Movement for Black Lives releases its agenda

[untermensche]

Every country is filled with people who score low on an IQ test and people who score high.

A person with a high IQ score can have children with low IQ scores.

A person with a low IQ score can have children with high IQ scores.

This tells you it is a randomly occurring trait.

Higher or lower relative averages are about environment, not genes. About the ability of genes to express themselves. Not about their presence.

A useful way to think about racial intelligence differences is much like racial height differences. The heritability of height is 0.9, a little greater than the heritability of IQ, 0.7, both quantified with twin studies, and the principles are roughly the same.

Bullshit.

The cognitive system is like the visual system. It is a complete system. It is not a specific end trait like height. And "intelligence" cannot be quantified. Only answers on certain kinds of very limited tests can. Yet some don't seem to comprehend this essential distinction.

The fact that you compare a trait to a system shows the extent of the ignorance.

Show me some evidence that there is a racial difference in the visual system and you will be comparing apples to apples. Is your next claim black people don't see as well as the superior white people? Or hear as well? Do more black people wear glasses? Or is the wearing of glasses a random trait across the races?

And I wait and wait and wait to hear about ONE gene that is responsible for "intelligence" missing or different in any "racial" grouping.

ONE gene. Not hand waving about how close we are to finding one.

Until then any talk of a racial component to any aspect of "intelligence" is nonsense. It is just a bunch of irrational and extremely twisted and strained arguments filled with prejudice.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The "Germs" part of the theory actually requires genetic human racial differences. Jared Diamond took flack for that from the puritan Marxists. For that and other offenses, they called the theory, "environmental determinism" or "geographic determinism."

Germs refers to the environment. Why does that require any racial differences?

 

[Trausti]

The "Germs" part of the theory actually requires genetic human racial differences. Jared Diamond took flack for that from the puritan Marxists. For that and other offenses, they called the theory, "environmental determinism" or "geographic determinism."

Germs refers to the environment. Why does that require any racial differences?

If environment is so compelling, then wouldn't we expect humans to adapt to their environments through natural selection?

 

[Trausti]

Bullshit.

The cognitive system is like the visual system. It is a complete system. It is not a specific end trait like height. And "intelligence" cannot be quantified. Only answers on certain kinds of very limited tests can. Yet some don't seem to comprehend this essential distinction.

Damn, that just seems so similar to the argument that evolution cannot be true because the eye is too complex.

And I wait and wait and wait to hear about ONE gene that is responsible for "intelligence" missing or different in any "racial" grouping.

ONE gene. Not hand waving about how close we are to finding one.

Microcephalin.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A useful way to think about racial intelligence differences is much like racial height differences. The heritability of height is 0.9, a little greater than the heritability of IQ, 0.7, both quantified with twin studies, and the principles are roughly the same.

Bullshit.

The cognitive system is like the visual system. It is a complete system. It is not a specific end trait like height. And "intelligence" cannot be quantified. Only answers on certain kinds of very limited tests can. Yet some don't seem to comprehend this essential distinction.

The fact that you compare a trait to a system shows the extent of the ignorance.

Show me some evidence that there is a racial difference in the visual system and you will be comparing apples to apples. Is your next claim black people don't see as well as the superior white people? Or hear as well? Do more black people wear glasses? Or is the wearing of glasses a random trait across the races?

And I wait and wait and wait to hear about ONE gene that is responsible for "intelligence" missing or different in any "racial" grouping.

ONE gene. Not hand waving about how close we are to finding one.

Until then any talk of a racial component to any aspect of "intelligence" is nonsense. It is just a bunch of irrational and extremely twisted and strained arguments filled with prejudice.

This "argument" amounts to saying that because we don't have perfect understanding that there can be no effect.

 

[ApostateAbe]

The "Germs" part of the theory actually requires genetic human racial differences. Jared Diamond took flack for that from the puritan Marxists. For that and other offenses, they called the theory, "environmental determinism" or "geographic determinism."

Germs refers to the environment. Why does that require any racial differences?

The "Germs" part of the theory is that the immune systems of Europeans evolved to fight epidemics that sprung up in animal farming environments, and the epidemics likewise evolved in competition. The Europeans brought these diseases to the Americas, which killed over 90% of the natives in a near instant, as the natives did not have immune systems adapted for it.

 

[ApostateAbe]

And I wait and wait and wait to hear about ONE gene that is responsible for "intelligence" missing or different in any "racial" grouping.

ONE gene. Not hand waving about how close we are to finding one.

Until then any talk of a racial component to any aspect of "intelligence" is nonsense. It is just a bunch of irrational and extremely twisted and strained arguments filled with prejudice.

I already told you about where you can find many such genetic variants. The articles of Davide Piffer. Would you like me to list the SNPs?

 

[untermensche]

Bullshit.

The cognitive system is like the visual system. It is a complete system. It is not a specific end trait like height. And "intelligence" cannot be quantified. Only answers on certain kinds of very limited tests can. Yet some don't seem to comprehend this essential distinction.

Damn, that just seems so similar to the argument that evolution cannot be true because the eye is too complex.

It is ignorance to think you can quantify something like "intelligence".

A score on an IQ test is not a measurement of "intelligence". It is a number assigned to supposedly correct answers on a test.

It must be proven this has anything to do with "intelligence", whatever that is.

Claims are worthless. And that is ALL we have, a bunch of claims that this score has any relation to "intelligence"

Microcephalin.

You are truly lost.

Microcephalin (MCPH1) is a gene that is expressed during fetal brain development. Certain mutations in MCPH1, when homozygous, cause primary microcephaly — a severely diminished brain.[2][4][5] Hence it has been assumed that variants have a role in brain development,[6][7] but in normal individuals no effect on mental ability or behavior has yet been demonstrated in either this or another similarly studied microcephaly gene, ASPM.[8][9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcephalin

You are just pulling things from your backside.

You do not have ONE legitimate argument or an understanding of genetics and human development.

 

[untermensche]

And I wait and wait and wait to hear about ONE gene that is responsible for "intelligence" missing or different in any "racial" grouping.

ONE gene. Not hand waving about how close we are to finding one.

Until then any talk of a racial component to any aspect of "intelligence" is nonsense. It is just a bunch of irrational and extremely twisted and strained arguments filled with prejudice.

I already told you about where you can find many such genetic variants. The articles of Davide Piffer. Would you like me to list the SNPs?

I want you to show me one gene responsible for "intelligence", whatever that is, AND show me HOW this gene is responsible AND show me the racial distribution of the gene to demonstrate it varies according to race.

I want you to give something that is actual evidence of your worthless claims.

 

[untermensche]

Bullshit.

The cognitive system is like the visual system. It is a complete system. It is not a specific end trait like height. And "intelligence" cannot be quantified. Only answers on certain kinds of very limited tests can. Yet some don't seem to comprehend this essential distinction.

The fact that you compare a trait to a system shows the extent of the ignorance.

Show me some evidence that there is a racial difference in the visual system and you will be comparing apples to apples. Is your next claim black people don't see as well as the superior white people? Or hear as well? Do more black people wear glasses? Or is the wearing of glasses a random trait across the races?

And I wait and wait and wait to hear about ONE gene that is responsible for "intelligence" missing or different in any "racial" grouping.

ONE gene. Not hand waving about how close we are to finding one.

Until then any talk of a racial component to any aspect of "intelligence" is nonsense. It is just a bunch of irrational and extremely twisted and strained arguments filled with prejudice.

This "argument" amounts to saying that because we don't have perfect understanding that there can be no effect.

If somebody wants to make genetic claims about race they have to talk about specific genes particular to some race and different in another and demonstrate the effect.

That is how science works.

These twisted "studies" that can't possibly rule out environment as cause don't cut it.

 

[Trausti]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcephalin

You are just pulling things from your backside.

You do not have ONE legitimate argument or an understanding of genetics and human development.

Despite the fact that the recently evolved Microcephalin and the related Abnormal Spindle-like Microcaphaly Associated (ASPM) alleles do not appear to be associated with IQ at the individual differences level, the frequencies of Microcephalin have been found to correlate strongly with IQ at the cross-country level. In this study, the association between these two alleles and intelligence is examined using a sample of 59 populations. A bivariate correlation between Microcephalin and population average IQ of r = .790 (p ≤ .01) was found, and a multiple regression analysis in which the Human Development Index, Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALY) lost due to Infectious diseases, DALY Nutritional deficiencies, and Würm glaciation temperature means were included revealed that Microcephalin remained a good predictor of IQ.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614000312

 

[untermensche]

Despite the fact that the recently evolved Microcephalin and the related Abnormal Spindle-like Microcaphaly Associated (ASPM) alleles do not appear to be associated with IQ at the individual differences level, the frequencies of Microcephalin have been found to correlate strongly with IQ at the cross-country level. In this study, the association between these two alleles and intelligence is examined using a sample of 59 populations. A bivariate correlation between Microcephalin and population average IQ of r = .790 (p ≤ .01) was found, and a multiple regression analysis in which the Human Development Index, Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALY) lost due to Infectious diseases, DALY Nutritional deficiencies, and Würm glaciation temperature means were included revealed that Microcephalin remained a good predictor of IQ.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614000312

More shit from your ass?

Tell me what you think you have here.

This is twisted nonsense.

They had to include all kinds of things like "glaciation temperature means" to find any effect.

TOTALLY worthless.

 

[Trausti]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614000312

More shit from your ass?

Tell me what you think you have here.

This is twisted nonsense.

They had to include all kinds of things like "glaciation temperature means" to find any effect.

TOTALLY worthless.

Unter, it is you who are propounding the hypothesis that human cognition and behavior are impervious to natural selection. Can you cite any published authorities which support such a viewpoint?

 

[Trausti]

On the relationship between IQ, income, and crime. From Japan:

Regional differences in IQ are estimated for 47 prefectures of Japan. IQ scores obtained from official achievement tests show a gradient from north to south. Latitudes correlate with height, IQ, and skin color at r = 0.70, 0.44, 0.47, respectively. IQ also correlates with height (0.52), skin color (0.42), income (0.51) after correction, less homicide rate (− 0.60), and less divorce (− 0.69) but not with fertility infant mortali'ty. The lower IQ in southern Japanese islands could be attributable to warmer climates with less cognitive demand for more than fifteen hundred years.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000949

IQ is not an imaginary concept.

 

[untermensche]

More shit from your ass?

Tell me what you think you have here.

This is twisted nonsense.

They had to include all kinds of things like "glaciation temperature means" to find any effect.

TOTALLY worthless.

Unter, it is you who are propounding the hypothesis that human cognition and behavior are impervious to natural selection. Can you cite any published authorities which support such a viewpoint?

That is an irrational argument pulled from thin air.

My argument is that "intelligence", whatever that is, is like the visual system. It is a complete system.

It is not a trait like skin color or height.

And systems, like the visual system, or the digestive system, evolve in a different way than the way traits evolve. They are not visible for one thing. You can't tell a person's IQ by talking to them, except in the extremes.

Traits can easily change and there is no damage to the animal. It doesn't matter if the animal has blond hair or brown hair in terms of immediate survival. It does matter in the long run, thus we see the superficial variations some people call races.

Traits have great flexibility.

Systems are delicate. You can only alter the visual system so much and it will not function at all.

Systems have little flexibility.

And there is no reason to think systems, like the visual system, or "intelligence" vary according to race.

All races learn and use language equally.

 

[untermensche]

On the relationship between IQ, income, and crime. From Japan:

Regional differences in IQ are estimated for 47 prefectures of Japan. IQ scores obtained from official achievement tests show a gradient from north to south. Latitudes correlate with height, IQ, and skin color at r = 0.70, 0.44, 0.47, respectively. IQ also correlates with height (0.52), skin color (0.42), income (0.51) after correction, less homicide rate (− 0.60), and less divorce (− 0.69) but not with fertility infant mortali'ty. The lower IQ in southern Japanese islands could be attributable to warmer climates with less cognitive demand for more than fifteen hundred years.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000949

IQ is not an imaginary concept.

IQ is a score on a test.

That is all it is.

It has nothing to do with human "intelligence", whatever that is.

 

[Trausti]

Unter, it is you who are propounding the hypothesis that human cognition and behavior are impervious to natural selection. Can you cite any published authorities which support such a viewpoint?

That is an irrational argument pulled from thin air.

My argument is that "intelligence", whatever that is, is like the visual system. It is a complete system.

That's the intelligent design argument about the eye. It's irreducibly complex. I'm just making the simple observation that humans are animals. Humans are animals. The human species began separating into distinct reproductive and geographic groups ~100K years ago. To say that the constellation of differences among humans races, e.g., skin color, skull shape, metabolism, disease risk, resulted from that separation but not cognition or behavior, not those, is a call for a supernatural explanation.

- - - Updated - - -

On the relationship between IQ, income, and crime. From Japan:



http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000949

IQ is not an imaginary concept.

IQ is a score on a test.

That is all it is.

It has nothing to do with human "intelligence", whatever that is.

And that highly intelligent people just happen to have greater than average IQs is just a coincidence. Plenty of brain surgeons with IQs of 85.

 

[untermensche]

That is an irrational argument pulled from thin air.

My argument is that "intelligence", whatever that is, is like the visual system. It is a complete system.

That's the intelligent design argument about the eye. It's irreducibly complex. I'm just making the simple observation that humans are animals. Humans are animals. The human species began separating into distinct reproductive and geographic groups ~100K years ago. To say that the constellation of differences among humans races, e.g., skin color, skull shape, metabolism, disease risk, resulted from that separation but not cognition or behavior, not those, is a call for a supernatural explanation.

There are minor superficial differences in TRAITS.

There are very minor differences in systems, like the language ability or the visual system.

Children of all races can learn all languages equally well.

If there were some difference in "intelligence" we would see it there first.

The visual system hasn't changed in millions of years.

Systems do not change the same way TRAITS can change.

If you want to see how traits can change look at dogs.

They all have the same visual system.

 

[Trausti]

That's the intelligent design argument about the eye. It's irreducibly complex. I'm just making the simple observation that humans are animals. Humans are animals. The human species began separating into distinct reproductive and geographic groups ~100K years ago. To say that the constellation of differences among humans races, e.g., skin color, skull shape, metabolism, disease risk, resulted from that separation but not cognition or behavior, not those, is a call for a supernatural explanation.

There are minor superficial differences in TRAITS.

There are very minor differences in systems, like the language ability or the visual system.

Children of all races can learn all languages equally well.

If there were some difference in "intelligence" we would see it there first.

The visual system hasn't changed in millions of years.

Systems do not change the same way TRAITS can change.

If you want to see how traits can change look at dogs.

They all have the same visual system.

So, again, what are our referencing to conclude that human cognition and behavior are impervious to natural selection?

 

[untermensche]

IQ is a score on a test.

That is all it is.

It has nothing to do with human "intelligence", whatever that is.

And that highly intelligent people just happen to have greater than average IQs is just a coincidence. Plenty of brain surgeons with IQs of 85.

You just label them as "highly intelligent" based on a score of a test.

What they actually are is somebody who scored high on a test.

They might not be very "intelligent" at all.

- - - Updated - - -

There are minor superficial differences in TRAITS.

There are very minor differences in systems, like the language ability or the visual system.

Children of all races can learn all languages equally well.

If there were some difference in "intelligence" we would see it there first.

The visual system hasn't changed in millions of years.

Systems do not change the same way TRAITS can change.

If you want to see how traits can change look at dogs.

They all have the same visual system.

So, again, what are our referencing to conclude that human cognition and behavior are impervious to natural selection?

That argument is a non sequitur.

Saying things evolve differently is not saying they don't evolve.