scratch-mark

Judgment Passed: Everybody is Wrong About I.Q.

Harvard PhD student finds a correlation between race and IQ. Harvard students says even if it’s true, it shouldn’t be a topic of research.

by: Judgy Bitch

So, this story is popping up everywhere! A PhD student at Harvard submitted a dissertation claiming there is a measureable, identifiable, quantifiable correlation between race and IQ. The dissertation was accepted by Harvard, and the degree conferred on Jason Richwine in 2009.

Here’s how we all rank:

  1. Asians (oh, those clever little minxes!)
  2. White folks
  3. Hispanics
  4. Black folks

Reference: The Nation.

The research is making the news now because Richwine cited his own findings in an immigration bill he co-authored, urging policy makers to consider refusing Hispanic immigrants, because “even after several generations, [they] had lower IQs than non-Hispanic whites”.

fence
 

Reference: Slate.

This whole debate annoys me for two reasons:

  1. The idea that intelligence is linked to a biological mechanism to protect people from the harmful effects of too much sunshine is just stupid. Just point blank bag of hammers stupid.
  2. The typical liberal response to “facts” they don’t like is to deny, deny, deny and then strangle whomever had the temerity to speak. This is also just stupid. You counter facts with facts. You don’t counter facts with squawky demands to just shut up already!

Let’s start with denying that race is even a thing.

My instinct is to point out that your entire experiment proceeds from a basic flaw — no coherent, fixed definition of race actually exists.

Reference: The Atlantic.

Oh, please. Here we go with the typical liberal denial of what is right in front of your damn face.

What race is this person?

black man face
 

What race is this person?

finnish
 

What race is this person?

asian
 

What race is this person?

hispanic
 

What race is this person?

native american man headshot
 

What race is this person?

india
 

What race is this person?

arab woman
 

What race is this person?

aboriginal
 

If that last one threw you, it’s an Australian aboriginal woman. Even if you couldn’t identify her racial group at first glance, you probably knew it wasn’t any of the others. The fact that people of mixed race exist and that it is not always instantly clear which races they belong to in no way disproves the fact that most of us can identify races fairly straightforwardly and often unconsciously. Just as drag queens do not dramatically alter our ability to identify gender for EVERY OTHER PERSON, mixed race people do not affect our ability to identify the racial heritage of almost everyone we meet on a day to day basis.

So what is the point of the denial? Why argue that race is a nebulous concept that can’t be easily defined when the truth is so clearly the opposite, most of the time?

Personally, I think it’s nothing more and nothing less than the beginnings of the future George Orwell spelled out for us in 1984.

Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.George Orwell

The purpose of language in this case is to deny reality in an effort to establish a new aristocracy. Not exactly a new story in the course of human history, is it?

Political chaos is connected with the decay of language… one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end.George Orwell

Let’s look at Harvard’s reaction to the controversy surrounding Richwine’s dissertation.

We condemn in unequivocal terms these racist claims as unfit for Harvard Kennedy School and Harvard University as a whole. Granting permission for such a dissertation to be published debases all of our degrees and hurts the University’s reputation … Even if such claims had merit, the Kennedy School cannot ethically stand by this dissertation whose end result can only be furthering discrimination under the guise of academic discourse.

Reference: Andrew Sullivan.

This is a statement, not from the administration at the Kennedy School, but rather from student groups at Harvard. That’s pretty interesting, isn’t it? Students, those who are presumably actively in pursuit of knowledge and truth, want Harvard to shut down any research they deem inappropriate EVEN IF IT’S TRUE.

I wonder if those students know the motto of the school they go to?

veritas
 

Veritas. It means truth. That’s the whole point of university. To pursue the truth. Not “pursue only those truths which fit our ideological persuasions”. Just truth.

I would like to see Harvard expel the whole damn lot of the students who issued that statement for violating the fundamental precept of the university. If you want to pursue only the politically correct version of truth, go to Berkeley!

gtfo
 

Now, having said all that, I still think it’s a giant crock of shit to be investigating a link between race and IQ. Yes, there is such a thing as race, and yes, IQ tests are valuable (although not perfect) measures of a person’s ability to understand problems and identify appropriate solutions.

One of the biggest markers of race is skin color. And skin color is the result of melanin. The purpose of melanin is to protect the DNA contained in your skin cells from the sun’s ultraviolet rays.

Reference: Wikipedia.

And that’s pretty much it.

It’s a natural sunscreen. The closer to the sun you live, the darker your skin.

This person lives on the equator (or his ancestors did):

dark
 

This person lives near the Arctic Circle (or her ancestors did) way up on top of the planet:

white
 

It’s not that difficult a concept to grasp. As humans spread out across the planet, skin tones changed to reflect the changing environmental conditions.

Here’s a little pet theory of mine I’d like to throw out, just for the hell of it. I think humans prefer lighter skin and hair and eye colors because those tend to be the result of recessive genes. A man with darker tones who has a child with a woman of lighter tones will almost always see his genes expressed in the children. Dark tones tend to be dominant. The preference for lighter skin is a natural paternity test.

family
 

I’m not the only person who thinks that, obviously, but I do find it interesting to contemplate. Preferring lighter skin is not necessarily racism.

Reference: Future Pundit.

I find the idea that an adaptive mechanism like skin tone, which is fairly simple in biological terms, could in any way be linked to something as multi-faceted and complex as intelligence ludicrous. And yes, I will jump on the bandwagon and call that notion racism. The old “black folks be dumb” song and dance.

It’s bullshit. Racist bullshit.

You know what IS linked very strongly to lower IQs?

Malnutrition.

The idea is not even the slightest bit controversial. Children who are starved, especially in the earliest years of life, perform very poorly on IQ tests compared to peers who received adequate nutrition. Like, really poorly. IQ’s down around 60 (100 is average).

Let’s look at this world hunger map, shall we?

p1 hunger map 1
 

Reference: Geographic Travels.

Oh well now, would you look at that. Looks like it’s mostly black and Hispanic folks who are starving. And all those white folks are living life to the hilt, with full bellies and bright futures.

Must be a coincidence.

Let’s look at this map of food insecurity in the United States:

091117 food foodinsecurity
 

Reference: Next Generation Food.

Highest rates of food insecurity:

  1. Mississippi
  2. Texas
  3. Arkansas

Lowest rates of food insecurity:

  1. North Dakota
  2. Massachusetts
  3. Virginia

Gosh, I wonder where all the black and Hispanic people are? North Dakota, right?

According to the USDA, in a report titled Household Food Security in the United States in 2011, black and Hispanic families are more than twice as likely to experience food insecurity as white families (p. 11).

  • White: 11.4% of families food insecure
  • Black: 25.1%
  • Hispanic: 26.2%

Reference: US Department of Agriculture.

If you keep in mind the fact that obesity (especially as the result of heavily processed, nutrient deficient junk foods) is also a form of malnutrition, it seems to me that there is an entirely different explanation for why certain racial groups might tend to perform lower on IQ tests.

I realize that I haven’t proved anything at all by noticing these correlations. Correlation is not causation. And furthermore, I haven’t read Richwine’s dissertation, nor do I plan to, so I don’t know if he offered any tentative explanations for his findings. What I hope I HAVE proved is that you can research any topic, any topic at all, and discover truths, even if they are uncomfortable, without necessarily being racist (or any other –ism you want to throw in).

It looks to me like Richwine is a gigantic racist asshole, because he is using his findings to try and limit the opportunities for Hispanic people to come to the United States, because dumb spics. What if I’m right? What if IQ differences are traceable to malnutrition? That would indicate a whole different set of interventions and policies than just turn them away.

food
 

The lack of imagination from the student groups at Harvard is troubling, but hardly surprising. Their knee-jerk shrieking about banning the pursuit of truths they don’t like is part and parcel of liberal, feminist society.

Gender is a social construct! Uhm, no.

Race is a social construct! Uhm, no.

In shutting down the conversation about race and IQ, Harvard students are explicitly saying they don’t WANT to find a reason behind low performance on IQ tests amongst certain racial groups. They don’t CARE why some groups are not reaching their full human potential. They don’t give ONE SINGLE FUCK about anyone other than themselves. It could be as simple as making certain children have access to proper food and nutrition.

kids
kids

But fuck those kids, right?

Now tell me again, who is the racist?

judgybitchface
 

The above article first appeared on Judgy Bitche’s own blog of the same name under the title: Harvard PhD student finds a correlation between race and IQ. Harvard students says even if it’s true, it shouldn’t be a topic of research. Everybody is wrong. Reposted here with permission.

Judgy Bitch has an undergraduate degree in Film Theory (useful!), a Master’s degree in Business Administration and she has recently been admitted to a PhD program in Entrepreneurship and Innovation, but she is not sure she wants to go just yet. She is a full time mother to her three children, PinkyPinkyPie, LittleDude and MissBossyPants and a full time wife to Mr. JudgyBitch. Her children have never seen the inside of a daycare center and her husband has never made his own sandwich, and that makes her very happy. She lives in a small town, has one car, doesn’t own a big screen TV and has never been to an all inclusive resort on vacation. She doesn’t buy scented candles, throw cushions or frozen pizza.Oh, she also doesn’t give a fuck what you think about her.

~~~

A few quick comments from your blog proprietor.

  1. JB is the bomb. She can shame sissy men—who’s idea of changing a flat tire is a cellphone and AAA card—and bitchy entitled women—who wear victimhood like a badge of honor—in a single sentence. Aslo critical: the balls to declare everyone wrong on any given issue without a whiff of concern over wringing hands and bunched panties.
  2. There is some new evidence, according to Anna at her Life Extension blog, pigmentation may be more recent than expected and a direct cause of agriculture rather than migration. Doesn’t really change JB’s argument but if true, gives a bit more precision.
  3. I think IQ tests need to be viewed in a tighter context that contemplates the social milieu of problem solving—which is what IQ is supposed to measure. To illustrate, imagine having some psychobabblers go over and teach a few Hadza hunters and gatherers what IQ tests are, and then have them create one based on the survival problems they have to solve. How do you think you’d fair, Harvard educated, NYC dwelling hipster?

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More

137 Comments

  1. Danny J Albers on May 23, 2013 at 09:16

    The total lack of root cause analysis, so widely used in business (ISO, etc…) and sorely never used in health and societal challenges is a frustrating thing to watch for a business analyst, day in and day out…

  2. Contemplationist on May 23, 2013 at 09:38

    Point me to where I drew a bright line?
    Richard don’t swallow your own bullshit. Its not good to judge whole fields based on hearsay and quick reactions.
    Here is Razib Khan of GNXP for you:

    Of course I am a libertarian and so this simply doesn’t matter for my ETHICS, but it does matter for my EMPIRICS.

  3. Geoff on May 23, 2013 at 10:01

    I did a paper on the subject of the racial IQ gap between black americans and white americans back in maybe 2006 for a public policy class, and while I don’t remember too much of it, I do remember that IQ is at most 25% genetic and 75% “nurture, and that when corrected for environment (separated twin studies, multiracial households, etc) there was no significant difference in IQ between the races. Given my own interpretation of the data, I wonder how intellectually honest this guy was being in his dissertation.

    Once I identified that there was a clear gap in IQ in real terms but no genetic basis for that gap, I spent the rest of the paper theorizing as to what white families do that black families don’t leading to higher IQs in their children. Nutrition didn’t make my list, though knowing what I know now that probably would have been the first place I looked. With that said, most of the difference is clearly attributable to parental involvement and values systems that place an emphasis on intellectual achievement.

  4. Steve on May 23, 2013 at 10:29

    The truth is that humans exist along a spectrum, not a binary. Some contain more genetics from prior hominid lines that intermixed with homo sapiens. These are typically SOME Africans, but not others. There were likely dozens of other “races”, and homo erectus and others didn’t just die out, but mixed with some homo sapiens. The online book Erectus Walks Amongst Us explores this theory. We can see this ancestry in people like NBA star Jerry Stackhouse, Patrick Ewing or rapper KRS-One. On the other side, no Europeans or Asians look this “primitive”.

    • Chris on March 21, 2014 at 09:38

      “On the other side, no Europeans or Asians look this “primitive”.”

      I don’t know about that. Russian boxer Nicolai Valuev looks like the missing link to me:

      I don’t see anything particularly primitive looking about Jerry Stackhouse.

  5. […] The Animal / Posted on: May 23, 2013 Free The Animal – Harvard PhD student finds a correlation between race and IQ. Harvard students says even if […]

  6. Contemplationist on May 23, 2013 at 08:54

    Sorry

    The IQ gap persists across various environmental regimes. If you were truly interested and disinterested, you would find out people who have been studying these things for decades and try to debunk them. There is no “middle ground” here. Race-IQ exists, and has existed in stability for a 100 years. No amount of hand-wringing can remove it. Also smart-fraction theory is increasingly validated, for example by Garrett Jones the econ professor at George Mason. http://mason.gmu.edu/~gjonesb/JonesADR

    I am for truth. All the pretty lies can go to hell.

  7. Richard Nikoley on May 23, 2013 at 09:00

    Tell it to Neil Degrasse Tyson.

    Exceptions _always_ disprove a rule. You are arguing for a rule. What exists are averages that are associated with races, and those averages turn on the social milieu (many facets there, such as parental upbringing, family unit, culture, etc.), and as JB pointed out, nutrition as well.

    You are arguing for a bright line genetic distinction in brains depending on skin color.

    It’s a laughable proposition given so very many exceptions.

    Try again, because that’s basically all your argument is worth in terms of response.

    • Mike on March 20, 2014 at 09:38

      Neil Tyson has a white Ashkenazi Jewish mother. But even if he were 100 percent black and had the highest IQ on the planet, he’d still be a statistical outlier.

      There clearly is a correlation between race and IQ. You like to quote Orwell and condemn the left for denial. But you do precisely the same thing when you deny the documented fact that there are in general significant differences in intelligence across races. Frankly I think it’s clear that you know this is true. It just bothers you so you deny it, much like the liberals you criticize.

      You also suggest a curiously oversimplified concept of race. Races obviously exist, but they’re not simply a matter of complexion. Again I suspect you know this; you feel the need to deny the extent of racial differences because it makes you uncomfortable. So you say “sure race exists but it’s only a matter of complexion”. No, the differences between races consist of more than just skin color. There are significant overall morphological differences.

      Even the lighter skin of some races can’t be trivially dismissed from the question of racial differences in intelligence. Light skin is believed to have been selected for the purpose of getting more vitamin D from the sun in colder climates with less skin exposed. But those same environments were likely more challenging and required higher intelligence to survive. It can’t be trivialized.

      It’s all a matter of averages of course. The smartest individual on the planet could well be a full blooded black African and the dumbest an East Asian or Ashkenazi Jew. But on average East Asians and are smarter than whites and whites are smarter than blacks.

    • Richard Nikoley on March 21, 2014 at 09:21

      “But on average East Asians and are smarter than whites and whites are smarter than blacks.”

      You forgot to add, according to East Asians and whites, based on their tests. As I’ve said repeatedly, have the Hadza design an IQ test and see how you do.

    • Dainon on March 21, 2014 at 09:35

      “But on average East Asians are smarter than whites and whites are smarter than blacks, within the same general population (for example, within the Houston metro area, or within Sao Paulo).”

      I’m pretty sure this was the actual statement he was making, and I’m pretty sure you understand that.

      You could be correct in arguing against what Mike is intending. But what you’re doing here is arguing against a strawman.

    • Richard Nikoley on March 21, 2014 at 09:42

      No idea where you got what you have between quotes. I quoted him accurately.

  8. Sean on May 23, 2013 at 09:12

    It looks to me like Richwine is a gigantic racist asshole, because he is using his findings to try and limit the opportunities for Hispanic people to come to the United States, because dumb spics.

    Fortunately we have JB to defend healthy scientific discourse.

  9. Richard Nikoley on May 23, 2013 at 09:14

    I certainly think so.

  10. Steve W on May 23, 2013 at 09:19

    Race is simply skin pigmentation? Huh?

    Forgive me for posting here a second time:

    “If a species is divided into separate populations, and those populations are left in reproductive isolation from each other for many generations, they will diverge. If you return after several hundred generations have passed, you will observe that the various traits that characterize individuals of the species are now distributed at different frequencies in the various populations. After a few ten thousands of generations, the divergence of the populations will be so great they can no longer cross-breed; and that is the origin of species.

    This is Biology 101.

    Our species separated into two parts 50, 60, or 70 thousand years ago, depending on which paleoanthropologist you ask. One part remained in Africa, the ancestral homeland. The other crossed into Southwest Asia, then split, and re-split, and re-split, until there were human populations living in near-total reproductive isolation from each other in all parts of the world. This went on for hundreds of generations, causing the divergences we see today. Different physical types, as well as differences in behavior, intelligence, and personality, are exactly what one would expect to observe when scrutinizing these divergent populations.” _Derbyshire

    Men are stronger than women. Suzy is stronger than Frank.
    Blacks are faster than whites. Tom is faster than Jamal.
    Whites are taller than Asians. Wu is taller than Bob.

    Richard, is it really all just Guns, Germs and Steel? Can’t culture be construed as collective gene expression?

    Sub-Saharan Africans had no writing and no wheel. This is not a moral statement. It is a fact of the materialist universe. A person from a race with no writing and no wheel and a person from a race that put a man on the moon. Are there any genetic explanations for this?

    (And the hunter/gatherer in Africa might be happier and more fulfilled and nicer than some over-stressed asshole working on nano-technology.)

  11. Sean on May 23, 2013 at 09:22

    You are arguing for a bright line genetic distinction in brains depending on skin color.

    Is it okay to say that people of West African origin are, on average, genetically faster sprinters that Europeans or Asians? Were the hundred meter finals for the last 10 Olympics dominated by people of West African origin simply because of cultural or nutritional differences?

  12. Einherjar on May 23, 2013 at 09:36

    Embarassing. The idea that race/ethnicity is only skin deep or a social construct isn’t seriously held by anybody with the slightest knowledge of e.g. forensic anthropology or population genetics. There are significant morphological and behavioral differences that persist ON AVERAGE (population genetics is always about distributions of traits) in genetically identical but environmentally distinct populations. That’s why you can determine the race of an individual with very high certainty by looking only at their bones.

    Food is only a small part of the picture and in only a few areas of the world, as the gap persists even in the first world (there’s a definite argument to be made for malnutrition depressing IQs in some parts of Africa and South Asia, but the gap diminishes only slightly when this is controlled for).
    The IQ gap persists almost entirely unchanged in adoption studies, so the effect of nurture is relatively low.
    Socioeconomic status has relatively little effect. Poor asians outperform even rich whites. Poor whites outperform rich blacks. The effect is pretty intractable.
    Furthermore, the argument that some sort of oppression by ebil wacist whitey driving down IQs in other races doesn’t hold water. The oft-persecuted Ashkenazim have excelled in any number of environments in which they faced severe discrimination. The same is true of the Han Chinese all across South Asia, where they are a highly successful but reviled minority. What’s more, those ebil whites are consistently outperformed by Northeast Asians even in that notorious blast furnace of ebil wacism, the American South.

    To hypothesize that despite differences in biochemistry (e.g. different immunities, distinct abilities to process some toxins, different hormonal balances, rate of maturation), musculoskeletal morphology (e.g. saggital crests, degree of prognathism, adipose distribution, extent of facial neoteny), and even temperament (e.g. conscientiousness, impulsiveness, aggression) which are KNOWN to have a genetic basis and differential distribution across races/ethnicities, there cannot possibly be differences in IQ with a genetic basis isn’t just odd, it’s outright laughable.

    IQ, however measured, strongly predicts success in doing activities which require abstraction and complex problem solving, so it’s no good punting on that front. It may not be a direct measure of intelligence, but it’s extremely highly CORRELATED with intelligenct at worst. Furthermore, there are any number of culturally neutral IQ tests which have been developed which require essentially nothing more than the ability to recognize increasingly complex patterns (Raven’s Progressive Matrices being the gold standard in this respect when last I checked).

    Let’s be grownups about the facts here. Even after leaving Africa, humans both adapted to their different environments and interbred with other near-human homonids which had spent much longer adapting to their environments (see Neanderthals, Denisovans, and probably relic Homo Erectus populations). Evolution didn’t stop at the neck. We don’t have to be jerks about the implications of race and IQ and demand the subjugation of the untermensch (particularly since ebil whiteys like me are less intelligent on average than Ashkenazim and Northeast Asians), but demanding that we not talk about these things at all is a religious taboo rather than a rational decision not to pursue a relevant area of inquiry.

    A much more profitable objection to be made, in my opinion, is that Hispanics are a highly heterogenous population racially. Brazil may have Mexico beat, but Mexican Hispanics (the majority of the population whose immigrant desirability is at issue here) run on a continuum from nearly 100% white (one such friend of mine cheekily refers to his family as “Conquistador-Americans”) to 100% Amerindian (an ancient offshoot of the ancestral Asian founder population). As you might expect, IQ variance across the Hispanic population is very high because of this heterogeneity. That means it’s less useful to discriminate on the basis of race (which we’d be using mostly as a proxy for IQ) than it is to go ahead and just measure the damned IQ.

  13. Hypocrite Richard on May 23, 2013 at 09:49

    I thought all anonymous opinions were worthless Richard. Apparently you are a hypocrite.

    “Judgemental Bitch”? Gimme a break. There are millions of anonymous judgemental idiots on the internet. And you are an idiot for giving her opinion any more credence than anyone else’s.

  14. Greg Swann on May 23, 2013 at 09:54

    I’m delighted to see you and JudgyBitch dancing together, but when I read this at her place, I thought it was one of her weaker arguments. Richwine was pilloried for having told an unwelcome truth, and this is the story that matters in these events. Academics everywhere would butt-pucker if they weren’t all Marxists first.

  15. Sean on May 23, 2013 at 10:03

    I’m such a racist cunt that I believe there is a distinct genetic difference between the Czechs and the Germans just a stone’s throw away. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the Czechs do so well is sports for such a small country, nor that they also happen to excel in producing supermodels. Nor do I think it’s a coincidence that Germans dominated the fields of chemistry and physics pre WWII.

    I can get away with such racist thinking in most polite American company because it doesn’t involve any pigment issues. Hitler and his idea of Slavic half-menschen being mostly forgotten these days.

  16. Amy on May 23, 2013 at 10:05

    Is intelligence an inheritable trait? Do people select mates for their intelligence along with other traits like height, skin/eye/hair color, etc.?

    Or is the tabula rasa theory correct, and we are the product of what’s been written on our slates? If that is the case, why, with all the money being thrown into public education, do minorities tend to have lower scores and worse educational outcomes, even AFTER adjusting for variables like SES? You would think we’d have a nation of naught but doctors, engineers, inventors, philosophers…the sky would be the limit for what people of all races could achieve. But they don’t, even considering the money in school meals, facilities, before care, after care, enrichment experiences, computers, equipment…something must explain it. (and I know school lunches are gross, but for some students they are likely a step up from what they would, or perhaps wouldn’t, get at home).

  17. Dainon on May 23, 2013 at 10:22

    “Exceptions _always_ disprove a rule. You are arguing for a rule. What exists are averages that are associated with races”

    Except when the “rule” is about distributions.

    Even if the theory is true (I really don’t know, and don’t put much stock in the theory), that these claimed race-IQ levels are based on distributions, further weakens the idea of denying Hispanics entry, since the vast majority of all races are likely to fall into the same general area.

    Richard, there’s a confused line of reasoning in this argument. Richwine is not claiming the melanin adaptation is causative of the IQ difference. Rather, the melanin is indicative of divergence of prior generational environment, with attendant differing evolution. Since you talk about arguing facts with facts, argue against his point, rather than the strawman that is “Richwine claims skin tone is linked to intelligence”.

  18. Richard Nikoley on May 23, 2013 at 10:33

    Hopefully I only have to say this once. You are all essentially attributing averages and associations to individuals. That is exactly what you are arguing for even when you deny it.

    There are dumb fucks and genius individuals attributable to every race on the planet.

    That is the point.

    Oh, and Sean, there are millions of Cezchs that would loose to millions of Germans in any sporting event, and vice versa, and at least thousands in the Super Model or any other realm.

    It really is quite all laughable to me. Having spent time in Philippine jungles for weeks, being relatively helpless but for all those dumb brown skins. Thailand, too, and a couple of other places. If you want to argue that they are not fully socially and culturally aware of dominant western culture, that’s a big Duh, and it might take a generation or two too acclimate, kinda like some of the European sub-classes who landed at Ellis Island.

    It is simply a gross injustice to apply averages to any individual and that is what you all are doing, even though you will lie to me and deny it. As, for example, being a balck young man is not a _cause_ for his potential incarceration–the likelihood of which is like 25% or something? The cause is either his volition to be a predator, or targeted injustice. And both of those are associated with whole hosts of bad culture, bad policy, etc.

  19. Sean on May 23, 2013 at 10:34

    Since you talk about arguing facts with facts, argue against his point, rather than the strawman that is “Richwine claims skin tone is linked to intelligence”.

    Actually, Ms JB is the one who made that statement. She hasn’t yet showed up do defend her thesis despite the fact that she claims to be interested in free scientific discourse.

  20. Dainon on May 23, 2013 at 10:36

    Noted, and sorry for the mis-read. I’m used to you parsing out, rather than full re-posts.

    Double about the Germans and sports/hotness.

  21. Sean on May 23, 2013 at 10:50

    Hopefully I only have to say this once. You are all essentially attributing averages and associations to individuals. That is exactly what you are arguing for even when you deny it.

    No one is saying that any individual of any race is destined to be anything, at least as far as I can tell.

    It is simply a gross injustice to apply averages to any individual and that is what you all are doing, even though you will lie to me and deny it.

    To even notice the fact that so many top sprinters happen to be of West African origin is a gross injustice? This is your idea of a scientific dialogue? Anyone noticing that people who evolved in different environments might have different characteristics on average is racist, I mean a gross injustice.

    Make sure to tar all of us who dare protest with the same brush, Richard, subtlety is for pussies.

  22. Amy on May 23, 2013 at 10:51

    Social and cultural milieu matters.

    The dumb browns of the Philippine jungles are intelligent and capable of survival and creating their unique culture in their own milieu. What percentage of them would/could adapt to our social and cultural milieu?

    Is there a level of intelligence needed to adapt and thrive in America? It’s a genuine question. If there is, and many immigrants don’t meet the level needed to adapt and thrive, then we will have a problem on our hands. It seems we already do. Lower IQ correlates with need for welfare payments, criminal behavior, drug abuse, and as we already know worse educational outcomes and employment prospects.

  23. Amy on May 23, 2013 at 10:53

    Oh, and I should note I’m not saying “dumb browns” as a pejorative, just sarcastically quoting Richard’s sarcasm…

  24. Richard Nikoley on May 23, 2013 at 10:58

    “Richard, is it really all just Guns, Germs and Steel? Can’t culture be construed as collective gene expression?”

    Not all, but largely so. And BTW, don’t forget about those brown skinned egyptians and other arabs that got the technological jump on everyone back in the day—and then fucked themselves by what? Social constructs, i.e., crippling their innate genetic hardware with super buggy and infinite illogic loop software (fundamentalist religion, patriarchal domination, etc.).

    I am certainly not denying genetic differences. But exceptions ALWAYS disprove rules and it takes only one:

    “Men are stronger than women. Suzy is stronger than Frank.
    Blacks are faster than whites. Tom is faster than Jamal.
    Whites are taller than Asians. Wu is taller than Bob.”

    And so on, ad infinitum.

    I don’t even mind acknowledging the AVERAGE differences. On AVERAGE, we WASPs and our ugly stepchildren Catholics are less “intelligent” (IQ scores) than the Ashkenazi Jews, or various Asian sub-cultures for that matter. I have no problem acknowledging the fact. But I do have a problem attributing it to strictly genetics exclusive to a multitude of other potential causes (like, for instance, the persecution of Jews going back 5,000 years, that makes up a major part of the core book of Western Civilization—the Bible—as an endemic aspect to their whole culture—and this in not HARDWARE but culture). And I also have a far bigger problem with attribution to any individual in any direction.

  25. Nigel Kinbrum on May 23, 2013 at 11:03

    “Everybody is Wrong About I.Q.”

    @Richard: The last time I waved my hands in the air and wrote “Everyone”, you metaphorically tore me a new orifice. That’s so unfair! 😀

    If everybody is wrong, then JB is wrong. Therefore a paradox has been created. * <- me disappearing into a singularity.

  26. August on May 23, 2013 at 11:15

    High I.Q. individuals tend to suffer more at the hands of their own ethnicities than from Harvard intellectuals. I think the breakdown between race and IQ is legit, but pretty meaningless because it describes groups. Within these groups there are outliers who are actually driving the numbers. For these outliers, their I.Q. tends to define them (whether they realize it or not) more than their race. How many Asians are there? Hell, I haven’t even thought of that. The ratio could be relatively fixed; for X number of population, there would Y number of outliers, and since there are so many Asians, they get the top position. Possible, but even if there is variability, so what? My belief in freedom isn’t predicated on equality, but on the division of labor, which actually implies we benefit from our inequalities. I suspect the equality doctrine is spewed by the same people who want us to be cogs in their corporatist wheels. If we are perfectly equal, then we are easily replaceable.

  27. Sean on May 23, 2013 at 11:15

    Oh, and Sean, there are millions of Cezchs(sic) that would loose(sic) to millions of Germans in any sporting event, and vice versa, and at least thousands in the Super Model or any other realm.

    Yes, yes, in the realm of cultural marxism, all cultures are equal, and all the people are, by default, equal as well. But it’s certainly clear to anyone who’s actually lived in Central Europe that there’s a distinct difference between Czechs and Germans. But of course none of these differences are genetic. Merely a holdover from the Cold War.

  28. Richard Nikoley on May 23, 2013 at 11:18

    @Sean

    That West Africans are on average better sprinters and East Africans better endurance runners is not a “bright line distinction.”

    Ok, how about gender. I’m assuming we’re not going to argue over the fact that there are average physical differences or differences in fact.

    So who’s genetically smarter, men or women. C’mon, take a stand. It’s a ripe opportunity. There, you have the most pronounced physical differences genetically that is not even in dispute, so, who has the superior mental HARDWARE?

  29. Einherjar on May 23, 2013 at 11:26

    @Richard: So it looks like you don’t disagree that it’s possible to talk about differences between populations. Propensities. Averages. Proportions.

    If I understand you correctly, you’re arguing that these cannot or are not influenced by genes or that the influence of genes is negligible. Environment is everything. You’re not alone in this camp. People have been moving the goalposts on this for years. Rather than argue along the lines of “adoption studies and large-well controlled population studies suggest that no aspect of environment that we’ve yet considered accounts for more than a modest part of this gap and genetics is likely to make up the remainder”, let’s try this: would the existence of even one allele known to be associated with variation in intelligence falsify your position?

    If so, you may be disappointed in the strength of the ground you’re choosing to defend.

    If not, then why presume a priori that the contribution of genes is negligible? Obviously the contribution of genes to the difference between human and chimp intelligence is substantial. On what principle should we expect that the contribution of genes to observed differences between groups of humans to be negligible?

  30. Sean on May 23, 2013 at 11:31

    Hopefully I only have to say this once. You are all essentially attributing averages and associations to individuals. That is exactly what you are arguing for even when you deny it.

    There are dumb fucks and genius individuals attributable to every race on the planet.

    To make any sort of distinction is RACIST

    That West Africans are on average better sprinters and East Africans better endurance runners is not a “bright line distinction.”

    It’s okay to make racist distinctions as they aren’t racist.

    Ok, how about gender. I’m assuming we’re not going to argue over the fact that there are average physical differences or differences in fact.

    Richard suddenly forgets everything he knew about logical fallacies and starts desperately braying non sequitors.

  31. Einherjar on May 23, 2013 at 11:33

    @Richard: on the men vs. women front:
    Differences in gene expression (mostly in the womb) between sexes contribute to greater VARIANCE between men than women (i.e. more male geniuses, more male dunces). This is thought to be because there’s more of a “winner take all” effect with men spreading their genes than women. It pays to “roll the dice” with men as far as gene expression because historically, only exceptional men passed on their genes, while even below average women did.

    Other observed differences result from a combination of different brain development and different hormonal millieus between sexes. You can remove some but not all of the difference in e.g. emotion vs. detachment, impulsiveness, agression by pumping a woman full of testosterone and such.

    Differences in the AVERAGE IQ of the sexes are fairly disputed and the consensus is that they are likely to be no more than about 3-5 IQ points if they exist at all.

    Importantly, however, note that these differences in the distribution of intelligence and behavior have a biological basis.

  32. Richard Nikoley on May 23, 2013 at 12:09

    “I thought all anonymous opinions were worthless Richard”

    Silly boy. You assume I don’t know more than you do. She ain’t anon to me, silly boy.

  33. Richard Nikoley on May 23, 2013 at 12:17

    @sean

    “Non sequiters” (sic)

  34. Steve W on May 23, 2013 at 12:26

    “I have no problem acknowledging the fact. But I do have a problem attributing it to strictly genetics ”

    No one is saying “strictly”. Environment matters – duh!

    So you are, or are not acknowledging “the fact” of genetic, racial differences?

    Note also sexual selection. What is “attractive” in one environment isn’t in another. Survival in Nordic regions is different than equatorial Africa. Why the hell wouldn’t there be differences over thousands of generations of sexual selection in two starkly different environments. i.e. vegetation 365 versus a few months of the year.

    It’s just not a moral question. Planning for winter doesn’t make the Moon landers better than the browns who never had to learn to plan to such a degree.

  35. pzo on May 23, 2013 at 12:32

    So, the boy got a PhD for something that has been being researched for the last 100 years, since the beginning of IQ testing. Every excuse possible has been made by those who refuse to believe the cold hearted science. The old IQ tests definitely were culture and language disasters. But now they use things like sequencing shapes on a screen.

    Like little Stewie said on Family Guy, “Oooo……Nature…..you scawee.” And not PC.

  36. Steve W on May 23, 2013 at 13:29

    And you know what else is funny? Our “betters” like Richard here think nothing of welcoming MILLIONS of Latin American backward peasants but would shit themselves if this nation were being flooded by more Nascar loving, bible thumping evangelicals.

  37. Sean on May 23, 2013 at 14:22

    “Non sequiters” (sic)

    Yup, feet of clay. And doubly ironic for being used as another distraction or non sequitur. But you and JB opened this can of worms and you came out with all guns blazing. So when, in the name of Science, and all that you and JB hold dear, are you or JB, going to make a serious effort to refute the points I and others have made?

  38. Sean on May 23, 2013 at 14:39

    Our “betters” like Richard here think nothing of welcoming MILLIONS of Latin American backward peasants but would shit themselves if this nation were being flooded by more Nascar loving, bible thumping evangelicals.

    This doesn’t sound like a sockpuppet at all. Steve, can I subscribe to you newsletter?

  39. Puzzled on May 23, 2013 at 14:46

    I wonder – while, as Richard points out, a correlation between pigmentation and intelligence seems unlikely, there seem to be two questions to raise:
    1. What happens when people live in an environment to which their skin is not suited? In particular, when Africans live in America, do they have a higher tendency than others to be deficient in vitamin D? What is the impact of vitamin D deficiency – can this relate to the higher risk of diabetes, for instance?
    2. Can there be important funnel events that later correlate, in a specific place, to race? For example – if some Africans were selected to be brought to America, and then survived the boat passage, what traits would they tend to have?
    3. What are the philosophical assumptions needed to jump from this study to an immigration bill? What is the mental deficiency causing people to think that any policy implications at all follow?

  40. Contemplationist on May 23, 2013 at 14:52

    Haha Richard seriously? Your rhetorical argument against race-iq differences are that hey do you think there are IQ differences between men and women? Non-sequitur galore! This is a completely EMPIRICAL finding. One does not imply the other of course. But hey what do you know there ARE differences in IQ between men and women! Who knew? Turns out its not the AVERAGE that’s different, its the VARIANCE.
    Lets put it in terms that most people will understand:
    1) Men -> More retards, rapists, murderers and also more Fields medalists, astronauts, adventurers, geniuses
    2) Women -> More average on both the bad and good side.

    Oh no HERESY!! BURN ME AT THE STAKE!

  41. Elenor on May 23, 2013 at 14:52

    Richard: 1. Veritas. It means truth.
    2. I still think it’s a giant crock of shit to be investigating a link between race and IQ.
    3. One of the biggest markers of race is skin color. And skin color is the result of melanin. The purpose of melanin is to protect the DNA contained in your skin cells from the sun’s ultraviolet rays. And that’s pretty much it. It’s a natural sunscreen. The closer to the sun you live, the darker your skin.
    4. find the idea that an adaptive mechanism like skin tone, which is fairly simple in biological terms, could in any way be linked to something as multi-faceted and complex as intelligence ludicrous. It’s bullshit. Racist bullshit. You know what IS linked very strongly to lower IQs? Malnutrition.

    You point out that ANYone can see racial differences — but you’re also suggesting racial differences are ONLY about skin color?! (How ingenuous can you get?!) Explain how the larger, heavier bone structure of (most) blacks is related to skin color. Thicker skin. Height range. Hair texture. The (relative) hairlessness of Asian men. Explain any of a hundred RACIAL differences as ““only being related to skin color.” (Is anyone saying that except you?)”

    Ever heard of twin studies? Where black children raised in middle-class white families STILL have IQs closer to their black twins raised in poor/er black families? IF it were attributable to malnutrition — do you think the white adoptive family under-feed their adopted black child? (Really?!)

    How about the SAME IQ distribution between Applachian whites and Appalachian blacks? Think the food-insecure whites there eat way, way better and so their IQ scores show it? And wait — what about Asians?! Asians in America “eat” a full standard deviation better than whites in America?

    IF you’re going to pull in food insecurity and malnutrition — then there should be a lesser (or no?) difference between “food secure and insecure” REGIONS; but there aren’t. There are differences between the *races* within those regions. OOPS! Uncomfortable truth there for you? Veritas veritas, who’s got the veritas?

    5. I realize that I haven’t proved anything at all by noticing these correlations. Correlation is not causation.

    But you seem to have the same knee-jerk reaction as the liberals at Harvard: “It’’s not true, it’s GOTTA be racism””?! Dyah think the professors who approved this guy’s dissertation are all eeeevil racists too? Or did this guy maybe do a good job on his paper and actually prove his thesis? (Which you refuse to read. Is your mind made up without knowing? If so, fine-by-me but please don’t claim you know something you don’t! )

    6. What I hope I HAVE proved is that you can research any topic, any topic at all, and discover truths, even if they are uncomfortable, without necessarily being racist (or any other –ism you want to throw in).

    You aren’t actually trying to hold yourself up as having “researched” this topic here, are you?

    7. It looks to me like Richwine is a gigantic racist asshole,

    (This … from your research? On… um… race as written in Wikipedia?!)

    Dja ever consider that the IQ test, while it certainly does not test some kind of “worth” of any human being, does in fact (and yes, HAS been shown to) indicate someone who is capable of being successful in a modern technological society? It’s super that the Hadza are perfectly well suited to their environment — and any of us is not. That does not invalidate the current Western IQ test, which EQUALLY accurately shows someone who is well suited to our (western technological) environment. (Remember the Asians, a full standard distribution above whites? Think that’s good nutrition? Or is it maybe intentional skewing of the test by racists (what: ASIAN racists?!?!) to make one (their) group do way better?!

    8. What if I’m right? What if IQ differences are traceable to malnutrition?

    Your premise is flawed from the get-go. Do you really think American Asians eat so much better than White Americans?

    9. In shutting down the conversation about race and IQ,

    Which you are doing by calling this pol a “gigantic racist asshole.” Why should the U.S. NOT discuss whether or not it’s in our best interests to bring in huge, huge numbers (MORE) of uneducated low-IQ (from WHATEVER cause!) people, when we have more than enough intractable problems already? Is that a racist discussion or a reasonable one?

    10. It could be as simple as making certain children have access to proper food and nutrition.

    Tell yah what. Just as soon as you do some *actual* research into why malnutrition is not even close to an adequate cause of IQ differences, which ARE real, and DO accurately reflect the ability of the person to find success in a modern western technological society, then maybe come back and try this again…. cause whew-boy! You are, fer sure, talkin’ out yer politically correct ass on this one!

  42. Elenor on May 23, 2013 at 14:54

    p.s.
    11. the persecution of Jews going back 5,000 years, that makes up a major part of the core book of Western Civilization—the Bible—as an endemic aspect to their whole culture—and this in not HARDWARE but culture)

    Of COURSE it’s hardware — it STILL is hardware! Jews still marry jews. Jews who don’t marry jews are still looked at askance. A smart successful jew is more likely to marry to another such, and produce children who are such — and thus, EVOLUTION WORKS! The ‘history of a culture’ IS written in their genes: If they value smarts, they will BREED for smarts, intentionally or otherwise.

    12. So who’s genetically smarter, men or women. C’mon, take a stand. It’s a ripe opportunity. There, you have the most pronounced physical differences genetically that is not even in dispute, so, who has the superior mental HARDWARE?

    Depends on the field. MEN are certainly genetically “smarter” (i.e., more prone to success) in warfare, building skyscrapers, and forming civilizations. Women are smarter in intuition, ‘reading’ children’s emotioms and needs, and forming networks. Are there outliers? Don’t be stupid: of COURSE there are. That does not detract in anyway from the main truth: genetics — evolution — selects for certain traits. If you “believe” in evolution, then you must believe in evolution’s handiwork: race is WAY more than skin color, and absolutely affects EVERYTHING about the races!

    High “standard western IQ test” folks absolutely do better in a western technological society. High “non-standard (at the moment) Hadza IQ test” folks absolutely do better in the environment for which THAT test is prepared. (Asians do better on that “standard western IQ test” because they DO, in fact, do better, “fit” better in the standard western technological society. (Is that genetic or tiger-mother culture? The history of THAT culture is also written in their genes: they value learning and success; folks who cannot succeed at learning and success have way fewer children. The next generation has more folks who value learning and success; and THEY produce more children than those who don’t succeed… rinse, repeat, and culture IS inherent in genetics!

  43. Steve W on May 23, 2013 at 14:55

    “And BTW, don’t forget about those brown skinned egyptians and other arabs that got the technological jump on everyone back in the day—and then fucked themselves by what?”

    The more closely I read Richard the more disappointed I am in his arguments. As if the Egyptians or pre-Islamic Arabs weren’t functioning according to religious beliefs. WTF?

    • Richard Nikoley on May 23, 2013 at 17:20

      Steve W

      1. The argument is over genetics, I,e, brown skins being inferior intellectually.

      2. The case of the early Arabs disprove that notion, and their ultimate intellectual collapse on social/cultural scale was due the advent of Islam, which supports my contention that nurture, society, culture and a host of other things washes out individual variation in innate natural intelligence.

      So count me dissapointed in your ability to follow along.

  44. Richard Nikoley on May 23, 2013 at 15:21

    “But now they use things like sequencing shapes on a screen.”

    So the boy has yet to learn about nascent and lifelong neural rewiring.

    http://www.fi.edu/learn/brain/exercise.html

    Hint: not genetic. Nothing to do with skin color.

  45. Dainon on May 23, 2013 at 15:29

    “Hint: not genetic. Nothing to do with skin color.”

    So this capacity for development is equal rate for all people? I suppose rate of strength development (since everybody can grow stronger) “isn’t genetic”, either?

  46. Dainon on May 23, 2013 at 17:33

    “1. 1. The argument is over genetics, I,e, brown skins being inferior intellectually.”

    Nope. The argument that some populations WHICH HAPPEN TO HAVE DARKER SKIN being intellectually inferior, with genetics being partly responsible for the disparity. You’re trying to pass a strawman here. Maybe this is personal reactivity which is making you not see the actual argument.

    “2. The case of the early Arabs disprove that notion, and their ultimate intellectual collapse on social/cultural scale was due the advent of Islam, which supports my contention that nurture, society, culture and a host of other things washes out individual variation in innate natural intelligence.”

    No, because the notion wasn’t about skin color being the REASON for the intellectual inferiority.

    Maybe should at least read the basis of a person’s argument before you claim to have refuted it.

  47. Nigel Kinbrum on May 23, 2013 at 18:48

    “I think IQ tests need to be viewed in a tighter context that contemplates the social milieu of problem solving—which is what IQ is supposed to measure. To illustrate, imagine having some psychobabblers go over and teach a few Hadza hunters and gatherers what IQ tests are, and then have them create one based on the survival problems they have to solve. How do you think you’d fair, Harvard educated, NYC dwelling hipster?”
    ^^^^This. IQ tests are a load of old bollix.

  48. Richard Nikoley on May 23, 2013 at 19:13

    @Puzzled

    “I wonder – while, as Richard points out, a correlation between pigmentation and intelligence seems unlikely…”

    Not what I said. If somehow implied in something I wrote, then let me make it explicit: intelligence correlates or is associated with lots of things, race being one of them. It’s very, very confounded, especially when you introduce the biggest determiner of all: selective breeding. Yes, humans engage in selective breeding of themselves. Regardless of race, smart people tend, on average, to marry and reproduce with other smart people. And first world development (white people, and much of it violence based to get the balls rolling and we benefit from that—just a fact, not advocating doing anything about it retroactively) with its opportunities and complex challenges is a perfect breeding ground for intelligence, and whites and Asian appear to have the jump on that. In addition, some cultures, such as some Asians engage in arranged breeding, so there’s another bugaboo.

    I’m completely against affirmative action in any form, but I do advocate the idea that spirit, determination, balls, temerity and hard work can often trump raw intelligence any day of the week and I so often see these qualities in the unwashed masses looking for a shot for themselves and future generations, just like the unwashed of Europe got some generations ago.

    “What is the mental deficiency causing people to think that any policy implications at all follow?”

    Ha, that ties into a follow on post I’m going to have to do on all of this. It might surprise people, but I don’t think racism is all that big of a deal in the West, anymore (and it could be argued the pendulum has swung to far in the other direction). Racism exists on a spectrum from supremacist exterminators to separatists, to plain ignorant bigots to those just simply more comfortable being around “their own kind.”

    There is really no particular harm to an ignorant belief not acted upon and nobody has a right to a piece of your life no matter the skin color.

    But yea, when you cross the line into forming public policy on the basis of associations and correlations that do not necessarily pertain to a single individual, then you run into problems.

    Or, guess what? If you smoke your whole life the vast chances are that you will NOT die of anything clearly linked to your smoking. Similarly, most people of below average intelligence manage to live a reasonably happy human life and produce values for others all along the way.

  49. Jscott on May 23, 2013 at 19:32

    “…And furthermore, I haven’t read Richwine’s dissertation, nor do I plan to, so I don’t know if he offered any tentative explanations for his findings. What I hope I HAVE proved is that you can research any topic, any topic at all, and discover truths, even if they are uncomfortable, without necessarily being racist (or any other –ism you want to throw in).”

    That would be best edited out.

    No fucks can be given.

  50. Richard Nikoley on May 23, 2013 at 19:32

    “Your rhetorical argument against race-iq differences are that hey do you think there are IQ differences between men and women? Non-sequitur galore!”

    No, it follows directly from the logic. Race, like gender, is about genes within the species human. There are dumb chicks and smart chicks, dumb blacks and smart blacks, dumb whites and smart whites—and some whites even have larger penises than the top percentiles of blacks.

    The crux of this whole matter is that humans are individuals and just like the presumption of innocence in jurisprudence, individuals ought to be presumed competent to lead a normal, happy, contributive social life until deeds prove otherwise.

  51. Richard Nikoley on May 23, 2013 at 19:42

    Elenor:

    Until you can figure out who actually wrote the post and address that person with your—as usual—carpet bombing like comments, I’m gonna pass. We already know you’re kinda racist/fascist as you’ve made clear, as I recall. Perhaps you, White Mary and Earl can go start a blog or something.

    Ciao.

  52. Richard Nikoley on May 23, 2013 at 19:51

    “So you are, or are not acknowledging “the fact” of genetic, racial differences?”

    Uh, seems quite obvious when not a case of identical twins.

    But, I am still waiting to see how skin color or—whoa, bone structure and kinky hair—CAUSES low intelligence.

    Because if not, then as interesting as racial correlation with intelligence might be to some, it simply does not necessarily apply to any individual, whether they’re trying to emigrate to a better life or not.

    Incidentally, how does one determine or predict on an IQ test—perhaps quantify some “value to society”—of the “dumb” brown or black skin willing to risk it all for a potential new life and a better future for his/her offspring, vs the “smart” one who plays it safe and stays put?

  53. Richard Nikoley on May 23, 2013 at 19:57

    “And you know what else is funny? Our “betters” like Richard here think nothing of welcoming MILLIONS of Latin American backward peasants but would shit themselves if this nation were being flooded by more Nascar loving, bible thumping evangelicals.”

    That’s easy. Ignorance and stupidity are totally equally opportunity pastimes. Tell you one thing, though. Having grown up with the fundie Baptists, I’ll take most Hispanic Catholics I’ve met (including all my in-laws) any day on that score. They are way more cool about their silly beliefs in my now significant experience.

  54. Dainon on May 23, 2013 at 20:13

    “But, I am still waiting to see how skin color or—whoa, bone structure and kinky hair—CAUSES low intelligence.”

    Again, nobody has argued this point. Certainly not Richwine; you haven’t read his dissertation, and I don’t think JB actually read even the author’s summary of the PhD dissertation, either.

    In his dissertation, he doesn’t suggest “don’t let in dark people”; he suggests using IQ testing as a screening factor for whom to let in. What he is arguing against is the current quota system, which actually is very much crap you CLAIM to be against (again, I suggest some bias based on your choice of mate for this blind spot). For an example of what Richwine wants to get rid of, the brother of one of my workers could not immigrate, in spite of having a journeyman job lined up , because the US has met it’s Polish “quota”; not trivial is that both daughters of my worker, first generation Americans, graduated from Ivy League schools on merit scholarships, one also from a Ivy League law school.

    Again, reading the actual work (even if just a little) you’re arguing against really helps not making non sequitor arguments.

  55. Richard Nikoley on May 23, 2013 at 20:18

    “Except when the “rule” is about distributions.”

    But I’m not, nor have I and I don’t believe the guest poster, JB, is arguing that there are not racial associations (or socio-economic-staut associations or any of dozens of others). In a way, it’s ironic since part of her piece is about the trend to deny that race even exists (as though we’re talking about the species problem, or something). It’s not the point. The associations exist, as do others, and it’s the fact that it’s pretty easy to distinguish race as opposed to other things like how much money and privilege a person really has or was born into, what the health and education of his/her parents are, etc—or how far back old money has been ensuring that extended family “marry well,” so on, so forth.

    This is not necessarily apply to any particular individual short of deeds committed that tell you he is a danger to you or others.

    “Richwine is not claiming the melanin adaptation is causative of the IQ difference. Rather, the melanin is indicative of divergence of prior generational environment, with attendant differing evolution. Since you talk about arguing facts with facts, argue against his point, rather than the strawman that is “Richwine claims skin tone is linked to intelligence”

    Yes yes, I know this. This is JB’s line, but it does serve a purpose. In order to do beyond mere association (saturated fat, cholesterol, anyone?) and over to causation, then you have to hypothesize a cause and test it. So, gather up all the things that pertain to a race like skin color, bone facial structure, hair texture, dick size and show how those cause low (or high) intelligence within a statistical significance.

    If I’m not mistaken, that’s how it’s supposed to be done. Or, does that only apply to fat and lipoproteins?

  56. Richard Nikoley on May 23, 2013 at 20:34

    “So this capacity for development is equal rate for all people? I suppose rate of strength development (since everybody can grow stronger) “isn’t genetic”, either?”

    @Dainon: I instinctively assume that just about everything is different for every individual. However, that’s usually going to be washed out I think, given sufficient early and unique or novel stimuli. Consider a Hadza boy. He will grow up around only natural surroundings that are probably already “hardwired” (I generally hate that term but am making an exception for illustrative purposes) in all of us somewhere. Now, compare that to the kid who leans to ride a bike, a skateboard, roller blades, drive a car, play endless hours on video games, jerk off on the Internet like we’re doing, play various individual and team sports, maybe even fly an airplane, run a business, start a business, buy a home, and so on.

    What I essentially object to is that because of a person’s race, he/she “probably can’t manage all that.” Indeed, some won’t just like a lot of us smart whiteys can’t manage all that. As a pilot myself of three kinds of aircraft, that’s one area on the rather extreme end that i find most people simply cannot manage—for various reasons, simple fear, trepidation and an irrational obsession over playing everything safe being chief, and not raw ability: i.e., if their life depended upon it, almost everyone could.

  57. Richard Nikoley on May 23, 2013 at 20:45

    “Nope.”

    Yep. That’s the direction of the preponderance of comments. That a race association with intelligence is material. Look, I knew when I started this and where I was going to take it that people would lie their asses off and backtrack.

    Unless you can show that race causes people to be bad to others, then a whole lotta people wastin’ a whole lotta time.

    Because it doesn’t and because it doesn’t, there is never any justification for any prejudgment of any individual on that basis and if there is no basis of prejudgment—such as in public policy vis-a-vis immigration—then a whole lotta people wastin’ a whole lotta time. Bad deeds are fact to truth and that already (imperfectly) gets dealt with.

  58. Richard Nikoley on May 23, 2013 at 20:46

    “Again, nobody has argued this point.”

    Like I said. Everyone will lie, eventually.

  59. Richard Nikoley on May 23, 2013 at 21:01

    @Dainon

    As to the rest of that comment, I’m an anarchist. I don’t believe in either quotas or arbitrary borders. Humans ought to be free to roam the planet at will and strike any deals they can. But, that gets too far into my follow-up post so I’ll save it.

    I wholeheartedly accept voting on oone single condition:

    1. Only 100% unanimous votes result in anything (nobody is being forced).

    Given the vote, I’m in league with Heinlein.

    Irrelevant of age, race, gender, sexual orientation, religious persuasion et all…simply solve a polynomial equation to gain entry to the voting booth.

    I.e., I’m solidly elitist when it comes to institutionalized force, given that reality. Only smart people ought to have a say. The founders had the idea of male property owners. Offhand, I’d make it something like anyone who can demonstrate a business startup that grossed at least $1 million in a year. Ha, something like that.

    But I’ll get way deeper into it in the next post. Here’s the title for a clue:

    Like Democrats & Republicans, Pocketbook and Opportunity Racism are Two Sides of the Same Coin.

  60. Joshua on May 23, 2013 at 21:16

    As a libertarian, my position on this whole business is – who gives a fuck about the capabilities of groups of people? 99% of the time, I don’t interact with groups of people. I interact with individuals.

  61. Richard Nikoley on May 23, 2013 at 21:24

    “^^^^This. IQ tests are a load of old bollix.”

    Ha, well who-da guessed Nigel would be the first one to really get it.

    Everyone knows that IQ tests used to be heavily Western Civ biased, so now they have like patters and shapes & shit and whatever else.

    Well, how many Hadza have ever seen an equilateral triangle or whatever else? How about shapes of animals? How about shapes of tracks in different kinds of substrate. How about debris in the tracks and what it might mean?

    Make no mistake. They do math. Their growling stomachs depend upon it which is something almost no westerner has ever experienced in a whole lifetime.

    Ultimately, we’re really talking not about raw intelligence but cultivated intelligence and acquired skills to technological tasks. I fully embrace that. I just don’t think it says anything about any given individual.

  62. Richard Nikoley on May 23, 2013 at 21:41

    @Einherjar

    “If I understand you correctly, you’re arguing that these cannot or are not influenced by genes or that the influence of genes is negligible.”

    No. And no.

    Genes are everyone’s starting point. One only need observe the often vast differences among siblings to realize that attempting to extend that to entire races is just simply arbitrary. Hell, even amongst _identical_ twins it’s like a .85 statistical correlation in intelligence scores if they grew up together and .75 apart. This is like saying that you only have a 3/4 or so shot of being as intelligent one time as the next, because for all practical genetic purposes, you’re comparing yourself against your own self standard.

    My point is what’s the point in all this beyond curiosity?

    As I’ve already alluded to in comments, even if it is ultimately genetic as dominant factor, human selective breeding trumps that and so for for races more highly associated with below median intelligence, it’s as always a matter of basic education—not to fix brains, but to give them a basic education such that they choose better in marriage and reproduction.

    So just so I’m clear, what I’m arguing against, fundamentally, is the notion that individuals of a certain race are fucked. They are not, nor should they be. I’m not for affirmative action as I’ve said, but it would be really cool if people could see people as people, recognize we’re all different in many ways and you know what? I’d probably rather spend time with the cool Hispanic guy who so expertly trimmed my trees and climbed them like a monkey with a chainsaw that a 160IQ coke bottle glasses guy rocket scientist.

    A human is an integrated being and so that’s another point. What _really_ constitutes _intelligence_?

  63. Richard Nikoley on May 23, 2013 at 22:02

    “which actually implies we benefit from our inequalities.”

    @August

    Shit. Now you’ve gone an ruined everything. Obviously, homogenous humans are far easier to keep in the CHFO, fat, dumb and happy. …Wich raises another curiosity. How about correlate obesity with IQ score intelligence.

  64. Richard Nikoley on May 23, 2013 at 22:29

    @Sean

    “To even notice the fact that so many top sprinters happen to be of West African origin is a gross injustice?”

    Yea, let’s compare a 10 SECOND contest to a life of living a life and call it “scientific dialog” for shits & giggles. Pour me two scotch and I’ll just go ahead and giggle too.

    “Yes, yes, in the realm of cultural marxism, all cultures are equal”

    From May of 2005, 8 years ago, on this blog (I’m an admitted “Culturist”):

    https://freetheanimal.com/2005/05/culturism.html

    “To make any sort of distinction is RACIST”

    To a-priori prejudge individuals based upon average racial associations is racist. Bad deeds are committed by all races and that ought be the exclusive standard of judgment of any individual without exception (this was clearly implicit in the quote you replied to so I have to call intellectual dishonesty on that, which charge I believe you’re familiar with).

    “It’s okay to make racist distinctions as they aren’t racist.”

    More of the same. It’s OK to make all sorts of distinctions. The most profound ones are amongst siblings. Actually, my in-laws do this all the time as there are so many nieces and nephews milling about (90% “beaner” college graduates. now—including the niece who was honors at Stanford in biology, and just last week, a top engineering school for Jason, the math wiz—he was like 4 when I met him). But Bea, her siblings often sit around and talk about the distinctiveness of each of those kids.

    I think that’s quite healthy, actually.

    And more intellectual dishonestly, since my whole obvious thrust in this guest post is that racial associations are BS and it’s always individuals and their deeds that count.

    “non sequitors.” (sic)

    Oops.

    “And doubly ironic for being used as another distraction or non sequitur.”

    Uh, duh? So when you use it QUOTING me (I never do that because it’s redundant, a quote…so it’s always used as a cheap and transparent superiority ploy), “it follows?”

    “are you or JB, going to make a serious effort to refute the points I and others have made?”

    As soon as I’m aware of one that actually contemplates the essence of her post.

    Youbetcha!

  65. Richard Nikoley on May 23, 2013 at 22:44

    OK, I think that takes care of all pending comments. Tried to reply to most. I got slammed early today and couldn’t get to it.

    Here’s a slice of individuality before I go turn on the TV for a while.

    My “beaner” father in law just turned 85. Retired air traffic controller. Former Air Force for a few years. His dad was a true “wet back,” crossed the Rio Grande. He married Lucia, an hispanic woman who has only cared about her six kids and multitudes of grandkids and great grandkids—and in her 80s as well, pretty much cooks a pot of beans most days.

    Sam’s son Steve has the most dark complexion of all the six kids. He recently retired as an air traffic controller as well, and from the creme job: trans-oceanic control. Now he consults with contractors to design the new generation of control systems….WATCH OUT! He has very dark skin.

    He married a Philippina with dark skin and had two boys. His oldest just flew through his ATC training in OK city and so it’s three generations now of dark skin Hispanic ATCs pushing your tin.

    WATCH OUT!

  66. Jscott on May 23, 2013 at 22:52

    Richard.

    Your post did not communicate well here. You used some one to springboard to something else and it failed. Both Greg and Sean asked you for something different.

    What is the issue?

  67. marie on May 23, 2013 at 22:57

    Richard, I just noticed this post. Fantastic – everything you say (though I can’t stand JB and usually disagree, but I recognize it’s mostly her writing/attitude that grates).

    I have to agree on everything you’ve written in your post and your comments/replies – I’m amazed! 😉
    Nigel sums it best.

    Your example with the Hadza and rectilinear shapes is perfect and if anyone doesn’t get the inherent bias in any ‘aptitude’ test after that, they just are not trying.

    Since I was 5 and until I graduated with my last graduate degree, I took dozens of “IQ tests” and was studied by the Canadian psychological society chapter in Quebec. Once an adult, I was a tester for modifications on a bevy of tests that make-up what is still popularly known as the IQ test. The reason I bring this up is because the emphasis was on finding bias, but here’s the kicker, it was Not cultural bias that we looked for Because that was even then considered Inevitable. There’s a heck of a lot of research on that, then and up to now (the bias on which I had to feedback was in test delivery, the way you ask the questions can make it harder or easier to do, especially the auditory portion).

    A big problem for any ‘hardwire’ argument btw is posed by immigrants, specifically, somewhere between second and third generation the ‘race’ difference of some immigrant populations vanishes even in the average (for that generation).

    The reason the Harvard guy got his thesis accepted is exactly because he did Not try to claim a genetic aka inheritable aka ‘hardwired’ difference, but managed to convincingly link test performance to race as far as race can commonly be determined.

    So yeah, to then try to use that in immigration policy is dishonest, for many reasons, any single one of these reasons being enough to knock out the idea of ‘IQ’ testing in immigration, so for example, anything from the problem of averages and the individual variability that you bring up all the way to the case where some race may be monolithically ‘dumb’ per our tests, in which case it would matter Why they performed badly on them since that would say whether or not it’s a Changeable performance, especially for the kids. Anyway, since when does an immigrant country need only rocket scientists, or even only ‘average’ cashiers/tellers?

    Humans as integrated beings, yes, exactly.

    Oh but wait, the anti-imigrant camp would then want to have tests for ‘hard-working’, ‘persevering’, ‘creative’, ‘artistic’, ‘strong’, ‘enduring’, ’emotionally stable’, and… yah, while we’re at it, let’s breed like-to-like, slot them in occupations for life and sterilize the underperforming….oh, wait someone wrote that book already.

  68. Richard Nikoley on May 23, 2013 at 23:02

    “Your post did not communicate well here”

    So says you and you can’t imagine what a little fuck I give about that.

    I love the post, proud of it. And JB is cool, including that post explicitly. I know and understnd the essence of it.

    How about you start a blog there yourself, JS and actually demonstrate something real, if you can.

  69. Richard Nikoley on May 23, 2013 at 23:07

    @marie

    Well, I’m a bit humbled here because I gamble and wing shit and here comes the only single person with actual experience in the field.

    Lafs.

    Now I owe you a call for quotidian exchanges of pleasantries, cheri.

  70. marie on May 23, 2013 at 23:12

    Ha, just saw Jscott’s comment, we must have been writing at around the same time – he does have a point, there’s a lot of nuance in the arguments so a little more attention to the delivery might have helped avoid some problems.
    I had to read twice some parts – but it’s interesting, so you’re forgiven! – et voila, we need a ‘generosity’ test too, no? and ‘altruist/social’ and ‘aggressive’ – must balance those immigrants carefully ya know. Why, if we have too many aggressive they, they… might seed start-ups in silicon valley! oops, that’s been done by an asian sub-pop, gosh darn it it’s covered by the IQ test ! 🙂

  71. marie on May 23, 2013 at 23:17

    PS>Mais oui, I always enjoy those bi-lingual calls (and Sean would understand why ;))

  72. Jscott on May 23, 2013 at 23:38

    Ok.

  73. Jscott on May 24, 2013 at 00:22

    Did once. Will again. You pushed.

  74. Dan James on May 24, 2013 at 00:26

    Yeah. Race is more than just melatonin. There are a host of other biological changes that shift alongside that skin color. Intelligence is likely one of them, and it’s something like 85% hereditary.

    It’s absolutely absurd to me that people will recognize and openly discuss the IQs of different breeds of dogs, but it’s completely taboo for different groups of people.

    But, it’s all been said in these comments already. Richard, maybe your fiery temper has to do with your Hispanic heritage? Same could be said for Irish tempers, Germanic seriousness, etc.

  75. SteamboatOperator on May 24, 2013 at 03:00

    It’s a wash. Too many exceptions the rule and far too many variables to conclude the rule valid.

    And then of course there’s the I.Q. tests themselves. Are they legitimate? If so, why? Says who? GTFO.

  76. FrankG on May 24, 2013 at 03:15

    All humans are the same species — in the sense that any of us can breed with any others (of the opposite sex) and potentially produce viable offspring which can be in their turn, fertile. The same cannot be said of all dog “breeds”, for example.

    All humans are very closely genetically the same — I recall reading that there is more genetic diversity in a single colony of penguins in the Antarctic than the entire human population, all 6+ billion of us!

    Clearly there is adapted variation but only over a few hundred generations — we live relatively long lives and don’t mature sexually until relatively late; as compared to most other animals.

    Of course physical adaptations (in large part due to the geographic distribution of our relatively recent ancestors) which may be observed externally as skin colour, eye shape etc… COULD also be reflected in the physical makeup of the brain BUT this does not necessarily follow, nor am I aware that it has been convincingly demonstrated… one way or the other.

    There is a wide spectrum of both physical and cultural human variety around the World, which in many cases is becoming even more nuanced as the World “shrinks” and we are mixing more freely.

    I dislike the term “race” as it has strong divisive overtones — much like religion it has been used as a tool to separate “us” from “them”, which I do not think serves the long-term future of the human race. I think it is time we “grow up”, accept and even value our differences but not use them as a barrier to keep us apart.

    The lines are becoming blurred and although there may be individuals who can clearly be labeled as one “race” or another, there are probably as many others who will not easily fall into any single category. I recall an example from Brazil of twin brothers applying for a college scholarship, with the decision to be based on their “ethnicity” — one was accepted, while the other was denied.

    But my biggest beef with this comparison is the use of the IQ tests — they are a flawed measure if used to gauge and compare the general intelligence of every human on this planet. My first question is how do you define “intelligence”? Until you can answer that I defy you to come up with a single test for it that can be applied to every individual. For example: does my being good at written tests make me smarter than someone who is illiterate but can strip an engine and rebuild it with basic tools, or survive in a jungle with just their bare hand while making use of the natural resources to be found there?

    When I was training as a psychiatric nurse (RMN in the UK) one of my instructors made an obvious but overlooked point: before you can label someone as being “abnormal”, first you need to define what is a “normal” person… do you know any?

  77. tt on May 24, 2013 at 04:23

    Why not just give ALL potential immigrants an IQ test? Those with the best scores get in. If it’s the case that mainly Asians get in mostly at the expense of Hispanics and Blacks, then who cares? I don’t. It’s probably better value for everyone involved to import a smart and willing immigrant than to try and train a not so smart and unwilling local.

    What would be a good idea would be if American citizens could sell their citizenship status to an immigrant (ie: renounce their American citizenship in exchange for a fee paid by a new immigrant). All those Americans dreaming of moving south of the border could fund their retirement by selling their place in the good old USA to some young, smart, cashed up immigrant. If the immigrant has no cash, but plenty of potential, then I’m sure he/she could easily get a loan to buy the required citizenship status.

  78. Rambo Thompson on May 24, 2013 at 04:51

    Okay, they’re dumber because they don’t eat well, but then how come African blacks and Central/South-American latinos aren’t able to produce adequate nutrition for themselves? Chicken, meet egg.

  79. Richard Nikoley on May 24, 2013 at 06:40

    @marie & Jscott

    Ok, perhaps, but it’s weird. I grokked her whole post down to the nano element the first time I read it and my immediate assumption, especially with those commenting within a few mintes of posting was that they either didn’t read the whole thing, skimmed over it, or didn’t comprehend it. That happens with long post, time constraints, etc. I’ve don’t it myself at time, figuring I had sufficient bead on something to weigh in with a comment.

    I dunno, perhaps it just that having lived abroad and travelled abroad including living in the most overtly racist country in my experience (Japan, where even 3rd generation Japanese born Koreans aren’t citizens…and many other things), having a Hispanic wife & in-laws, the issues are something I’ve chewed on ever angle for a very long time now.

    Of course, that doesn’t explain why genius Marie didn’t get it right off, but that’s the best I can do. 🙂

  80. Richard Nikoley on May 24, 2013 at 07:30

    @FrankG

    Spot on comment.

    Anecdote. My brother used to do estimating for a very large painting contractor in the Bay Area who owned a network of businesses, including his own separate companies that owned all trucks, machinery, tools, etc.

    He was in his 60s, modest beginnings, had never learned to read. Always had an assistant with him to read stuff for him.

    He would not even be able to take an IQ test unless administered verbally and even that would be fraught with bias because it would have to eliminate a lot that people naturally acquire as a consequence of learning the SKILL of interpreting a specific set of symbols laid out.

  81. Richard Nikoley on May 24, 2013 at 07:44

    “Why not just give ALL potential immigrants an IQ test?”

    See Marie’s comment. Frank G’s too, right up dere ^.

    It’s biased, that’s why. It’s a set of tests to determine how deftly a person can be a cog in our machine.

    I like individuals of huge variety and experience and capabilities, including those of talent we haven’t even contemplated…not cogs in machines.

    Having lived and travelled all over Asia, one thing that always strikes me is that beyond the degree of individuality everyone possesses, there’s definitely a sense that individuality is repressed and you have a definite—at least to me—flavor of ant hill or bee hive emulation.

    Don’t get me wrong though. I generally think Asians are great and they obviously possess great skills in many tech oriented fields and they’re cool to have around, even the geeky ones. But it’s not all I want to have around. Some days I just like walking my dogs and striking up conversations with the Mexicans doing any number of things, from replacing gas lines going into a house yesterday to blowing leaves (they always shut down when I get close) to trimming trees to doing construction additions on a house.

    Nope, probably none of them can code in C++.

  82. Richard Nikoley on May 24, 2013 at 07:51

    …Or, how about “Jonhathan,” the Mexican who works in the Vegas office of the firm that handles booking arrangements for my vacation rental in Cabo that I just blogged about?

    For a couple of months I’ve been frustrated by the general inability of all the whiteys to get me what I need in making arrangements for guests. Not Jonhathan. Somehow, I almost always get a direct call from him. “Mr. Richard, I got it for you.” Over and over. He’ll even call the resort directly if he sees there’s nothing available in the owner inventory but there is in the hotel inventory.

    Yea, it’s obvious and I’m sure the whiteys could do that too. But the point is, not one of them ever has.

  83. Richard Nikoley on May 24, 2013 at 07:56

    “Richard, maybe your fiery temper has to do with your Hispanic heritage?”

    @Dan James. Well, I hate to crash your party over how to reconcile my comments but I’m as Northern Euro Mut as they come. Dad is a German immigrant, and mom’s side is like Danish and Welsh and other silly shit.

  84. Nigel Kinbrum on May 24, 2013 at 07:57

    Richard Nikoley said…
    ““^^^^This. IQ tests are a load of old bollix.”

    Ha, well who-da guessed Nigel would be the first one to really get it.”
    You’ve never see this Nigel before.
    I’ve restored my brain to a point ~July 2007.

  85. Jscott on May 24, 2013 at 08:02

    @richard

    For a curmudgeon you sure soften up with the quickness!

    I agree with where you went. Maybe I like a scenic view or maybe I was being pedantic. It happens.

    This, was gold, “Of course, that doesn’t explain why genius Marie didn’t get it right off, but that’s the best I can do. ”

  86. Richard Nikoley on May 24, 2013 at 08:04

    “This, was gold, “Of course, that doesn’t explain why genius Marie didn’t get it right off, but that’s the best I can do. ””

    Ha, especially in the context of the discussion, eh?

    As to softening up, Marie simply has that effect on me.

  87. Richard Nikoley on May 24, 2013 at 08:22

    “Okay, they’re dumber because they don’t eat well, but then how come African blacks and Central/South-American latinos aren’t able to produce adequate nutrition for themselves? Chicken, meet egg.”

    @Rambo. Again, you make the same error, implied. Who is “they?” Do you realize that there are at least hundreds of thousands and potentially millions or billions of African blacks and Central/South American latinos who are smarter than you generally, and some smarter than you on your very best day and in a discipline of YOUR choosing?

    I wonder how you or anyone would account for that.

    Here in San Jose we now have Mexican supermarkets cropping up in various places. Do you know why? It’s just like Ranch 99, the Asian supermarket that’s been around for a while. It’s because Safeway is crap and these places beat Whole Foods hands down, both in terms of massive variety and quality. Their fish and meat counters are a wonder. And for fish, both have an array of aquariums with live fish swimming in them. Doesn’t come fresher than that unless you do it yourself.

    Malnutrition for anyone can have a variety of causes, but chief:

    1. Crap for parents.
    2. Crap for a government (the cleptocracies of Africa, the socialism of Central/South America)

  88. Nigel Kinbrum on May 24, 2013 at 09:24

    “Intelligence” is relevant to one’s environment. When humans migrate, they move away from their natural environment.

    This causes other problems e.g. black people migrating away from the equator, resulting in lower serum 25(OH)D, resulting in higher RR for diabetes, cancer, CHD etc, or white people migrating nearer to the equator, resulting in a higher RR for skin cancers.

  89. Nigel Kinbrum on May 24, 2013 at 09:30

    marie said…
    “Nigel sums it best.”
    Mercy buckets!

  90. Richard Nikoley on May 24, 2013 at 09:54

    “I’ve restored my brain to a point ~July 2007.”

    Let me guess. A 14-yr old “dumb” Indian immigrant girl kicked your ass in karaoke.

    …Seriously, I suspect that the end of a tragic but inevitable stage of life passing on, so that you can focus more solidly on your own, might have something to do with that.

  91. josef on May 24, 2013 at 10:14

    I have a friend who is a member of MENSA, a high IQ society.

    You would expect a MENSA member to be a doctor, rocket scientist, chemist etc. Not at all.

    My friend is a claims adjuster and he tells me that at his chapter there are non professional members such as painters, mechanics, etc.

    The point I’m trying to make is that a high IQ does not guarantee success in life. There are other factors, such as persistence and single mindedness that can overcome a lower IQ. A high IQ, does not guarantee anything.

    By the way Richard, you ain’t no WASP, you are one of us, a Slav.

  92. michael on May 24, 2013 at 10:20

    This is hilarious. I’ve been to this site twice. Reading this article, I was inclined to point out that all the factors left out by the author that contribute to intelligence, you know, like education, and access to it. After seeing all the other irrelevant pro-capitalism nonsense that’s written on other parts of the site, I’m not surprised to see the viewers and commenters’ opinions are even further extreme right-wing compared to the author’s, and I laugh at how desperate they are to prove differences in races are inferior. To everyone that’s insisting people focus on this ‘unwelcomed truth’ of IQ difference- You’re all a small step above slavery apologists. Please invent yourselves a time machine and fall the fuck back into history where you can put down your nigger.

    • Richard Nikoley on May 24, 2013 at 10:38

      Michael:

      Well, thanks for at least giving us the very other extreme position.

  93. Richard Nikoley on May 24, 2013 at 10:35

    “By the way Richard, you ain’t no WASP, you are one of us, a Slav.”

    I keep hearing tidbits that Slovenia is the new Land of the Free.

    Please enlighten. I’m glad and happy to dump the commies any time.

  94. Nigel Kinbrum on May 24, 2013 at 11:16

    Richard Nikoley said…
    ““I’ve restored my brain to a point ~July 2007.”
    …Seriously, I suspect that the end of a tragic but inevitable stage of life passing on, so that you can focus more solidly on your own, might have something to do with that.”
    Got it in one. 🙂

  95. Richard Nikoley on May 24, 2013 at 11:23

    “Got it in one. :)”

    And it’s only because we care, Nigel.

    http://youtu.be/aH3x1PSYcm8

  96. marie on May 24, 2013 at 15:11

    JScott,
    word-smith gold-digger, or gold-smith word-digger? 😀

    Richard,
    aww, but you know what I think of that kind of softness – in context, mon gros malin! 😉 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h67k9eEw9AY

    Nigel,
    merde, Evidently [eye-roll] your pre-2007 organic OS has poor ‘French’ expression.
    Tiens, to help with learning French 😀 😀 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1sQkEfAdfY

  97. MC on May 24, 2013 at 18:00

    Nutrition, sunlight, environment and the challenges of that environment, how you’re raised(good loving relationships vs. violent or absent relationships). Then also factor in all of the above for your parents, and your grand parents.

    Maybe if you control for all that, you can have a study that ACTUALLY shows a difference in race IQ. Otherwise you’re probably just looking at environmental and nutritional differences.

  98. onehundredthcomment on May 24, 2013 at 19:23

    Comment 100. Ah, that feels so good. I love round numbers.

  99. Richard Nikoley on May 24, 2013 at 21:43

    Merci, Marie. Ma grand-mère m’a appelé The Smart Ass. Elle me manque.

    Thanks.

  100. marie on May 24, 2013 at 22:49

    De rien, il me fait plaisir. 🙂

  101. Sean on May 25, 2013 at 04:55

    Yea, let’s compare a 10 SECOND contest to a life of living a life and call it “scientific dialog” for shits & giggles. Pour me two scotch and I’ll just go ahead and giggle too.

    Because that was exactly my point.

    And more intellectual dishonestly, since my whole obvious thrust in this guest post is that racial associations are BS and it’s always individuals and their deeds that count.

    Yep, I’m the intellectually dishonest one.

  102. Liam on May 25, 2013 at 05:31

    Just thought i’d drop this bomb here, all 4 parts is a must.

  103. Liam on May 25, 2013 at 05:55

    You lot may be looking at all this from the wrong angle, check this out, part 1-4, very interesting stuff.

  104. MC on May 25, 2013 at 13:06

    @Michael

    When’s the last time we had free market capitalism in our education system?

  105. Carl on May 25, 2013 at 20:25

    It seems particularly odd to be talking about racial differences between Hispanics and whites.

    According to Wikipedia: Hispanic (Spanish: hispano, hispánico; Portuguese: hispânico, hispano, Catalan: hispà, hispànic)[1][2] is an ethnonym that denotes a relationship to Spain or, in some definitions, to ancient Hispania, which comprised the Iberian Peninsula including the modern states of Andorra, Portugal, and Spain and the British Crown Dependency of Gibraltar, and Morocco (Hispania Ulterior Tingitana).

    So Hispanics are basically descended from white Europeans. And clearly the descendants of white Europeans who settled in Mexico are inferior to the descendants of white Europeans who settled elsewhere. Or not….

  106. Rambo Thompson on May 26, 2013 at 02:35

    Richard,

    I don’t make the same error, implied. A generalization is a generalization, yes, but it’s still a fact. It doesn’t deny overlap, but it also doesn’t deny the overarching, observable truth. If you’re going to agree with me that Latin Americans and Africans are generally less nourished – because that’s what the evidence shows – then why aren’t you going to agree with me that they generally have lower IQs? Why aren’t you going to “remind me” that there are people in those places who are better nourished than Europeans and Americans?

    As for your point that “traditional” Latin American food is more nutritious that over-processed than the over-processed crap than Americans eat: so what? You’re absolutely right, but it doesn’t matter how much “free range, fresh, organic, etc, etc” food you’re eating if you’re not getting enough of it, or if you’re only getting a few things but not all of the things that you need (vitamins, minerals, etc).

    And finally, why do Latin Americans and Africans have crappy parents and screwed up governments (and therefore malnutrition)? I don’t know. Lower IQs, maybe? Again, chicken… egg.

  107. Sean on May 26, 2013 at 09:29

    BTW, I generally agree with JB and think she’s a great up and coming blogger.

  108. JudgyBitch on May 26, 2013 at 16:17

    If everybody is wrong, then JB is wrong. Therefore a paradox has been created. * <- me disappearing into a singularity.

    Hahahah! I love this!!

    I guess I have a ways to go in terms of writing coherently, because it seems like Richard was one of the only readers to get my point.

    I wasn't arguing that nutrition ALONE explains differences in IQ, or even that nutrition explains ANY differences in IQ between races.

    I was arguing that any subject can be the topic of inquiry without axiomatically falling into some kind of ideological "-ism". The reluctance to confront evidence that we don't like from an ideological standpoint crops up all over the place. High IQ is a great example. Men outnumber women somewhere between 6:1 – 8:1.

    That means that the average person of high IQ is dramatically more likely to be a man than a woman. It doesn't mean any given man is automatically smarter than any given woman. It's just an average.

    I'm fine with Richwine conducting his research, and fine with his results. What I was criticizing was his attempt to use those results to deny opportunities to individuals based on an average performance correlated with the amount of melanin in a group of individuals.

    Bag of hammers stupid. I stand by that assertion.

  109. BillP on May 26, 2013 at 21:30

    “It’s absolutely absurd to me that people will recognize and openly discuss the IQs of different breeds of dogs”

    Hey, I always thought that my dog was pretty smart, but his breed (Welsh terrier) was always ranked low on the dog-intelligence scales. Turns out that those scales are based on HOW TRACTABLE THE BREED IS IN TERMS OF BEING TRAINED TO ACCOMPLISH HUMAN-DESIGNED TASKS.

    IQ tests = bullshit, indeed.

    Terriers have their own agendas; ask any owner of one (lol).

  110. Maria on May 27, 2013 at 00:53

    Sean, you make some valid points regarding sprinters being from West Africa. However, I’d highly recommend you read ‘Bounce’ which helps dispell the talent myth. It all comes down to environmental factors, not genetical differences.

  111. Ulfric Douglas on May 27, 2013 at 12:56

    “…which helps dispell the talent myth.”
    No myth. Talent increases the value of practice and significantly raises the baseline which practice might then improve to excellence … or might not, for the untalented. Talent exists, as do physical advantages due to RACE and other factors.

  112. eurostar on May 28, 2013 at 06:58

    the author of this post is incredibly uneducated.

  113. Richard Nikoley on May 28, 2013 at 07:52

    “the author of this post is incredibly uneducated.”

    Said someone apparently unfamiliar with the the logical fallacy of appeals to authority. In actual fact, the author has both a bachelors and masters, and has been accepted to a PhD program. Accordingly, you can’t even seem to get facts straight and this information was included in the post, so in educated fashion, you are commenting from ignorance.

    Of course, education has absolutely nothing to do with the post, as the post uses English words woven together into sentences and paragraphs that stand independent of any academic degree.

    Let me guess, you’re very educated, right? Thanks for showing us what that often means.

    And guess what my educated “eurostar,” wanna guess what the education is of the person who wrote this comment to the post?

    https://freetheanimal.com/2013/05/judgment-passed-everybody-is-wrong-about-iq.html#comment-523643

  114. Joseph Fetz on May 29, 2013 at 02:38

    I don’t get why it is, but it seems to me that the great preponderance of academic research and theory aims at the denial of the individual in favor of collectivist notions of reality. They always focus on averages between one group vs the other, aggregating based upon this methodology, never taking into account that singular outliers exist in all of their calculations, such that at root it disproves what they are trying to establish. You see this in all academic disciplines ranging from economics, to history, to psychology, to nutrition, etc; the attempt to create general blanket truths from extremely disparate data. In most cases they do so only to confirm their biases, this much is clear.

    On IQ, I don’t find it to be a positive analysis of actual intelligence because of the almost infinite variables at play. However, one of the most important variables is ‘values’ (i.e. what the psychological, cultural, and/or sociological community values as correct reasoning and cognitive function). In a hypothetical situation where the current standard of IQ testing still existed but the currently held values were erased and humanity had to start afresh without the implements that past societies have bestowed upon us, I can guarantee you that the entire distribution would change dramatically. No doubt a new IQ test would be devised and new geniuses would be identified based upon this new world and its values, one far different than we have today. So which system would correctly identify human intelligence? I say “neither”, because there is no objective measurement to be found.

  115. MsMcGillicuddy on May 29, 2013 at 16:09

    Preference for light skin as a form of paternity test? interesting. I guess I’ve always assumed that the reason differences attract is a biological imperative toward genetic diversity.

  116. Dainon on May 29, 2013 at 16:33

    If by “interesting” you mean “garbage”, like the rest of this article, I agree with you.

    A large part of the non-sense in this article comes from her likely not actually reading what the cited author/PhD wrote. Richwine wrote Hispanic IMMIGRANTS and their progeny showed persistently lower IQ compared to native whites. All this tells us, if it is actually true, is that the Hispanics who choose to come to America are less intelligent; it isn’t like the nation of Mexico disappeared, and the whole cross section of society got displaced into the USA.

    Skin tone is not a recessive-dominant allele issue. With as many genes and alleles, and ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS that contribute; a man gets far less information that suggested, unless he happens to be the only black man in a white population, or the opposite. This article seems to suggest that skin tone is like taking paints which match both parents and mixing them in a palette, which simply isn’t the case.

    Additionally, are fair skinned women “preferred”. Or, are non-standard women preferred, such as the darker skinned woman in a light skinned group, or a red head woman surrounded by brunettes? What if the man is light skinned? When I was with the US Army in Bosnia, I had to put up a “no Irish during work hours” sign at my HQ, because that nation’s contingent wouldn’t keep away from the two African born admin specialists I had assigned to me.

    How would this theory work with eye color???

  117. Ed on May 29, 2013 at 17:57

    I’m just a dumb Polack so pardon my ignorance, but I have a personal observation that perhaps someone can explain.

    As a youngster I was raised and educated in Paterson NJ. My classmates and I were all from the same neighborhood, had the same teachers and ate the same food.

    I can say without a doubt that if you examined the test scores of the students you would find they broke down pretty much along the lines Richwine’s thesis would predict. Why?

  118. Richard Nikoley on May 29, 2013 at 20:12

    Dainon.

    Answer Marie’s comment about her actual experience with IQ tests or STFU, garbage.

  119. Richard Nikoley on May 29, 2013 at 20:40

    “I can say without a doubt that if you examined the test scores”

    See Marie’s comment so you can feel ignorant, not necessarily dumb.

  120. marie on May 29, 2013 at 23:31

    Richard, I’m afraid I’ve given up hope for rational discussion on this topic.
    If the comments here are an indication of wider reactions, then it seems that most people are just reiterating their previously held ‘objections’ or beliefs on race, intelligence or both – to the point where some people are even presenting some points as objections to this post that are actually in agreement with it.

    Anyway, FWIW here’s my summary understanding from reading the post and comments of both you and the guest blogger (who I rarely otherwise agree with, but that shouldn’t matter!) . Clearly I agree with these points:

    1. There’s really no such thing as an ‘Intelligence Quotient’, largely because no one can coherently and self-consistently even define human intelligence, let alone quantify it.
    My add: Any aptitude tests used to comprise a current “IQ test” (such as the Mensa battery of tests, or the Stanford-Binet test once upon a time) are biased and in fact they cannot be otherwise! They are constrained to use language objects (words, concepts), space objects (shapes, dimensions) and numerical objects (numbers and symbols, infinity and 0…) that arose in the culture doing the testing and up to this point in time.

    2. If intelligence definition and quantification is “accepted as assumed” (that is, if you want to Cede that assumption to the doctoral thesis being discussed), even then the arguments that anyone can make about a Causative link between ‘race’ and ‘intelligence’ are nonsense.

    3. The primary reason any apparent causation between race and intelligence is nonsense is because describing race it is based on commonly accepted Physical characteristics as markers of race. That DOESN’T mean that “race doesn’t exist” , that’s ludicrous when everyone in the world agrees on these physical distinctions and can instantly recognize major ‘races’ visually (my add: barring ‘hispanic’ which is inconsistent visually – in the thesis that ‘racial’ distinction was narrowly limited).
    Pretending that their physical characteristics don’t mean that people usually are identified as members of “groups originating within certain loose geographic regions”, aka “races”, is ignoring reality.

    4. When anyone tries to to say that some Correlation between physical racial characteristics and a Personal Trait (eg. intelligence or character) is a Cause of that trait, now that is when ‘racism’ begins.
    Ignoring the problems brought up by any ‘racial’ correlations won’t make them go away.

    However, highlighting that there is NO scientific evidence of any link between any of these Physical characteristics and intelligence, such as for example, that there is no causative link between skin color and intelligence, is a great way to point out that logical fallacy of racism. The guest post did Exactly that, even showing that there can be other, clearly Non-genetic, factors that are closely correlated to intelligence and that also track with race – nutrition being one such factor. IS that an actual cause? Who knows! But not knowing is stupid. It risks missing the opportunity for corrective action for the performance being measured (‘IQ’ in this case). For example :
    personally, I think the cultural bias of the tests themselves accounts for all the differences between ‘races’, as well as ‘ethnic groups’, and that therefore at the population level, they are simply indications of the education level and degree of acculturation of the groups taking them, not indications of their ‘intelligence’ (which everyone assumes is hard-wired, unchangeable). Therefore an education intervention would be indicated.
    _And while we’re at it, well-fed kids do better in school….and therefore in any IQ test….coming round full circle to JBs nutrition example.

    5. Another great logical highlight, you made this one clear, is to note that even if there is an association between a physically described race and a mythically defined IQ, you’re still looking at some distribution with an average…. and there is still no logical way to attribute traits to an Individual based on a Group average.

    6. The idea of using intelligence testing in immigration policy is too stupid for words – both bloggers hammered that.

    Again, most arguments above always assume that you can define intelligence and that a test can even measure intelligence – which are fine assumptions to cede in this particular issue because so many people Do seem to accept them and therefore maybe just telling them that “there ain’t no such thing” as IQ would have about the same effect as telling someone else that they can’t see race 😉

  121. Dainon on May 29, 2013 at 23:49

    Richard,

    From the article you re-posted:

    “The research is making the news now because Richwine cited his own findings in an immigration bill he co-authored, urging policy makers to consider refusing Hispanic immigrants, because “even after several generations, [they] had lower IQs than non-Hispanic whites.”

    Then, JB’s follow-on opinion statement, in which she issues her thesis:

    “The idea that intelligence is linked to a biological mechanism to protect people from the harmful effects of too much sunshine is just stupid. Just point blank bag of hammers stupid.”

    If you’re paying attention, you’ll notice two important things. The first is JB’s statement does not follow, there is a lack of any suggestion by Richwine that Hispanics (as a racial/ethnic class) are of lower intelligence; the claim is the IQ of those who immigrate to America have a lower intelligence*. Marie herself, the gold standard of “right”, notes this. This alone is enough for this article to be garbage, as what JB is arguing against a construct of her own creation, and NOT Richwine. By posting this, you’re accepting an argument against a strawman.

    The second is the silly attempt you made to suggest the claim was melanin is the CAUSE of some believed lower intelligence (whether IQ actually does exist is not the concern, you logic for refutation, or lack of logic, is important); certainly this was not Richwine’s, Sean’s, Woo’s, nor my statement. This is a false equivalence of the highest order. Maybe JB is really a neo-con, and thus completely devoid of understanding of basic scientific principles. Maybe you just didn’t bother to read my statements before you called my garbage, I don’t know, but it wasn’t your best thinking.

    Follow this with Marie’s statement that differences in IQ and achievement given race (as can be defined) disappear within two to three generations…in CANADA. The problem is this doesn’t align with Richwine’s assertion of what happens in the UNITED STATES. Somebody who claims to truly care about truth, such as yourself, would investigate this issue further, rather than simply name call people who don’t agree with your preconceptions. If you, again, looked into what you were arguing against, you could have questioned Richwine’s methodology. But, you didn’t.

    The irony about this whole issue is that if you read just the summary of Richwine’s thesis, you would likely agree with him. His assertion is that potential immigrants should have their suitability determined based on some standard about THEMSELVES. He claims IQ is a decent measure, and he might have some overly optimistic expectations of what immigrants should be, but he accepts this is a moot point (something you haven’t distinguished). What he was against was granting immigration based on race/ethnicity, which is something you claim to be for (see: “I judge everybody on themselves).

    In other words, you stepped on your dick in essentially calling somebody (Richwine) stupid and bigoted without realizing that person was suggesting a similar result to what you claim you want; that people are judged by merit and not by inclusion in a group. Please read back through my comments and show where I’m wrong.

    *Richwine is only discussing people from an ethnic group who immigrate to America. He is NOT claiming some genetic determination. That said, it is funny that it’s accepted every other organ in the human body has some proclivity based partly on genetics (knowing genes aren’t destiny), except the brain. Also note that accepting there might be a difference is not call for treating people differently; any comparisons to Eugenics is simply an attempt to marginalize a disagreeing position.

  122. Ed on May 30, 2013 at 00:14

    Richard, I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear enough. When I said examine the test scores, I was referring to actual achievement tests based on the curriculum as taught to the entire class, not IQ test scores.

  123. marie on May 30, 2013 at 00:26

    About that ‘summary’…perhaps it works best if using the demonstrably superior Nigel-speak 🙂 :
    1. “IQ tests are a load of old bollix”!
    2. Causation between race and intelligence is a towering load of old bollix!
    3. Pretending you can’t see races is a fetid load of old bollix…and fekking useless if discussing racism.
    4. Causation between skin color and intelligence is a load of old bollix…. but so is denying that there is any Correlation between race and a certain type of performance that the mainstream culture chooses to measure.
    5. Whoever doesn’t ‘get’ that group averages can’t define individuals is spouting a load of bollix,
    and…..
    6. ‘Immigration policy’ is a load of very old bollix to begin with!

  124. Dainon on May 30, 2013 at 00:43

    Marie,

    1. Does this mean they don’t measure intelligence, or don’t predict outcomes with any reliability? One of the distinguishing characteristics of this thread is Richard arguing cross purposes (intelligence versus outcome).

    2.Agreed. See: “genes aren’t destiny”

    3. Was this an issue in discussion?

    4. “skin tone as causation”: the only people trying to claim this is in the debate are Richard and JB. Are there differences in performance other than what the main stream measures? If not, this might be useful information.

    5. so, is there any value in demographic information?

    6. When the nation of 300mm places quotas on immigrants from nations not bordering (or not bordering a bordering nation), it becomes an issue, whether bollocks or not.

  125. Richard Nikoley on June 1, 2013 at 03:38

    Dainon

    You might notice I have not mention that thesis or it’s author once in comments, because I don’t care about it. Irrevelent to every word I’ve written on this. Plus, I take JB’s post as using the controversy over it as springboard.

    So, I have no clue as to what you’re talking and going on and on about.

  126. […] weeks ago I put this up: Judgment Passed: Everybody is Wrong About I.Q. Pretty controversial post with a decent number of comments. What was kind of ironic, though, was […]

  127. […] Judgment Passed: Everybody is Wrong About I.Q. (JudgyBitch guest post – 128 comments) […]

  128. talking to the internets again on October 10, 2013 at 08:53

    “So what is the point of the denial? Why argue that race is a nebulous concept that can’t be easily defined when the truth is so clearly the opposite, most of the time?”

    It’s not “so clearly the opposite.”

    There are basically “two” race concepts, one biological, another sociological/practical. “Social” race is correlated also with biological variation, but that doesn’t make both synonyms yet. One could argue that the biological differences don’t satisfy the best criteria for biological race (instead, could be that biologically speaking, human races were only neanderthal, heidelbergensis, erectus, and sapiens, a spin-off of one of the latter two with possibly some miscegenation with the first; what we call present-day races are comparatively minor regional gradations of phenotype; if we were dog breeds, we would be more like german shepherds, “old german shepherds”, white german shepherds, belgian shepherds, and swiss shepherds (plus some “basset”-like german shepherd variants of old german shepherd), rather than all the other breeds), but that could be semi-pointless in the discussion when people are just speaking of social races, which is at least the “proximal” thing being dealt with most of the time. It still may be somewhat relevant as it would decrease the odds of a hard biologic-hereditarian perspective being true. If it were true, then one would expect much more inter-racial uniformity in space and time., and perhaps it wouldn’t be hard to find genetic commonalities on outliers in either direction.

    To make things a little bit more complicated, not only the social race is construed upon biological differences, but it may even help producing biological differences, as our biology isn’t just the product of our genes.

    In other words, perhaps more succinctly, this thing you identified as race, and that is commonly socially identified as race, albeit based on biological correlates, isn’t so biologically significant as it may be thought by many people when thinking of the word “race”. Perhaps one good example of why not is how mixed race people are lumped into one race or another, and won’t get to be at an intermediate position in social indicators, it will depend largely on an interaction of phenotype, SES, and cultural heritage. Some people that are classified by others and classify themselves as “black” may even not be identified as such on DNA tests. Even though it’s certainly exceptional, certainly makes clear that the social issues aren’t biological (or specifically biologically racial) so much in foundations, except for “looks”, but only in consequences.

    But I too find the “race doesn’t exist” line of argument sort of empty and annoying, even though I don’t even totally disagree. The problem is this “flexibility” of the term, and it’s veracity in the practical/social use, and obvious biological correlation. It ends up being somewhat like saying that alligators aren’t crocodiles, or that spiders and bees aren’t just “bugs” but quite distinct organisms, when these things are undeniable in social/practical lay taxonomy. It would perhaps be better to circumvent it or find a better way to phrase it.

  129. Richard Nikoley on October 10, 2013 at 10:14

    Thanks TTTIA

    Very nice. Basically, what you seem to be saying is that people hugely conflate race, culture, ethnicity.

  130. Chris on March 21, 2014 at 09:57

    I’m a little late to this discussion. I don’t have much to say that hasn’t already been said here. After exploring this topic for many years, I pretty much do lean toward the belief that there are genetically-based reasons for differences in IQ scores amongst races. Of course other factors likely contribute, but I do think genes play a strong factor that can’t be easily dismissed. I am black, by the way.

    I think the reason why people are so sensitive to this topic and why it’s suppressed is obvious. Because of the history behind it. An entire continent was enslaved and/or colonized. Countless millions died because of the doctrine of racial supremacy. Those that survived would continue to live under legal oppression. The belief in cognitive superiority of one race over another whether true or not has led to bloodshed of millions. I know that many get impatient with those who who stymie any discussion of race and IQ because you may be exploring this subject from an emotionally-disconnected scientific angle. However for those that have suffered from it, the memories are real and they do not want this can of worms opened again. Even IF racial equality were a farce from a scientific perspective, I can see why it was necessary to promote it just to give blacks even the most basic rights in society and stop the cruel oppression. You may think that unleashing the doctrine of racial supremacy once again is nothing more than telling the truth as Copernicus did in challenging doctrine of man’s place in the universe. But beware of the law of unintended consequences. I’m not sure that’s something our society is yet able to handle.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

YouTube1k
YouTube
Pinterest118k
Pinterest
fb-share-icon
40
45
Follow by Email8k
RSS780