half of that group has IQ levels less than the mid 50's. I am not aware of any other group in the world with an average IQ this low. Bushmen are arguably the oldest group of "modern humans" in the world, likely what the early homo sapiens looked and behaved like when they left Africa and went North.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/worlds-most-ancient-race-traced-in-dna-study-1677113.html

I don't see how any of this relates to my arguments in this thread. Likely more copy+paste padding of your posts.

 

That's what you want to believe. That isn't what I was implying. All I am saying is that racist White women should experiment sexually with Black men to cure themselves of their racism. You want to make it an issue of rape because you are offended by the suggestion and are trying to vilify me. How very racist and dishonest of you!

All I'm saying is that racist White women should get some Black dick. They should try it.

They might like it....

You highlighted a last name without context. Of course I know that you are suggesting that the author is Jewish and therefore biased (e.g. "Name the Jew") which is beyond stupid and says more about you than the author. What if I or another Egalitarian poster were to claim that Rushton, Lynn and every scholar that you cite is a White man and therefore biased? You wouldn't accept that. You would rightfully claim that that person is being biased themselves which is exactly what I am going to do to you. You're just being an antisemitic, racist bigot.

I didn't say it was a fact. I noted it as a reasonable suspicion. Stop lying.

I said that I myself had never heard of Rushton not that I represent the scientific community.

You're just being dishonest.

Yeah and notice that they read like a Who's Who of advocates of Scientific Racism.

What about the rest of the biologists, psychologists, anthropologists, geneticists etc. of the world? I studied these topics in college and Rushton is not mentioned in any of these books. He is not regarded as a top scientist. He made it as far as a TV appearance on the Phil Donahue show and a few appearances on CNN to discuss his pet subjects. Otherwise he got a lot of backlash in his area for his theories and was the laughing stock of a debate with David Suzuki. Professors at the University of Western Ontario, Canadian Psychologists and people interested in Scientific Racism may know his research well but Rushton's theories were not taken seriously by the scientific community at large. Use your brain. This isn't cutting edge research we are talking about it is a fringe and discredited theory.

I don't believe most serious scientists have heard of Rushton. There is no reason to think so.

No, Rushton's book did not make waves. It got a lot of criticism and he gave away unsolicited copies of the abridged version of the book to several scholars in relevant fields because he was a nobody in the field of evolutionary biology trying to make a name for himself. Rushton was just a quack psychologist. Racist academics paid attention. Scientists interested in combating racism like Graves paid attention to him. Reznick is not involved in that type of research. Sure, they both made contributions to research on r/K selection but Reznick is an actual expert on Life History Theory. Rushton is not. You don't seem to get that even though it is very simple to understand. This is probably because you live in a bubble and read racist trash on the internet instead of having a genuine interest in science.

Graves is a respected scientist who is also an expert on Life History Biology, biology in general and specializes in the study of the genetics of aging. You can look up his credentials for yourself.

http://jsnn.ncat.uncg.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/gravesCV.pdf

The fact that you dismiss him as just an angry Black man reveals your ignorance of his education and reputation as a respected scientist. That is just a racist snipe on your part.

You completely destroyed your credibility as a serious debater with this comment.

You can't discredit the entire scientific community save for a couple of racist quacks and expect to be taken seriously.

The article in question provides an alternative position on human evolution and intelligence which is based on actual scientific facts and not the racist rhetoric and speculation of your sources. Since you have chosen to be disrespectful and not debate in good faith I'm not going to respond to any of your sources. You didn't read my sources so there is no reason to read yours. Throughout this discussion you have resorted to character assassination, lies, ignored evidence, dismissed credible sources, promoted ridiculous conspiracy theories and displayed extreme bias to the point where you can't be considered a serious debater.

I'm not going to waste any more time with you. This isn't a scientific debate this is just you trying to justify your racial prejudices.

 

Racist white women don't like black men. If black men are not superior to white men, sexually or otherwise, why would "black dick cure them of their racism"? Sounds like you're not being honest at all.

Oh, by the way, I don't blame black men like you for wanting white women. They are more sexually attractive compared to black women. Your women, as well as Asian men, are the losers in this egalitarian game of race-mixing. Sucks for them.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...he-plight-of-black-women.212513/#post-4642536

You do consider those people biased. You've already called them racists.

You presented it as a fact. Stop lying.

You're attempting to use your lack of knowledge of someone as evidence that the "scientific community" has never heard of him.

Which is just your way of dismissing them, nothing more.

Again, your lack of knowledge about something isn't an indication of anything more than your own lack of knowledge. It doesn't reflect at all on the "scientific community". Clearly there was a lot of scientists who disagreed with his theories, while some believed they held merit. Not a very uncommon thing at all in the world of science, especially on theories that undermine the left's agenda.

Again, bias is important, and his "racist experiences" that you pointed to is something to consider with regards to objectivity. You have no problem painting all of Rushton's supporters as fellow racists, so I don't think I need a reason to view Graves' supporters in a more nuanced way. I'm sure he's very popular with whitey hating blacks, in particular.

Says the guy who believes "black dick" will cure racism.

I don't need to accept everything coming from the "scientific community", especially when Academia is, in general, an infiltrated and corrupted left-wing breeding ground. And before you attempt to get high and mighty, you are doing the same thing. I presented several sources that showed that your belief that Neanderthals were unintelligent is wrong and outdated, and what did you do? Dismissed them, and then refused to respond to those points made in my last point. You simply ignored them.

You're not a scientist, nor is your copy+pasting a scientific endeavor. My "racial prejudices" are based on not only history, but also human nature. Infants are born with the ability to prefer their own people and react negatively towards those who are not in their own tribe. The more we stray from that, the more problems humanity will encounter because of it. You're motivated by selfish (and racist) motives that you're not even brave enough to admit to, under the guise of "egalitarianism". What a joke.

 

“If left unchecked, an academic field can become a cohesive moral community, creating a

shared reality (Hardin & Higgins, 1996) that subsequently blinds its members to morally or

ideologically undesirable hypotheses and unanswered questions (Haidt,

2012)”


Nothing comes from social psychology that is not politically correct because nearly every single social psychologist is liberal. For example, in the social sciences and humanities,

Democrats outnumber Republicans by ratios of at least 8 to 1

Other Researchers found that the ratio could be even higher. For example in a study published in 2006 (Gross, 2007) researchers found the ratio of Democrats to Republicans was more than 14:1.

This is important because in a politically homogeneous field, a larger

than-optimal number of scientists shine their flashlights on ideologically important regions of the

terrain. Doing so leaves many areas unexplored. Even worse, some areas become walled off, and

inquisitive researchers risk ostracism if they venture in (see Redding 2013)

The politically correct belief promoted by liberal researchers is that Women, African Americans and Latinos achieve less because of racism, but what if it isn’t racism? What if white males achieve more simply because their principles, values, morals and ethics are just better???



Redding, R. E (2013). Politicized science. Society, 50, 439-446


(Gross & Simmons, 2007; Klein &


Stern, 2009; Rothman & Lichter, 2008

Hardin, C. D., & Higgins, E. T. (1996). Shared reality: How social verification makes the subjective

 

If minorities are under-privileged as a result of discrimination, then how do liberals explain Asian Americans? In 2015 Asian Americans had the highest educational attainment level and median household income of any racial demographic in the [United States] [9] [10]If minorities are under-privileged, how do liberals explain Asian Americans, a racial minority only comprising 5% of the population, yet having the highest household income of any racial demographic? If White People are, “privileged,” how do liberals explain that in 2015 Asian American men were the highest earning racial group, earning 117% as much as white American men and Asian-American women earning 106% as much as white American women? [6] If minorities are inherently under-privileged, how do liberals explain that Asian Americans are no more likely than non-Hispanic whites to live in poverty?[11]

Asian Americans comprise just 5% of the entire U.S. population and as of 2011, Hispanics accounted for 16.7% of the national population,[12] and African Americans comprised 12.6% of the United States population. If white privilege is real and white people are privileged in the United States as a result of being a majority of the population then one would expect Asian Americans to be even more under-privileged because they comprise even less of the population than either Latinos or African Americans. However Asian Americans are not underprivileged as one would expect if there was white privilege in the United States today. In fact, Starting in the first few years of the 2000 decade, Asian American earnings began exceeding all other racial groups for both men and women.[13] In 2008 Asian Americans had the highest median household income overall of any racial demographic.[9][10] In 2012, Asian Americans had the highest educational attainment level of any racial demographic. [9][10] In 2015, Asian American men and women were the highest earning racial group, earning 117% and 106% as much as white American men and white American women, respectfully.[14]]

 

So, why aren’t Asian Americans under-privileged? Are Asian Americans just smarter? Several studies have found when Asian Adoptees are raised by white parents Asians have higher IQ’s [18] [19] [20]. Studying different races of adoptees raised by white parents is relevant to studying a racial basis of inheritance for intelligence because the theory is although they may be different races, they were all raised in similar environments, by the same race of parents

Generally, Black people, White people, and East Asian people have different average IQ’s. However the specific reasons for this remain controversial.” [21] Three studies found when East Asian adoptees are raised by white parents East Asians have higher IQ’s but a study examining these studies titled, “Racial IQ Differences among Transracial Adoptees: Fact or Artifact?,” found when East Asian, White, and Black adoptees are raised in the same environment they have similar IQs, which hints at a minimal role for genes in racial IQ differences. [21]

Therefore, if Asians are inherently no smarter than other races then why have Asian Americans achieved more collectively than African Americans and Latinos? Why do Asian Americans achieve more academically and professionally than other minorities? It’s my theory that it is the belief in white privilege itself which leads to low achievement. It is the belief by African Americans and Latinos that they are inherently under-privileged and discriminated against which results in achieving less. Why take responsibility for the consequences of your actions and choices when there is someone to blame for your failures, White People and their privilege? Blaming other people for the consequences of your choices, for your actions, is not a successful life strategy for anyone, regardless of race. You’re not going to be an asset to a company if you blame other people for the consequences of your actions, for your choices. Taking responsibility and not blaming others is the very foundation for academic and professional achievement.

 

Donald Trump or Opra Winfrey, who has better ethics and morality?

 

Not all whites are famous for their work ethic. Only Germans and the Nordics are. Everyone else is known to be lazy (Southern EU) or parasitic (Eastern EU).

 

Oprah Winfrey hired a production crew for a project because it was owned and operated by African Americans.