linkfest – 07/08/13

Ancient Native Americans’ Living Descendants Revealed“Ancient people who lived in in Northern America about 5,000 years ago have living descendants today, new research suggests.”

No single origin for agriculture in the Fertile Crescent“Transition from foraging to farming occurred over the entire Fertile Crescent.” – see also Early agriculture from Iran from dienekes.

Mental Retardation and Dadly Adaptations – from greg cochran.

Warning over cousin marriages: Unions between blood relatives in Pakistani community [in the u.k.] account for third of birth defects in their children“Bradford research collected data on 11,300 babies involved in project. Rate in city is three times the national average of just under two per cent.”

The Problem with Writing about Race“One of the purposes of this site was to develop something called ‘Liberal Race Realism,’ which is a movement that I started. Admittedly, it hasn’t gone anywhere at all. Actually, it has been a complete failure. But that is ok. Really what it shows though is just how messed up people, especially Americans, are about race.” – from robert lindsay via hbdbibliography.

White skin privilege“There is a widespread belief, particularly among proponents of whiteness studies, that notions of beauty are determined by power relationships…. This belief is so entrenched that little concern is shown for counterfactual evidence, such as the medieval trade in fair-skinned women for clients in North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia…. [T]his pattern is inconsistent with the belief that power relationships determine notions of beauty.” – from peter frost.

Emmanuel Todd’s L’invention de l’Europe: A critical summary – from craig willy.

Exposure to stress even before conception causes genetic changes to offspring“A female’s exposure to distress even before she conceives causes changes in the expression of a gene linked to the stress mechanism in the body — in the ovum and later in the brains of the offspring from when they are born, according to a new study on rats.”

First baby born after full genetic screening of embryos“Connor … is the first child to be born after his parents had the entire genomes of a batch of their IVF embryos screened for abnormalities, with the intention of picking the healthiest for implantation.” – via hbdbibliography.

Economic growth and evolution: Parental preference for quality and quantity of offspring – from jason collins.

How Simple Can Life Get? It’s Complicated

Genetic links between post-reproductive lifespan and family size in Framingham – via mr. mangan, esq.

Evolution, lifestyle, and diseases of affluence – from mr. mangan, esq.

‘Lower BMI mark for ethnic groups’“The standard test to see whether people are a healthy weight does not work consistently across different ethnicities, [u.k.] health officials have said.” – via v.a.w.

Richard Lynn On A Century of IQ In Britain And The U.S. – see also steve sailer’s Does IQ testing work or not work?

Children’s diets worse today than in wartime: And now illnesses of 1940s are making a comeback“Scurvy and rickets are on the rise amongst children who live on junk food.” – what about brain development / behavior / iq? =/

DNA Markers in Low-IQ Autism Suggest Heredity“A new study in the American Journal of Human Genetics finds evidence that there may often be a recessive, inherited genetic contribution in autism with significant intellectual disability.”

Exercise reorganizes the brain to be more resilient to stress – via mike anissimov.

How Strong Is the Female Sex Drive After All?“Women may be more sexually omnivorous than men, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re as hungry.” – via jayman.

Cosmetic surgery to look whiter fails to boost women’s self-esteem

Understanding Evil – interviewing war criminals.

bonus: witch-hunt and whining continue – UNM probe finds professor’s [geoffrey miller’s] tweet not part of project

bonus bonus: Tribalism and the War in Syria – via mark weiner.

bonus bonus bonus: BBC chief admits: We had a ‘deep liberal bias’ on migrants – no kidding! =/ ed west already said so [pdf].

bonus bonus bonus bonus: Egypt: Epidemic of Sexual Violence“At Least 91 Attacks in 4 Days; Government Neglect Means Impunity Rules.” – note that includes sexual assaults, too, so they’re not all actual rapes.

bonus bonus bonus bonus bonus: Review of “Detroit: An American Autopsy” by Charlie LeDuff – from foseti.

bonus bonus bonus bonus bonus bonus: “Back To Europe” Movement – from heartiste.

bonus bonus bonus bonus bonus bonus bonus: Cockatoos ‘pick’ puzzle box locks

bonus bonus bonus bonus bonus bonus bonus bonus: Vibrating genitals may Ward off Predators – wait. vibrating genitals??

(note: comments do not require an email. btw, we were all just a$$holes once. (~_^) )

Advertisements

44 Comments

  1. Will just pop in to say a thank you for the linkfests.

    As a blogger I know how tiring it is to regularly collate links, summarize them, and publish them – and they get much less recognition than “original” work to boot. The maximum number of consecutive linkfests I ever managed was nine – they steadily became bigger and more infrequent until I abandoned the effort.

    I will refrain from commenting further on this thread before I get the chance to read Craig Willy’s piece in full, which I would like to highlight here in particular. Emmanuel Todd is a brilliant thinker and it is excellent to see a comprehensive English-language summary of his ideas.

    Reply

  2. @hbd chick:

    ““At Least 91 Attacks in 4 Days; Government Neglect Means Impunity Rules.” – note that includes sexual assaults, too, so they’re not all actual rapes. …”

    *Assault* is a chargeable offense – *Sexual Assault* is not:>

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/dutch_female_reporter_raped_in_violent_1i3XjASFKD5HjybnAJ2b2L

    (Admittedly I cannot immediately find the report – but I’ll stay with it for now. Unless there’s a kindly Islamist reading who knows the statutes)

    Reply

  3. FINALLY getting back to this, after following the excitement in Egypt, which is not over, of course. The thread is,

    https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/fathers-brothers-daughter-marriage/

    1) What does “super-homies” mean? At first I thought it was a genetics term, but by Googling it looks like it might be colloquial, and I am just not au courant.

    2) Certainly I can see how fbd marriage concentrates the Y chromosome. But how much is there on the Y chromosome? I thought it was kind of short (I am shockingly ignorant, I apologize, I am just a beginner in this area). Would there be stuff there that affects behaviour?

    Reply

  4. I checked out the links and this one stood out to me:

    “Richard Lynn On A Century of IQ In Britain And The U.S.”

    I’ve already written about this topic and so I’ll just offer two links from my blog:

    http://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2011/03/07/americas-northsouth-divide-other-regional-data/

    http://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/white-supremacy-defeated-yet-again/

    http://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/obama-vs-the-bell-curve/

    And here are a couple of relevant links to articles:

    http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/j/jencks-gap.html

    http://scienceblogs.com/purepedantry/2007/12/10/richard-nisbett-on-iq-and-race/

    http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/sloth/nisbett-on-rushton-and-jensen.pdf

    To summarize:

    There are greater differences between regions than races.

    There are Northern states that have average black IQs above the average white IQs of Southern states. The white majority rural South has the worst or nearly the worst rates of every social problem I’ve ever seen measured, from welfare dependency to high school dropouts, from teen pregnancies to obesity. Rural Southern whites even have worse rates of violent crime than inner city blacks.

    There are only two clear factors in all of this. Lower IQs and other related social problems are all related to poverty. Blacks have lower average IQs nationally and, because of a history of oppression, they have higher poverty rates. However, where whites experience high rates of poverty, they demonstrate the same lower IQs and social problems.

    Some conservatives such as Thomas Sowell argue that blacks inherited the culture of poor rural Southerners. This makes sense in that they mostly had their own culture destroyed during slavery and so took on a Southern culture which they brought with them to the North.

    These cultural factors are related to many other social factors. This is shown, in the case of blacks, by how changing environmental factors results in significantly large increases in IQ. I wouldn’t use this to argue that there aren’t genetic factors as well, but genetics gets simplified to often toward ideological ends. The genetic effect is important, even if it obviously doesn’t follow along any simplistic lines of race. So, fair and rational discussion is still to be had for those willing to have it. It will be a long while before it can be determined all the factors and which are most significant.

    Reply

  5. I was reading again the post from Robert Lindsay:

    The Problem with Writing about Race

    His position encompases my own. I have come to the same basic conclusion he has:

    “Truth is that both camps are pretty much nuts and neither one is an adequate way to talk about race. Ideally, the perfect camp would be in between the two. That is what I tried to do with Liberal Race Realism.

    “However, LRR failed. My posts about race in general get taken over by nasty, ugly Supremacists of differing breeds, and the comments section degenerated into ugly race wars, mostly about whose race is superior and whose race is inferior.

    “It appears the PC crowd may be right. People simply are not mature enough to talk about race without degenerating into horrible Supremacists of this type or that. So the PC crowd has decided to pretty much just ban the whole subject, which might be a good idea, as folks simply can’t seem to handle it.”

    It is nearly impossible to have intelligently worthy, intellectually fair-minded and calmly reasonable discussion about race. The biggest problem is that race gets simplistically mixed up with ethnicity and race.

    In America, this is particularly stupid as American mutts are so mixed up as to show how much race is nothing more than a social construction. Most American whites, besides being a mix of most every European ethnicity, have some amount of non-European ancestry: Native American, Polynesian, Asian, African, Middle Eastern, Mongol, etc. Even Europeans have a fair amount of non-European ancestry, in particular along the Mediterranean and in the British Isles (i.e., where Romans, North Africans and Middle Easterners spread their genetics and the genetics of their slaves and soldiers). Besides, Europeans consist of several separate lines of genetics in the first place.

    This has become problematic with medicine. Doctors will treat people based on skin color as ethnicity correlates to certain health conditions, but skin color doesn’t necessarily say much about the important genetic components that relate to these health conditions. Many black Americans have important genetic markers common among Europeans and many white Americans have important genetic markers common among Africans.

    For example, are Hispanics more Spanish or Native American? Are the Spanish more European or Moorish? Are Moors more Arab or North African? And are North Africans more African or Mediterranean?

    So, what is up with the new popular distinction between white Hispanics and non-white Hispanics related to Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic whites? Why don’t we speak of white blacks like Obama or is he a black white? There are very few non-white blacks in the US, mostly just different shades of European ‘white’. LOL

    Reply

  6. I have been reading Jasienica history of POland books just before I read the review of Todd. Because of that, more interesting question for me is why the modernisation failed in my own country? Literacy rate was greater than in France, “postulata polonica” effectively forced France to adapt more tolerant attitude to hugenotes, the law and government system was arguably more modern – yet within mere 100 years everything collapsed and my country turned into a shadow of itself…

    Reply

  7. @”van devries” – read the comments policy above – NO SOCK PUPPETRY!

    pick a (non-offensive) handle and stick to it, thankuverymuch.

    Reply

  8. the problem with genital studies on men is that men have always been aware of it. that makes a big difference.

    Reply

  9. As always, enjoying the links. Have you ever thought about adding an ad or two to your website just to generate some money? Unless you don’t need it…

    Reply

  10. LolKatzen
    “1) What does “super-homies” mean? At first I thought it was a genetics term, but by Googling it looks like it might be colloquial, and I am just not au courant.”

    Colloquial. Homeboys -> homies (and FBD culture homies -> super-homies).

    Reply

  11. szopeno

    “why the modernisation failed in my own country?”

    There was a discussion about this on here some time ago and one theory was a Swedish invasion provoked a religious backlash. I don’t know enough to know how plausible that theory is.

    Reply

  12. Benjamin Steele

    “In America, this is particularly stupid as American mutts are so mixed up as to show how much race is nothing more than a social construction.”

    Race/nation/tribe are physical geographical constructions. Mixed race/nation/tribe is simply a mixed physical construction like sand and cement in the same pile.

    .

    “This has become problematic with medicine.”

    The medicinal problems you mention are the clearest evidence that race/nation/tribe isn’t a social construction but a product of geography over time.

    If medicines designed on the basis of race (in the usual sense of the word) can be more effective than those designed on the assumption that race doesn’t exist then the fact that further sub-division into nation/tribe could be possibly even more effective doesn’t change anything. It just reinforces the fact that geography drives the process.

    Similarly if further sub-division into nation/tribe might require testing a mixed individual to see if they have Italian genes for a particular liver function or German genes for that same function that doesn’t refute race/nation/tribe is a physical construct. It reinforces it.

    However what is also being shown imo is race is a complicated and messy physical construct and not a simple one.

    Reply

  13. LolKatzen

    “2) Certainly I can see how fbd marriage concentrates the Y chromosome. But how much is there on the Y chromosome? I thought it was kind of short”

    Apparently so.

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/07/the-y-chromosome-shall-not-die/#.Udys6zuzeSo

    Maybe there isn’t a specifc advantage to the Y chromosome aspect of FBD marriage however to me, if there was an advantage, the idea of all the males in a group being closer related makes me think that advantage might be somehow related to having greater cohesion in small-group violence.

    If so i think that would mean there ought to be something on the y chromosome which effects recognition and bonding somehow between close male relatives whether facially, visually or maybe scent?

    There may be nothing or something completely different but i think if there’s something it will be recognitional in some way and maybe scent.

    Reply

  14. @lolkatzen – forgive me for not responding to your questions yet! i’ve just spent waaaay too long on a new post (the radical reformation!), and now i’m hungry and have got to go eat … and rest my weary eyes. i’ll get back to you tomorrow — promise! (^_^)

    that goes for the rest of ya, too! (~_^)

    Reply

  15. @Gray Wanderer – I wouldn’t go so far as to argue race as a concept is entirely without meaning. I’d simply point out that it can’t carry the load of meaning many want to project upon it.

    Race is ultimately about social perception and was originally used for legal classification, but the legal side of seems to at times have had a weird history that didn’t always perfectly correlate to racial appearances. Nowadays, with ethnic mixing even greater than before and no more legal classifications, everyone is free to identify however they perceive themselves and which ancestral line they wish to claim as dominant.

    Because of the long past of ethnic outbreeding, it has become more common for children to manifest certain physical appearances that hadn’t been manifest in a family for generations (e.g., a child with more typical ‘white appearance born to parents with typical ‘black appearances).

    Race is mostly about appearances and the socia perception thereof. A person perceived as black in the US might be perceived as white in an African country. In fact, many black Americans have more European genetics than African genetics. And because of this many white Americans have non-European lines of ancestry which means at some point family members in that line chose to pass as white.

    The recent popularity of dna testing has demonstrated how mixed up Americans are. Physical appearances only represent a tiny fraction of total genetics. A person can appear as black while having the liver genes typical of an Italian or German. There could even be two black siblings where one had the Italian genes and the other had the German genes. If a doctor treats them based on skin color, this could be very problematic.

    Reply

  16. @Jason,

    As always, enjoying the links. Have you ever thought about adding an ad or two to your website just to generate some money? Unless you don’t need it…

    As a blogger, I can probably answer this.

    First, the sad reality is that unless you are a Michelle Malkin or Matt Yglesias level superblogger, you are not going to make any significant money from ads anyway. Why subject your readers to them for a few measly dollars a month? Because, realistically, that is what you’re looking at – especially with “celebral” blogs like this one.

    Second, wordpress.com disallows advertising on its sites, so it’s a moot point anyway.

    Reply

  17. @Gray Wanderer
    After reading dozen of books of scientific articles, I believe that Swedish invasion(s) only were a factor which was catalysator (is there such a word in english?) and made an obvious the weaknesses which were previously hiden. Other have suggested the counter-reformation; Jasienica written that it was all the fault of those pesky Lithuanians (in short, Poland was dominated by middle gentry, while Lithuania by great magnates, with different political culture) and because the kings have taught their subjects that the government cannot be trusted (he enumerated a lot of occassions in which kings conspired with magnates against masses of gentry, or in which proposals of reforms by gentry were frustrated by kng’s obstinacy);

    Under influence of HBD chick I think maybe this could be also abiological factors: the territories from Lithuania were decisively outside Hajnal’s line. Couldn’t be that just the the system which worked more or less OK for people from Greater and Lesser Poland, just couldn’t be tailored to the needs of people in Ruthenia, Lithuania and so on?

    Reply

  18. @szopeno,

    Because of that, more interesting question for me is why the modernisation failed in my own country? Literacy rate was greater than in France…

    Is there evidence for this? Because it sounds exceedingly unlikely. The Polish territories had a literacy rate of 41% according to the 1897 Russian Empire Census. This figure would have almost certainly been significantly higher in the German territories, but regardless, it seems unlikely to have been over 50% for the entire country.

    France passed the 50% barrier in the late 18th century among the newest generations, so it likely achieved c.50% around about 1830 or 1840 – that is, a good half a century or slightly more before Poland.

    Reply

  19. szopeno

    “I believe that Swedish invasion(s) only were a factor which was catalysator (is there such a word in english?) and made an obvious the weaknesses which were previously hiden…”

    catalyst

    “…Other have suggested the counter-reformation”

    Yes i was under the impression the Swedish invasion was the catalyst for the counter-reformation.

    Reply

  20. @Benjamin David Steele

    “Race is ultimately about social perception”

    Race has been about that but if different medicines work differently on people with different ancestral histories then race is also a biological geographical construct.

    .

    “I wouldn’t go so far as to argue race as a concept is entirely without meaning. I’d simply point out that it can’t carry the load of meaning many want to project upon it.”

    I’d agree that the meaning people give to race and the boundaries they draw around it are often, or even mostly, driven more by political motivations than anything else but at the same time the number of centuries or millenia a population’s ancestors spent in a particular environments physically shaped them as should be entirely self-evident from evolutionary principles. It is what it is.

    Reply

  21. @Greying Wanderer

    I’d probably be fine in discussing race with you as the definition you use is so narrowly constrained. But many, probably most, don’t use the term with such careful understanding. I still occasionally use the term, although I’d avoid it in the typical internet discussion. It causes too much confusion and too often near meaningless argument.

    For more general purposes, I prefer the term ‘ethnicity’ because of its greater precision.

    There are several distinct European ethnic groupings with separate lines of genetics, but they racially can all be called European or white. Many Mediterranean whites probably have more genetic similarity to Mediterranean non-whites than they have to Scandinavian or Norwegian whites.

    I also like to speak in terms of ethnicity because it more clearly captures the connections between genetics, appearance, region, history and culture. Clarity within the complexity, that is what I seek.

    Reply

  22. Benjamin David Steele

    I pretty much agree. Apart from anything else the differences i find most interesting are at lower scales.

    Reply

  23. @AK
    We are talking about XVI century here. In 16th century it does not seem that any country was near 50% literacy, I think, but in Poland travellers from France or Italy constantly express their suprise that one can speak Latin even to miners or common villagers, while gentry in addition sometimes spoke also German, French and Italian. I do not mean universal literacy, but I mean that the basis for further development seemed to be as good or maybe even better in Poland-Lithuania than in France in XVI century; yet only 50 or 100 years later France was going up, while P-L went through a nose-diving period.

    I think you are Russian, right? So you know that in XVI/XVII century Polish was also used in Russia by the elites. Yet in the second half of XVII century it was all gone.

    Reply

  24. @lolkatzen – “Certainly I can see how fbd marriage concentrates the Y chromosome. But how much is there on the Y chromosome? I thought it was kind of short (I am shockingly ignorant, I apologize, I am just a beginner in this area). Would there be stuff there that affects behaviour?”

    to be honest with you, i’m not sure what’s on the y-chromosome, either. what i figured/wondered, though, is that it’s the y-chromosome that makes men men, right? presumably testosterone-related genes … and testosterone has, of course, been implicated in levels of aggression/violence … so that was my circuitous “logic,” such as it was. (~_^)

    what’s more interesting about fbd marriage, i think, is how hyper-closely related all the family members in an fbd clan can become. see this post for instance: why fbd marriage amounts to more inbreeding than mbd marriage.

    because they’re all so hyper-related, altruistic behaviors ought to pay off for them (genetically) more so than in outbreeding populations, so you would think that societies with a lot of fbd marriage ought to show more family-oriented behaviors like nepotism and certain forms of corruption, etc. and that, indeed, seems to be the case.

    Reply

  25. Thanks. Yes, it makes sense there must something on the Y chromosome that affects testosterone.

    I’ll have to check those links and stare at the charts you’ve made. I thought perhaps the fbd was favoured because inherited wealth usually passes down the male line. I’m still confused about why it means more in-breeding (except for the Y chromosome) but it is a confusing topic.

    I will study on it carefully.

    Reply

  26. I should have added that I can certainly see that cousin marriage in general clearly makes people more closely related within their family. What I’m not sure about is why fbd would make people more inbred than marrying a cousin on the mother’s side.

    Reply

  27. @lolkatzen – “What I’m not sure about is why fbd would make people more inbred than marrying a cousin on the mother’s side.”

    i know. it’s not obvious. it took me a long time to figure it out for myself.

    have a look at that post i linked to — why fbd marriage amounts to more inbreeding than mbd marriage. what happens is that, with repeated fbd marriage, people inevitably wind up marrying their double-first cousins (who knew there was such a thing, right?!), and probability says that those individuals will share more genes with one another than regular first cousins.

    another way of looking at it (which just confuses me, but it might help you) is that, again in repeated fbd marriage — repeated over many generations — the woman that a man marries (his father’s brother’s daughter) is often also his second cousin. she’s his first cousin (fbd) AND second cousin (through his mother). i have to say that that just confuses me, and i’ve only grasped it a couple of times after consuming much red wine. (~_^)
    _____

    you can wind up with the same situation — i.e. creating a “push” towards double-first cousin marriage — if you have the opposite marriage system on the other side of the family, i.e. mother’s sister’s daughter (mzd) marriage, but almost no one on the planet does that for some reason. -?-

    note that the fbd and mzd are known as parallel cousins, whereas the others — fzd and mbd — are known as cross cousins. cross cousin marriage is the most common around the world — mother’s brother’s daughter (mbd) specifically. practically the only populations to practice fbd marriage are the arabs/muslims of the middle east/north africa/pakistan/afghanistan.

    Reply

  28. @anatoly – “Will just pop in to say a thank you for the linkfests.”

    you’re welcome! (^_^) i like doing (sometimes making myself do!) the linkfests, ’cause at least then i get out of my rut of reading about medieval europe/inbreeding/outbreeding for a couple of hours! (~_^)

    @anatoly – “…before I get the chance to read Craig Willy’s piece in full, which I would like to highlight here in particular.”

    yes, i still have to read that closely. looks really good!

    @anatoly – “Emmanuel Todd is a brilliant thinker and it is excellent to see a comprehensive English-language summary of his ideas.”

    agreed! i like todd a lot. he’s missed out on biology, i think, but that’s ok! (^_^)

    Reply

  29. @benjamin – “There are greater differences between regions than races.

    “There are Northern states that have average black IQs above the average white IQs of Southern states.”

    sure, but that’s just due to self-sorting, i.e. the great sorting that happened (just after?) wwi when blacks migrated en masse to northern states for work. it was the smarter/-est ones who moved.

    @benjamin – “Some conservatives such as Thomas Sowell argue that blacks inherited the culture of poor rural Southerners. This makes sense in that they mostly had their own culture destroyed during slavery and so took on a Southern culture which they brought with them to the North.”

    but then how to explain sub-saharan africa? or a place like haiti.

    @benjamin – “This is shown, in the case of blacks, by how changing environmental factors results in significantly large increases in IQ.”

    i doubt they were *significantly* large. can you offer some references to academic articles? thanks.

    Reply

  30. @benjamin – “…race is nothing more than a social construction.”

    no, no, no … and, again, no! (<< that should be read in a friendly, non-aggressive tone. (^_^) )

    races — like any natural population (that includes also ethnic groups) — are biological realities:

    The Inconvenient Science of Racial DNA Profiling

    the only reason that race is a social construct is because people are stupid. i don’t mean you — i mean the species as a whole. (whoever gave us the appellation “sapiens” obviously didn’t think about what he was talking about!)

    let’s take president obama as an example. most people refer to him as a black man. he, himself, reportedly ticked african american on a census form. but that is only half correct. obama is also half white. he shouldn’t be called just black … or just white either! … we should have another word for what he is. mixed-race seems good to me. (eventually, if everyone keeps mixing, we’ll wind up with a new race/s.)

    humans don’t seem to have a problem with this when they think about dogs or other animals. when a labrador and a poodle mate, we don’t call the offspring just labradors or just poodles. everyone recognizes that would be incorrect. so we’ve got labradoodles!

    here’s steve sailer’s Race FAQ.

    Reply

  31. @benjamin – “I also like to speak in terms of ethnicity because it more clearly captures the connections between genetics, appearance, region, history and culture.”

    i’m generally more interested in ethnic differences (and similarities), too. thinking about the races is useful when looking at the really big picture, but i tend to be more curious about the local for some reason.

    Reply

  32. @hbd chick – I’m not in much of a mood to debate, but I’ll give you some basic responses.

    Self-sorting? That is a hypothesis. As far as I know, we don’t have comprehensive IQ data for the early 20th century black population in the US. Maybe the smartes migrated and maybe not. Maybe thoe who left were just more desperate or more adventurous, maybe higher rates of openness to experience. Maybe a thousand different things, but the available data is severely lacking.

    Sub-Saharan Africa and Haiti? I’m not well informed about those places. What I do know isthat it is hard to make fair and useful comparisons between places that have such vastly different histories, cultures, politics, demographics and environments. To my mind, such comparisons opens up a vast can of worms, way beyond the comprehension of my little Pooh brain. But I’m sure you have many hypotheses. LOL

    Significantly large? I won’t dredge up any research papers because I know you alrady know abot them: poverty, malnutrition, lead poisoning, air and water pollution, impact of stress and trauma, expectancy effect, being read to when young, quality education, racial and class privilege, etc. The research papers on this topic are in the multitudes and they aren’t hard to find. Combine all those factors together and it begins to look quite significant indeed, at least to me it does. But I won’t argue with you about significant something is before it is significantly large. We don’t yet know how all these factors work together and maybe form a whole greater than the parts. I’ll just leave it at being complex.

    Race? You know comparing humans to dog breeds isn’t a fair comparison, especially not in the Americas. There has been so much inter-ethnic breeding over these past millennia that tere are very few pure breeds left. Humans have a long history of humping anything that moves, including Neanderthals and Denisovans, which is why there is only one small tribe left in the entire world that has pure homo sapiens genetics. We Americans are mutts. American blacks are massively lighter skinned than many Africans and this is because black in America correlates to no single ethnicity. Many, probably most, American blacks are more European than African. You already know all this.

    I speak of ethnicity because it isn’t helpful to call Africans black while also using the same label to describe mostly European-descended African-Americans. The two groups mostly don’t share the same genetics, culture, history, etc. It as useless as calling Mediterraneans and Scandinavians both white. Science necessitates precision. Sometimes non-ethnic racial data is all we have and so we are forced to make do, but we should use such data with great carefulness and wariness.

    Reply

  33. sure, but that’s just due to self-sorting, i.e. the great sorting that happened (just after?) wwi when blacks migrated en masse to northern states for work. it was the smarter/-est ones who moved.

    Not necessarily wrong, but mathematically you’d need quite strong self sorting. If heritability is like 0.5 or something, then a group of Blacks would essentially need to lose the entire bottom 40% to improve their trait by 1/3 SD (5 points).

    On “state IQ”, one measure to investigate is US state SAT scores average (e.g. http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/policyblog/detail/sat-scores-by-state-2011).

    Now, US state SAT scores have the issue that different states have different participation rates.

    But you can adjust these by a linear regression equation (and the relationship between participation rate and state average score is essentially linear), to predict what the state’s score “would be” with 100% participation.

    If you do this, you do get about a one SD difference between West Virginia vs Massachusetts or Illinois (District of Columbia would be expected to be worst, but is better than WV). Pennysylvania is the US median between Illinois and WV.
    SAT is different from IQ though.

    Reply

  34. @hbd chick – The anonymous directy above was me, but I’m sure you already figured that out.

    BTW I thought of a way you could indirectly test your hypothesis.

    You can’t go back in time to give all blacks IQ tests before the waves of migrations that followed the Civil War. Fortunately, though, there is an ongoing remigration of blacks returning o the South. There is plenty of data about contemporary populations of blacks: their IQs and SAT scores, where they live and have lived, where they moved to, their rates of interracial marriages, and some data even on genetics.

    If the Northern blacks are genetically and cognitively different than Southern blacks, this is a great opportunity to analyze the change in data following remigration.

    Reply

  35. @matt – “Not necessarily wrong, but mathematically you’d need quite strong self sorting.”

    sure. but the total migration of african americans from south to north (which, i didn’t remember, actually started a bit before wwi) was ca. 6 million. that’s a lot of people! you’d think the numbers could be there … if it was really the higher iq blacks that migrated. (and that’s something i’d feel very comfortable betting upon … and i hate gambling.)

    Reply

  36. @benjamin – “As far as I know, we don’t have comprehensive IQ data for the early 20th century black population in the US.”

    well, there is the yerkes study of wwi conscripts. ca. 23,500 african americans were tested. no idea if the origins (where born, for instance) of these soldiers are in the report, though (i’ve never looked at it myself). (apparently, yerkes found the average african american iq at the time to be 83. if that’s correct, then it really hasn’t changed all that much up to today — i believe it’s reckoned to be around 85 now.)

    edit: i just skimmed the yerkes study — the chapter on “negro” intelligence — and, amazingly, they did try to work out the average iqs of african americans by state! these tests were done during the war (i think around 1917), and already by that time the researchers found that [pg. 731]:

    “It will be seen from an examination of this chart [table 247] that the States fall roughly into three groups. The first group consists of northern States and is highest in intelligence. The second group consists of the more northern and western southern States and is intermediate in intelligence. The third group consists of the more southern and eastern southern States and is lowest in intelligence.”

    it’s not clear to me what the scores are, though — i haven’t got a clue how these army alpha-beta (aab) tests scores translate to modern iq scores. -?-

    they also found that lighter-skinned blacks had, as a group, a higher average iq than darker-skinned blacks.

    so, this north-south african american iq divide seems to have been in place already by the 1910s, but i don’t know how it compares to the modern difference ’cause i don’t know how to read the aab scores.

    if the differences back then are the same as now, then that means that either:

    1) the self-sorting of intelligent blacks happened sooner than i suggested;
    2) the environment was so much better in the north back then — AND now — that northern blacks benefit from growing up there — i have a hard time believing that conditions are THAT bad in the south TODAY;
    3) there are more african americans of mixed heritage in the north;
    4) the african origins of southern blacks are different in a way that results in them having a lower average iq — i.e. african american ancestry from west africa is diverse, and different populations were taken to different regions of the u.s. — perhaps there are differences in the african american population a la Albion’s Seed for whites. -?-

    note that i’m NOT the right person to ask regarding how vaild these tests from wwi are. haven’t got a clue. one major problem the test givers had was that so many blacks at the time were illiterate — they had to devise tests that didn’t require reading or writing for a majority of the african american subjects. =/

    Reply

  37. I hate IE. The network disconnected and my whole answer disappear.

    Benjamin Steele, you HAVE read Jensen’s “g factor”, have you? Jensen had written exactly the same as you in your answer on your blog to my comment, except he exchanged hereditarian and culture-only. He wrote that hereditarian hypothesis explains all the known facts, while culture-only (including factors like poverty) has to invent ad hoc explanations for all the facts. Poverty cannot explain differences, since – unless Jensen is a liar – the differences persist when you match the same SES whites and blacks, and the differences actually are higher at HIGHER ses, than at lower. That’s why Jensen ironically wrote about “factor X” which must be postulated by culture-only advocates.

    Reply

    1. I’m not a culture only advocate.

      I think anything only is simplistic. We only know about a tiny fraction of genetic and environmental variables. Anyone who claims to have conclusive answers right now is being naive. We are still in the phase of gathering better data. We can speculate and present hypotheses, but at this point no single theory is going to explain everything or even most things. Slow and steady does research in this field develop.

      As for Jensen, it isn’t surprising that a genetics advocate dismisses culture advocates. That is no more surprising than culture advocates dismissing genetics advocates. There are plenty of scholars on both sides debating against one another. That is fine. That is what they are supposed to do. Debate is part of the process.

      As for me, I don’t claim to have anything figured out. I’ll speculate with the rest of them, but I won’t claim my speculations as necessarily even hypotheses. I think in terms of possibilities and probabilities, but mostly just possibilities with uncertain probabilities. I’m no scientist nor will I pretend to be one. I’m sure I’m clueless about all kinds of things. At the same time, I suspect many people who act like they know a lot may know less than they let on.

      But it isn’t about anyone being a liar or at least not for most people. That is being too harsh. The average person is being sincere in what they think they have figured out. They may be right or they may be wrong. Only time will tell.

      We are all pretty ignorant at the moment. That is the nature of living in a complex world. Our brains are puny and the world is vast. All that we don’t know, however, is what makes it so fun and exciting. New things are being discovered all the time and old theories are constantly being challenged.

      I personally prefer the path of intellectual humility. Maybe my attitude would be different if I thought I were an expert in the field, but I’m not. Anyway, considering even the experts disagree, it leaves the rest of us in even less uncertain light.

      I must admit the more I read the less I feel motivated to argue about it. There is no where for argument to go except to further argument. Debate is fun, though, when in the right mood. So, I won’t deter you from debating. Carry on, I say. May the best hypothesis or set of hypotheses win.

      Reply

  38. @szopeno – “I hate IE. The network disconnected and my whole answer disappear.”

    ugh. i hate when that happens! i’ve been frustrated by that so many times that now, if i’m working on a particularly long comment, i keep a mini-backup of it on a notepad file — or i even write it in notepad. saves me from pulling out too much of my hair. (~_^)

    Reply

  39. @benjamin – “We are all pretty ignorant at the moment.”

    yes, we are still all pretty ignorant as far as figuring out what goes into creating human natures — especially what specific factors go into creating human natures, like how much is genetics and how much is environment, and how exactly do those two interact. it’s all very, very complicated, obviously!

    and, yet, we can know that genetics are involved in making each of us who we are because some traits — among them intelligence and personality types — are very heritable. some more than others, but still, the heritability cannot be denied.

    so it’s not crazy or incorrect to talk about the genetics of human behavior — and of human biodiversity. we may be a long way away from figuring out exactly how it all works, but we can be sure that our dna is involved in a big way. and, given that evolution by natural selection does happen, it’s not surprising that different human populations should vary from one another, on average, when it comes to all these inheritable traits.

    it’s not a big deal, nor should it be. it’s just Life. (^_^)

    Reply

  40. @Benjamin Steele
    “As for Jensen, it isn’t surprising that a genetics advocate dismisses culture advocates.”

    Culture-ONLY advocates. After all, it was Jensen who documented that cumulative deficit in deep south accounted for large part of outcome differences between “whites” and “blacks” in south. Jensen was not sure how much genetics and how much environment is involved in creating the gap. He just had written that culture-only is implausible. Culture, nutrition (though this one was damaged by Flynn recently), parasite-load, poor-stimulating environment are all influencing factors as well, that’s for sure. But it’s unlikely that genes play no role at all.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s