How to prepare for the coming science of genetic racial variations, and a summary of the full case for the genetics of racial differences in intellige

[fromderinside]

This also makes me think about evolution. Most everything that exists in evolved species is there for a reason. Could be pure accident or there may be some benefit in a particular set of genes.
Are blacks of a given genetic IQ as part of a package deal? If we democratically alter their IQ, is there a cost we haven't anticipated? .

There is something to be said for that point. Rushton's plausible theory is that tropical races adapted to their chaotic unpredictable climates through greater reproductive rates. Greater intelligence may actually be an impediment to that strategy, as children are costly and a threat to the survival of adults. Maybe a case can be made that the ancestors of Polynesians and Australian Aborigines living in northern climates had greater intelligence than their modern descendents, in which case we would know that low intelligence is a positive adaptation, not a lack of adaptation. If civilization completely breaks down through a nuclear winter or whatever, it may be greater reproductivity, not greater intelligence, that ensures the survival of the human species.

...or it could mean we've done a pretty shitty job of defining intelligence as a term of fitness, both in what we call intelligence and what we expect it means to our future productivity.

 

[ApostateAbe]

There is something to be said for that point. Rushton's plausible theory is that tropical races adapted to their chaotic unpredictable climates through greater reproductive rates. Greater intelligence may actually be an impediment to that strategy, as children are costly and a threat to the survival of adults. Maybe a case can be made that the ancestors of Polynesians and Australian Aborigines living in northern climates had greater intelligence than their modern descendents, in which case we would know that low intelligence is a positive adaptation, not a lack of adaptation. If civilization completely breaks down through a nuclear winter or whatever, it may be greater reproductivity, not greater intelligence, that ensures the survival of the human species.

...or it could mean we've done a pretty shitty job of defining intelligence as a term of fitness, both in what we call intelligence and what we expect it means to our future productivity.

Intelligence tends to be associated with the ability to survive, but we should be careful not to conflate survival of the PERSON with the survival of the GENES. Greater intelligence would generally benefit personal survival, but may not benefit genetic survival, and genetic survival is all that matters in evolution.

 

[dystopian]

Rather than prepare for scientific racism, we must prepare to deal with the coming artificial genetic diversification of the human race! People genetically engineering themselves to get elf ears, lizard tongues, tails, and more!

THE AGE OF CAT GIRLS DRAWS NEAR! PREPARE YOURSELF!

 

[Nexus]

...or it could mean we've done a pretty shitty job of defining intelligence as a term of fitness, both in what we call intelligence and what we expect it means to our future productivity.

Intelligence tends to be associated with the ability to survive, but we should be careful not to conflate survival of the PERSON with the survival of the GENES. Greater intelligence would generally benefit personal survival, but may not benefit genetic survival, and genetic survival is all that matters in evolution.

That fact that no other life form on earth has anything near the human equivalent of intelligence tells me high intelligence isn't that important for life on earth. If it were this world would be like a Disney movie with all the animals talking and leading interesting lives.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Intelligence tends to be associated with the ability to survive, but we should be careful not to conflate survival of the PERSON with the survival of the GENES. Greater intelligence would generally benefit personal survival, but may not benefit genetic survival, and genetic survival is all that matters in evolution.

That fact that no other life form on earth has anything near the human equivalent of intelligence tells me high intelligence isn't that important for life on earth. If it were this world would be like a Disney movie with all the animals talking and leading interesting lives.

Well, that's like saying claws aren't important for life because very few species actually have claws or lungs aren't important for life because so many species are able to breathe quite well using gills instead.

High intelligence confers a survival advantage over lesser intelligence. It's why when humans go head to head with bears or tigers, they're the ones who end up as rugs far more often than not.

 

[Axulus]

Sexual offending (rape of an adult, child molestation) has a strong genetic component, concludes recent paper. This isn't about genetic component of intelligence but does demonstrate the inheritability of some forms of behavior patterns:

Conclusions: We report strong evidence of familial clustering of sexual offending, primarily accounted for by genes rather than shared environmental influences. Future research should possibly test the effectiveness of selective prevention efforts for male first-degree relatives of sexually aggressive individuals, and consider familial risk in sexual violence risk assessment.

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/conte...full?sid=54782729-3119-463f-acff-0ed9c7662bff

 

[Nexus]

That fact that no other life form on earth has anything near the human equivalent of intelligence tells me high intelligence isn't that important for life on earth. If it were this world would be like a Disney movie with all the animals talking and leading interesting lives.

Well, that's like saying claws aren't important for life because very few species actually have claws or lungs aren't important for life because so many species are able to breathe quite well using gills instead.

Well claws aren't that important since they are fairly rare. Lungs on the other hand are in most terrestrial animal species so clearly having them offers advantages. Compare the usefulness and frequency of lungs vs high level intelligence like we see in humans and its obvious which trait is best suited for life on this planet.

High intelligence confers a survival advantage over lesser intelligence. It's why when humans go head to head with bears or tigers, they're the ones who end up as rugs far more often than not.

Survival isn't just about kicking ass in a fight against other species. Evolutionary survival requires a vast spectrum of traits of which high intelligence is not not important otherwise we would have more incidences of it in earth's history. Consider a trait like having two eyes. Look at how many animal species both past and present have had two eyes. That trait is clearly important for evolutionary fitness in this world.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

That fact that no other life form on earth has anything near the human equivalent of intelligence tells me high intelligence isn't that important for life on earth. If it were this world would be like a Disney movie with all the animals talking and leading interesting lives.

Well, that's like saying claws aren't important for life because very few species actually have claws or lungs aren't important for life because so many species are able to breathe quite well using gills instead.

High intelligence confers a survival advantage over lesser intelligence. It's why when humans go head to head with bears or tigers, they're the ones who end up as rugs far more often than not.

High intelligence, or group intelligence? Generational intelligence. The hunter probably didn't invent and assemble the gun he used to shoot the bear.

Jessayin'

 

[fromderinside]

...or it could mean we've done a pretty shitty job of defining intelligence as a term of fitness, both in what we call intelligence and what we expect it means to our future productivity.

Intelligence tends to be associated with the ability to survive, but we should be careful not to conflate survival of the PERSON with the survival of the GENES. Greater intelligence would generally benefit personal survival, but may not benefit genetic survival, and genetic survival is all that matters in evolution.

Simple math. All things being equal more kids suggests more second generation kid potential. Doing it for more than a generation adds to the argument. No need to be cautious here. What there is more need for is how intelligence is related to fitness, not wealth or thing, but fitness. As I'm reading the stats they point to those with more produce fewer which signals even fewer in the future. Not a winning combination is it. By the way. What are evidences that more intelligent means more likely to survive? So poor people tend to die earlier after they have reproduced. Not a strong bit for fitness methinks. Fitness isn't longevity.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

...or it could mean we've done a pretty shitty job of defining intelligence as a term of fitness, both in what we call intelligence and what we expect it means to our future productivity.

Intelligence tends to be associated with the ability to survive, but we should be careful not to conflate survival of the PERSON with the survival of the GENES. Greater intelligence would generally benefit personal survival, but may not benefit genetic survival, and genetic survival is all that matters in evolution.

So we are looking at people with high social intelligence, not general aptitude? Because the former has been the driver of our survival as a species.

 

[Trausti]

Intelligence tends to be associated with the ability to survive, but we should be careful not to conflate survival of the PERSON with the survival of the GENES. Greater intelligence would generally benefit personal survival, but may not benefit genetic survival, and genetic survival is all that matters in evolution.

That fact that no other life form on earth has anything near the human equivalent of intelligence tells me high intelligence isn't that important for life on earth. If it were this world would be like a Disney movie with all the animals talking and leading interesting lives.

But high intelligence is important to navigate an urban setting, to negotiate a loan, to plan agriculture, etc. These are things that cockroaches and elephants needn't worry about, but are critical to human survival.

 

[ApostateAbe]

In my opinion, the evidence that intelligence confers survival value is in the clades of animals and especially mammals, in which relatively high intelligence is common. Humans have OBSCENELY high intelligence, seemingly because of a bizarre accident of evolution: runaway sexual selection in which females select only the most powerful males. I believe this was Darwin's theory and is still commonly accepted among evolutionary anthropologists today. It drastically sped up the evolution of intelligence, as only the most powerful (tending to be among the most intelligent) males in each clan were likely to reproduce. So, for humans, it was not so much about survival but about reproduction, but it certainly conferred an extra survival value on the side. If it was merely about survival, then the evolution would have remained slow, as in the remainder of the animal kingdom.

 

[Trausti]

Sexual offending (rape of an adult, child molestation) has a strong genetic component, concludes recent paper. This isn't about genetic component of intelligence but does demonstrate the inheritability of some forms of behavior patterns:

Conclusions: We report strong evidence of familial clustering of sexual offending, primarily accounted for by genes rather than shared environmental influences. Future research should possibly test the effectiveness of selective prevention efforts for male first-degree relatives of sexually aggressive individuals, and consider familial risk in sexual violence risk assessment.

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/conte...full?sid=54782729-3119-463f-acff-0ed9c7662bff

Like intelligence, most behavior is heritable. That's the underlying premise of evolution and natural selection - the heritability of (sometimes new or modified) traits from generation to generation. If behavior was not heritable, we would behave no different than our primate cousins; who would behave no different from all other animals.

 

[Kharakov]

How many more threads about this are you going to post?

I think it's going to go on until we all admit that black people are just naturally inferior.

Aren't they the stronger, faster, more intelligent hunters that forced the proto-Europeans and proto-Asians out of Africa?

 

[fromderinside]

In my opinion, the evidence that intelligence confers survival value is in the clades of animals and especially mammals, in which relatively high intelligence is common. Humans have OBSCENELY high intelligence, seemingly because of a bizarre accident of evolution: runaway sexual selection in which females select only the most powerful males. I believe this was Darwin's theory and is still commonly accepted among evolutionary anthropologists today. It drastically sped up the evolution of intelligence, as only the most powerful (tending to be among the most intelligent) males in each clan were likely to reproduce. So, for humans, it was not so much about survival but about reproduction, but it certainly conferred an extra survival value on the side. If it was merely about survival, then the evolution would have remained slow, as in the remainder of the animal kingdom.

Try the analysis without competition from other species. Elephants out survive the spieces with which they compete. We have no evidence that intelligence of elephants increases independently of that. Modern human productivity statistics tend to reveal that poor produce more offspring and that populations of minority nations tend to make those of the more affluent and intelligently, we presume by test scores, populated nations look minor.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

In my opinion, the evidence that intelligence confers survival value is in the clades of animals and especially mammals, in which relatively high intelligence is common. Humans have OBSCENELY high intelligence, seemingly because of a bizarre accident of evolution: runaway sexual selection in which females select only the most powerful males.

I'm not sure what species you are describing. Human females don't select only the most powerful males.

 

[Axulus]

In my opinion, the evidence that intelligence confers survival value is in the clades of animals and especially mammals, in which relatively high intelligence is common. Humans have OBSCENELY high intelligence, seemingly because of a bizarre accident of evolution: runaway sexual selection in which females select only the most powerful males.

I'm not sure what species you are describing. Human females don't select only the most powerful males.

Throughout human history, the most dominant males tended to have many wives. Genghis Khan is just one example, who had so many children that 1 out of 200 humans today are believed to be direct decedents of him. There are also other examples of such:

Since 2003 there have been other cases of “super-Y” lineages. For example the Manchu lineage and the Uí Néill lineage. The existence of these Y chromosomal lineages, which have burst upon the genetic landscape like explosive stars sweeping aside all other variation before them, indicates a periodic it “winner-take-all” dynamic in human genetics more reminiscent of hyper-polygynous mammals such as elephant seals.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/g...ect-descendants-of-genghis-khan/#.VSbnUvnF9j8

 

[fromderinside]

I'm not sure what species you are describing. Human females don't select only the most powerful males.

Throughout human history, the most dominant males tended to have many wives. Genghis Khan is just one example, who had so many children that 1 out of 200 humans today are believed to be direct decedents of him. There are also other examples of such:

Since 2003 there have been other cases of “super-Y” lineages. For example the Manchu lineage and the Uí Néill lineage. The existence of these Y chromosomal lineages, which have burst upon the genetic landscape like explosive stars sweeping aside all other variation before them, indicates a periodic it “winner-take-all” dynamic in human genetics more reminiscent of hyper-polygynous mammals such as elephant seals.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/g...ect-descendants-of-genghis-khan/#.VSbnUvnF9j8

Ah. Cherries. Picked!

 

[Trausti]

In my opinion, the evidence that intelligence confers survival value is in the clades of animals and especially mammals, in which relatively high intelligence is common. Humans have OBSCENELY high intelligence, seemingly because of a bizarre accident of evolution: runaway sexual selection in which females select only the most powerful males. I believe this was Darwin's theory and is still commonly accepted among evolutionary anthropologists today. It drastically sped up the evolution of intelligence, as only the most powerful (tending to be among the most intelligent) males in each clan were likely to reproduce. So, for humans, it was not so much about survival but about reproduction, but it certainly conferred an extra survival value on the side. If it was merely about survival, then the evolution would have remained slow, as in the remainder of the animal kingdom.

Try the analysis without competition from other species. Elephants out survive the spieces with which they compete. We have no evidence that intelligence of elephants increases independently of that. Modern human productivity statistics tend to reveal that poor produce more offspring and that populations of minority nations tend to make those of the more affluent and intelligently, we presume by test scores, populated nations look minor.

What about interspecies competition? The examples of this among primates abound.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

That fact that no other life form on earth has anything near the human equivalent of intelligence tells me high intelligence isn't that important for life on earth. If it were this world would be like a Disney movie with all the animals talking and leading interesting lives.

But high intelligence is important to navigate an urban setting, to negotiate a loan, to plan agriculture, etc. These are things that cockroaches and elephants needn't worry about, but are critical to human survival.

Actually social intelligence is needed to navigate an urban setting and negotiate in business. Planning agriculture and such are learned skills not so much dependent on high IQ just diligent study.