My new video about human races, evolutionary biology, and fraudulent evolutionary biologists

[ApostateAbe]

A couple of points:
1. We seem to have been reading different polls. What are your sources?
2. Are you saying that a Trump victory is more probable than a Clinton victory?
If you answer negatively, then the point about the SCOTUS remains, because expecting the alt-right to take over the US after a Clinton presidency (and probably SCOTUS appointments) seems unwarranted leaving other factors aside.
3. If Trump wins, that would be the victory of a considerably anti-science candidate. Why don't you think the same may well happen in the future, but hampering instead of helping the alt-right?

The Alt Right may not even need the science. All they need is a candidate who is slightly less of a walking dumpster fire. But, if the Alt Right really did have the mainstream science provable beyond reasonable doubt, convincing the vast majority of psychologists and not just intelligence researchers, plain enough to convince any non-ideologue because of hand-held genotypic IQ testing devices, then the Alt Right will suddenly have a much stronger political position.

Perhaps. Clinton has the science on her side on climate change. I'm not sure it helps her much.

Remember Jason Richwine? His Harvard thesis predicted that Mexican immigrants and their descendants would be a permanent drain on the American economy because of their low average genotypic IQ.

I had never heard of him, but that does not follow, even if they have a low average genotypic IQ.
Moreover, that does not seem to be science that is right. It seems unwarranted as far as I can tell. What the alt-right has right is that there are races (by the way, are those immigrants mostly partly Caucasoid and partly Mongoloid?).

He will become a vindicated pioneering scientific hero for American conservatives. His science will be the basis for building a wall to keep out ALL Mexican immigrants, not just illegals.

Why?
First, you seem to be assuming that he's right.
Second, at any rate, even if he's got the genetics right, he got the economics wrong. It doesn't follow that having a lower IQ will make them a permanent drain.
Third, keeping out all Mexicans would not make sense. If they want to select by means of genotypic IQ and they know the genes, then they should do DNA tests and allow or ban people on that basis, not on the basis of nationality.
Fourth, in any event, on what basis do you conclude the SCOTUS would let that sort of law pass?

And, elections for the Alt Right will be a cakewalk. I expect liberals will tend to answer only with anti-scientific conspiracism, because they are already so deeply entrenched in anti-racist ideology at the expense of accurate science that they can not get out. They will remain political failures for a full generation.

I'm sorry, but your conclusions seem unwarranted on the basis of the available evidence, for - for example - the reasons I already mentioned (you only addressed the one about a Clinton presidency, but not in a convincing way; Clinton is still at this point more likely to win).
Purely for example, let's assume for the sake of the argument that Richwine was right and his beliefs warranted. Even then, a Clinton win is more likely than a Trump win, and if Clinton wins, there is a good chance that that will sway the SCOTUS left for decades to come, probably blocking attempts to keep all Mexicans out. For that reason alone, the conclusion you reach is not warranted. And there is all of the other reasons (e.g., the descendants of Mexicans can register to vote too).

"We seem to have been reading different polls. What are your sources?"

FiveThirtyEight.com of Nate Silver seems to be the most useful election predictor. By examining the snake in the middle of the page, you can see that Clinton needs to lose only one more state to Trump before Trump crosses the line in the middle and wins the election. That doesn't mean that Trump will probably win. He will probably lose. If you examine the percentages at the top of the page, you see that that Clinton has a 2:1 probability advantage against Trump. That is her probability, not the poll numbers, so it means playing Russian Roulette with two chambers loaded.

"I had never heard of him, but that does not follow, even if they have a low average genotypic IQ. Moreover, that does not seem to be science that is right. It seems unwarranted as far as I can tell. What the alt-right has right is that there are races (by the way, are those immigrants mostly partly Caucasoid and partly Mongoloid?)."

Latinos are part-Caucasoid and part-Mongoloid, though they are geographically diverse and I don't think anyone has come up with precise quantities of the admixture that represents all of them. Given the hereditarian perspective, Jason Richwine's hypothesis is highly plausible, as the correlation between IQ and production value exists among individuals of the same race, among races within a nation, and among nations. The correlation between GDP per capita and average IQ is about r=0.5, which would make average IQ perhaps the greatest predictor of GDP per capita, alongside a nation's pool of natural resources and laissez-faire governance. The admittance of people low genotypic IQ people would be expected to decrease a nation's GDP per capita, which means depressing the whole economy. It is an inference that is racist and xenophobic, not the way it should be, and probable all the same.

"Third, keeping out all Mexicans would not make sense. If they want to select by means of genotypic IQ and they know the genes, then they should do DNA tests and allow or ban people on that basis, not on the basis of nationality."

I expect that would be the response of the left, if only leftists were rational. But, they are not rational, they would see such a proposition as racist, and they don't see gradations of racism, so they will only occupy the loony fringes, there will be few to fight for a rational position, and the dominant Alt Right will win. To the Alt Right, IQ is secondary to advocacy of the white race. They would see it as generally better to keep all Latinos out, because America needs to stay white.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

FiveThirtyEight.com of Nate Silver seems to be the most useful election predictor. By examining the snake in the middle of the page, you can see that Clinton needs to lose only one more state to Trump before Trump crosses the line in the middle and wins the election. That doesn't mean that Trump will probably win. He will probably lose. If you examine the percentages at the top of the page, you see that that Clinton has a 2:1 probability advantage against Trump. That is her probability, not the poll numbers, so it means playing Russian Roulette with two chambers loaded.

Alright, let's go with those numbers. There's still a 2/3 chance of a Clinton victory, so in order to warrant a conclusion that the alt-right will take over America, you would need conclusive evidence that they will even in the event of a Clinton victory. But so far, I've not seen any good evidence that that will happen.
In the event of a Trump victory, I still doubt they would take over America, but in any case, that would not be because of the science - not primarily, at least.

Latinos are part-Caucasoid and part-Mongoloid, though they are geographically diverse and I don't think anyone has come up with precise quantities of the admixture that represents all of them.

Okay. Just to clarify, I was talking about Mexican immigrants and their descendants, rather than about all people regarded as "Latinos", because you mentioned those.

Given the hereditarian perspective, Jason Richwine's hypothesis is highly plausible, as the correlation between IQ and production value exists among individuals of the same race, among races within a nation, and among nations.

While I haven't read his work, I've been following your arguments in this and other threads, and those of your opponents. While you win hands down when it comes to the existence of races, your claims about IQ and race do not seem well supported. Moreover, it's usually claimed that in terms of IQ, Mongoloids > Caucasoids > Negroids (on average), which would (if true; if not, then the alt-right is wrong about that; or more precisely, the part of the alt-right that makes such claims) make it surprising that Mexicans and their descendants end up with such low IQ; on that note, you said earlier that "When white men mate outside their race, they generally don't go for black women, for example. They go for Asian women. It would mean, at most, there will be a Eurasian super-race competing with every other race."; but then, why would Caucasoid + Mongoloid yield such bad results in the case of Mexico?

The correlation between GDP per capita and average IQ is about r=0.5, which would make average IQ perhaps the greatest predictor of GDP per capita, alongside a nation's pool of natural resources and laissez-faire governance. The admittance of people low genotypic IQ people would be expected to decrease a nation's GDP per capita, which means depressing the whole economy. It is an inference that is racist and xenophobic, not the way it should be, and probable all the same.

But the more direct evidence is clearly against that prediction. In fact, the GDP per capita of the US has largely increased from 1960 to 2016 (source: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-per-capita ).
Now, immigration and higher reproductive rates among Latinos since the 1960s (in particular, after the changes in immigration law in 1965; source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965#Long-term_impact ) have vastly increased the percentage of Latinos (especially Mexicans and their descendants), and yet GDP per capita continued to increase, not to decrease.
It's very probable that the pattern of increase will continue, barring major upheaval (e.g., war against Russia, or civil war).

Now, if what you're saying is that GDP per capita would increase faster without immigrants from Mexico assuming that Richwine is correct (an unwarranted assumption on the basis of the evidence I've seen), that might be true "all other things equal", which they wouldn't be.

I expect that would be the response of the left, if only leftists were rational. But, they are not rational, they would see such a proposition as racist, and they don't see gradations of racism, so they will only occupy the loony fringes, there will be few to fight for a rational position, and the dominant Alt Right will win. To the Alt Right, IQ is secondary to advocacy of the white race. They would see it as generally better to keep all Latinos out, because America needs to stay white.

First, intelligent thinkers on the left and the traditional right will have no problem seeing the inconsistency involved in a policy banning all Latinos regardless of genes, on the basis of alleged genetic lower IQ (and even assuming the lower IQ is real), and some would point that out. Loudly - and independently of their condemnations of the policy as a whole.
Second, the alt-right would have to convince not only the already convinced, but also those who haven't been convinced. Being inconsistent is not a way to persuade them, all other things equal. Now, if you're suggesting that they will convince them despite their inconsistencies, then I would ask why you think that getting (some) of the science right will make much of a difference, if even inconsistency doesn't.
Third, a ban on all Latinos will almost certainly be struck down by the SCOTUS. How will you expect that the alt-right get around that?
Fourth, any candidates supporting a law like that would have the overwhelming opposition of Latinos, people who are close friends with some Latinos, and the left. Additionally, given the alt-right stances on Black people, Black people will overwhelmingly oppose those candidates as well, even if that particular law would not affect them. Given that, how would you expect them to win elections easily?

ETA:

The admittance of people low genotypic IQ people would be expected to decrease a nation's GDP per capita, which means depressing the whole economy. It is an inference that is racist and xenophobic, not the way it should be, and probable all the same.

For the reasons I already explained, Latino immigration has not had that effect, and is likely not to have it. So, either Latinos don't have on average lower genotypic IQ, or else, the prediction is mistaken. Either way, it doesn't work against Latino immigration.

Now, it might be argued that Latinos have in general lower genotypic IQ, and that while GDP per capita would continue to grow, it would do so at a lower rate than it would grow without Latino immigration. But then, it doesn't follow that the whole economy is depressed. In fact, the economy would grow (as a whole) faster with more people than with less (as long as they're not criminals, etc.; this is not an argument against border controls, but about banning all Latinos), so that's not a problem.
What about the GDP per capita?
Well, IIRC you said elsewhere that IQ is a predictor of income, and the GDP per capita isn't equally distributed per capita, of course. So, it does not follow even then that people who do not have lower genotypic IQ would have a lower income.

Regarding a potential law banning all Latino immigrants, what would be the interest, in a court case?
Allegedly in this context, to prevent lower IQ due to genetic predispositions. Let's further assume that those genes have been identified, etc., and that they are as the alt-right says (which is not at all justified based on the information I've seen, but let's say so).
If Latinos whose genes are not "low IQ" genes applied for immigration status, they'd be told they're not allowed to. Why? Because they're not pure Caucasoid? (and what if they are?)
There is no way that law is compatible with the US Constitution. Present-day justices (all of them) would strike that law down. Any justices appointed by Clinton would do so as well. And probably any justices appointed by Trump would do so as well, since the Senate (even in the event of a Trump victory) would not accept justices who wouldn't probably reject such open racism.
But that sets the SCOTUS doctrine on the matter for several decades to come. And after several decades, the population that is Latino or partly Latino will already be a much larger percentage of the population as they are today. And then there is the Black population. And so on.
Given all of that (and several other factors, but I don't want to make this too long), the conclusion that the alt-right is going to take over America is not at all warranted, even granting the genotypic IQ claims for the sake of the argument.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Angra Mainyu, you have many points, but I would like to focus on only the point of the three-race hierarchy model of Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Negroid. Canard DuJour made a similar point in another thread. I repeat my response, as follows:

You may have in mind Rushton's three-race hierarchy of intelligence, and on that point I agree with you, as the reality probably isn't the hierarchy as Rushton modeled it, as two of the three races occupied widely diverse environments, but Rushton's samples were limited to current members of North America. A better model, in my opinion, is provided by Lynn & Vanhanen and Templer & Arikawa, who had a globally comprehensive and continuous model of races WITHOUT discrete racial divisions as opposed to Rushton's model, and the model shows a very strong correlation between average skin pigmentation and average IQ among native populations, a negative correlation of -0.9.​

It really is a fundamental error of Rushton, perhaps following from Rushton being a psychologist and not an evolutionary biologist. Even Rushton's definition of race in the glossary of his book seems to wrongly imply discrete categories. It has led too many thinkers on the issue down the wrong track. It is better to think of the set of human races as a single connected global tapestry, but not a uniform tapestry. All allele frequencies change continuously from one geographic region to another. Where Rushton got it right was the biological explanation for the racial patterns: r/K selection theory. Colder climates demanded greater intelligence, greater longevity, less anti-social behavior, less fertility, and so on. Caucasoids and Mongoloids both each occupied the full spectrum from r to K, from the tropics to the polar regions.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Blacks sucked at professional sports until the 1950's. Therefore, blacks are evolutionarily inferior to whites in athletics.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Angra Mainyu, you have many points, but I would like to focus on only the point of the three-race hierarchy model of Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Negroid. Canard DuJour made a similar point in another thread. I repeat my response, as follows:

You may have in mind Rushton's three-race hierarchy of intelligence, and on that point I agree with you, as the reality probably isn't the hierarchy as Rushton modeled it, as two of the three races occupied widely diverse environments, but Rushton's samples were limited to current members of North America. A better model, in my opinion, is provided by Lynn & Vanhanen and Templer & Arikawa, who had a globally comprehensive and continuous model of races WITHOUT discrete racial divisions as opposed to Rushton's model, and the model shows a very strong correlation between average skin pigmentation and average IQ among native populations, a negative correlation of -0.9.​

It really is a fundamental error of Rushton, perhaps following from Rushton being a psychologist and not an evolutionary biologist. Even Rushton's definition of race in the glossary of his book seems to wrongly imply discrete categories. It has led too many thinkers on the issue down the wrong track. It is better to think of the set of human races as a single connected global tapestry, but not a uniform tapestry. All allele frequencies change continuously from one geographic region to another. Where Rushton got it right was the biological explanation for the racial patterns: r/K selection theory. Colder climates demanded greater intelligence, greater longevity, less anti-social behavior, less fertility, and so on. Caucasoids and Mongoloids both each occupied the full spectrum from r to K, from the tropics to the polar regions.

1. Not many points, but I defend them sufficiently.
2. The point you respond to was a secondary point. I was focusing on the unwarranted nature of the conclusion that the alt-right will take over America, even granting for the sake of the argument the racial intelligence claims, even though they do not appear warranted as far as I can tell.
3. I had in mind the model I thought you had in mind, though I never thought the categories were discrete. But regardless, you said "They go for Asian women. It would mean, at most, there will be a Eurasian super-race competing with every other race."; why would then White men + Asian women result in a "super-race"? Don't Asians have overall darker skin than White people? Still, that too is a secondary point. I can grant for the sake of the argument that Asian women are somehow more intelligent than White women, and still point out that the conclusion that the alt-right will take over America is not justified, for the reasons I've been explaining (and others; but I guess there isn't much point in giving others if all of the reasons I already gave fail to convince you for reasons unknown to me).

 

[ApostateAbe]

The relevance is in your argument that the three-race IQ hierarchy would "make it surprising that Mexicans and their descendants end up with such low IQ," as Mexicans are a mix between Caucasoid and Mongoloid, which would be a good argument against Rushton's hierarchy, in my opinion.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The relevance is in your argument that the three-race IQ hierarchy would "make it surprising that Mexicans and their descendants end up with such low IQ," as Mexicans are a mix between Caucasoid and Mongoloid, which would be a good argument against Rushton's hierarchy, in my opinion.

Okay, but the point I focused on and the one I challenged in considerable detail is the conclusion about the alt-right taking over America. For the reasons I've been given, I reckon the assessment that they will take over America is not warranted even on the assumption that they're correct about genotypic IQ as you call it, and in fact, they probably will not take over America regardless of whether they're right about race.

 

[ApostateAbe]

The relevance is in your argument that the three-race IQ hierarchy would "make it surprising that Mexicans and their descendants end up with such low IQ," as Mexicans are a mix between Caucasoid and Mongoloid, which would be a good argument against Rushton's hierarchy, in my opinion.

Okay, but the point I focused on and the one I challenged in considerable detail is the conclusion about the alt-right taking over America. For the reasons I've been given, I reckon the assessment that they will take over America is not warranted even on the assumption that they're correct about genotypic IQ as you call it, and in fact, they probably will not take over America regardless of whether they're right about race.

I have my reasoning, but it is a bit too much of a tangent for this thread. I will go to the Politics Forum to make my full argument.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Okay, but the point I focused on and the one I challenged in considerable detail is the conclusion about the alt-right taking over America. For the reasons I've been given, I reckon the assessment that they will take over America is not warranted even on the assumption that they're correct about genotypic IQ as you call it, and in fact, they probably will not take over America regardless of whether they're right about race.

I have my reasoning, but it is a bit too much of a tangent for this thread. I will go to the Politics Forum to make my full argument.

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...rica-(and-the-Far-Right-will-take-over-Europe

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Okay, but the point I focused on and the one I challenged in considerable detail is the conclusion about the alt-right taking over America. For the reasons I've been given, I reckon the assessment that they will take over America is not warranted even on the assumption that they're correct about genotypic IQ as you call it, and in fact, they probably will not take over America regardless of whether they're right about race.

I have my reasoning, but it is a bit too much of a tangent for this thread. I will go to the Politics Forum to make my full argument.

Okay, then I will make my case in that thread as well.

 

[ZiprHead]

The relevance is in your argument that the three-race IQ hierarchy would "make it surprising that Mexicans and their descendants end up with such low IQ," as Mexicans are a mix between Caucasoid and Mongoloid, which would be a good argument against Rushton's hierarchy, in my opinion.

Okay, but the point I focused on and the one I challenged in considerable detail is the conclusion about the alt-right taking over America. For the reasons I've been given, I reckon the assessment that they will take over America is not warranted even on the assumption that they're correct about genotypic IQ as you call it, and in fact, they probably will not take over America regardless of whether they're right about race.

Seems to me we'd be better off getting rid of the alt-right because most of them seem to be as dumb as a bag of hammers.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Okay, but the point I focused on and the one I challenged in considerable detail is the conclusion about the alt-right taking over America. For the reasons I've been given, I reckon the assessment that they will take over America is not warranted even on the assumption that they're correct about genotypic IQ as you call it, and in fact, they probably will not take over America regardless of whether they're right about race.

Seems to me we'd be better off getting rid of the alt-right because most of them seem to be as dumb as a bag of hammers.

If so, then such variations would very likely be genetically heritable. Twin studies leave no other plausible option, regardless of what we wish.

 

[EgalitarianJay]

I made a new video! It is about human races, evolutionary biology, and fraudulent evolutionary biologists.

I actually discovered your video last night while searching for recent video lectures by Joseph Graves. While I was watching it the video reminded me of you and sure enough I found out that you created it! I plan to explore this issue more in depth after reading a series of books written about the subject. I have several books already and Graves recommended two books on evolutionary biology for me to read as well. When I am finished we can have a debate here and I will comment on your video.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I made a new video! It is about human races, evolutionary biology, and fraudulent evolutionary biologists.

I actually discovered your video last night while searching for recent video lectures by Joseph Graves. While I was watching it the video reminded me of you and sure enough I found out that you created it! I plan to explore this issue more in depth after reading a series of books written about the subject. I have several books already and Graves recommended two books on evolutionary biology for me to read as well. When I am finished we can have a debate here and I will comment on your video.

OK, cool. I was not kind to Graves, and maybe you would present a good defense.