Race only skin deep - S.J. STUDENTS DISCOVER GENETIC LINK

Mercury News ^ | Mon, Feb. 09, 2004 | Katherine Corcoran

[Dan Evans]

In Africa, the entire continent was colonized only in the 1800s. There was already a substantial population there.

There is already a substantial population here in America but that doesn't stop millions of people from coming here. I think people go to places because it is a better place to live than where they lived before. And one of the things that make a place is the kind of people who live there.

[Dan Evans]

Ah, the old nature versus nurture thing. Well, I believe in the nurture philosophy. Nature does play a role but nurture does determine what the person does and becomes.

That reminded me of study that was being talked about some years ago. It turns out that children of wealthy blacks tend to perform poorly compared to white students who come from families with average socioeconomic status. If it is caused by nurture you have to wonder what is being done wrong.

I think one of the most striking studies was Bouchard's study of identical twins which showed that nature has a very profound effect of personality:

Like the prior, smaller studies of monozygotic twins reared apart, about 70% of the variance in IQ was found to be associated with genetic variation. On multiple measures of personality and temperament, occupational and leisure-time interests, and social attitudes, monozygotic twins reared apart are about as similar as are monozygotic twins reared together. These findings extend and support those from numerous other twin, family, and adoption studies. It is a plausible hypothesis that genetic differences affect psychological differences largely indirectly, by influencing the effective environment of the developing child. This evidence for the strong heritability of most psychological traits, sensibly construed, does not detract from the value or importance of parenting, education

This study compares genetically identical people raised in different environments. Alternately, many parents have noticed very different personalities in non-identical siblings raised in the same environment.

Extreme environment differences can have a big effect on personality, however. I think there was an example of a pair of separated twins in Germany in the thirties. One joined the Hitler youth, the other became a Rabbi. I wonder if they ever met later in life.

But the point I have been trying to make is that the social environment is affected by personalities and vice versa, mating trends are affected by personalities and social environment and genetics affect personalities. All this positive feedback is what creates races and cultures.

[Dan Evans]

Would it matter to you whether IQ was linked to hair color? Shape of nose? Length of earlobe?

Yes it would matter if some attorney slapped you with a lawsuit because you were discriminating against people with wide noses. You will need to prove in court that you were only hiring people with high IQ.

[CobaltBlue]

For example, the average IQ of Scotland and Ireland is closer to the "Asian" number than the "white" number.

Coming from "thedugal" this is too priceless for words.

Well, there you have it, folks. Why some people are obsessed by group IQ.

[thedugal]

If you are going to call someone racist, at least have the balls to come out and say it. Not that it is any of your business, but my wife is of a different race. Not exactly common behavior for the aryan nation type. You are pathetic. Rather than raise a single scientific issue, you simply say, no reason to study this it doesn't mean anything. And then, when all else fails, you play the race card.

Race is considered when researching all sorts of physical and psychological fields. Diets, for example, often have a racial element in their study. You seem to be proud of your high IQ, yet you are incapable of discussing this subject intelligently.

The reason I pointed out the Scotland/Ireland factoid was because I saw that information in an article about a census taken in the UK which specifically listed, Northern Ireland and Scotland as having higher overall average. The entire point, (if you could use all of that massive IQ you purport to have) is that in all the articles I have ever read on this issue, some groups such as Anastasi Jews are singled out while other groups such as "white" and "Asian" are always lumped together. The idea being that while Anastasi Jews is a small sample (population-wise) "white" or more so, "Asian" is a huge non-descript sample. It would be more scientifically valuable if studies were done to narrow down these groups.

It could be found that simply changing your diet could boost your IQ by 5 points, wouldn't that be interesting! Of course, you see absolutely no reason to study this, since you are already Einstein's second coming. But for those who have learning disabilities, they might just like to have a drug or diet or who knows what to help them lead more normal lives.

Pardon me now, I have to go pay tribute the Fuhrer for inspiring me during this post!

[CobaltBlue]

"Anastasi Jews"? I think you meant Ashkenazi (European) Jews. Maybe conflated with Anasazi, a missing culture which was quite advanced, in what we now think of as Navajo territory.

No, with respect to your post, what amused me is that you call yourself "thedugal," which probably means that you're Celtic. So talking about Irish and Scots being smarter than other whites is rather self-serving.

It's just a little tacky to assert that your own ethic group is smarter than average. If you saw an Italian man arguing that Italians are smarter, or a Greek arguing that Greeks are smarter, maybe you'd see the humor.

Or maybe you don't see the humor in crowing that your own kind are the epitome of intelligence, especially based on group averages?

[thedugal]

"Anastasi Jews"? I think you meant Ashkenazi (European) Jews.

Yes, that's right. I have no idea where I got the word Anastasi from... very strange.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Freudian Slip?

[js1138]

This seems to be from the "Sprockets" school of art.

[Cronos]

This has effectively increased the average IQ, which has been measured. So, to put it bluntly, our average IQ is rising because people with lower IQ's are no longer outbreeding people with higher IQs.

I would disagree with that.  Higher IQ people in the US are just NOT breeding anymore, so our average IQ is dropping.  This is pretty apparent in school results. 

I agree with you that the terms 'whites' and 'Asians' are too vague.  I don't quite agree with you that IQ came before civilisation. 

Let's use your own example.  Scots and Irish have a higher IQ than Anglo-Saxons.  That, according to what I said, is because they had a more earlier highly developed civilisation.  The Celtic monks were THE source of civilisation in Europe from the 400s until William the Conquerer (or was it until Edward Longshanks, Hammer of the Scots?).  Ditto for a comparison between Japanese, Chinese, Indians and Phillipinos, Indonesians, Malays.

However, the Anglo-Saxons DID buck the trend.  In the 400s to 800s, these Germanics had a low level of civilisation compared to the Celts or Byzantium or Indian or Chinese or Persian civilisations.  But they embraced Christianity and Roman law and civilisation.  by 1066 they were already close to par with the Celts in Ireland in civilisational terms, by the time of the Renaissance they were ahead.  The English, French and other Germanic peoples were still barbaric in the 1600s compared to say the Ottoman, Mughal, Yuan, Japanese courts, but that changed in the next 200 years.

By 1750 these Germanics had had civilisation, Roman civilisation for nearly a millenium.  and that's when they really burst out intellectually.  The Industrial revolution was the Germanics peak time.

This I would take as proof that civilisation encourages intelligence and prizes it.  Or well, good civilisation does.  When a civilisation prizes only violence and warriors then it remains at that level.  That's what happened to the Zulus and why they never progressed very far and that's what's happening toIslamic civilisation now.  If we're not careful that may happen to us.  I see the symptoms in the media's popular television serials where the butt of all jokes is the smart kid, where to be smart is not 'cool'.  Asamatterofact, it's already happened to the black community.  Until the 70s they prized education as a way to get ahead in the white man's world.  But since then, the serials have depicted intelligence as being uncool. unblack.  Example: the Fresh prince of Bel Air -- where the smart, high school valedictorian is taunted as being too 'white; as he likes to study.  It's blacs pulling their own community down.

And that is spreading to all communities in the US.

[Fledermaus]

That Gengis Khan sure got around!

[Cronos]

The English have Germanic ancestry but also, Celtic, Saxon, Norman, Dane,Scott, Welsh and Roman as well.

Thanks! I'd like to add that until the 1950s there may have also been a bit of Jewish, Phoenician blood as well! And some French from the aristos that escaped the revolution and some Polish. bUt all these would be traces. Brits, as you correctly point out, has always been multi-cultural in a way.

[Fledermaus]

I agree, the lower IQ folks are breeding more. Thus, we have Democrats!

[Cronos]

Does being a minority make it OK?

Nope, it doesn't. You can't compare that to Nazis who were majority groups discriminating against a minority.

[Cronos]

 If the black population in the US becomes greater than 50% does that mean that our black racial warlords are then like Hitler but not before?

Yes, that is correct.    until they become a majority oppressing a minority you cannot compare them to the Nazis.  You can compare Mugabe's goons to the Nazis for the same reason. 

 Correct, but that freedom does not include the freedom to fire someone or not hire someone just because of their appearances.

Why not? The 14th Amendment prohibits government from hiring by race but it doesn't prohibit the people from doing it. Why does engaging in commerce nullify your right of free association? Where is the constitutional authority for passing these laws?

So, you want to stop hiring a person just because he's black and you want blacks to stop hire whites?

Before those laws were passed we had a nation where people were free to judge people by merit. But after sliding down that slippery slope our brave new color-blind meritocracy:

BEfore those laws were passed, blacks were legally disbarred from entering places where whites were.  They were not allowed to hold jobs because of their skin color.

Do you think that was correct?  and good?

Has schools encouraging Black pride groups, Hispanic pride groups and homosexual pride groups (but start a white, heterosexual pride group and you get hammered). We weren't like that in the 1950's.

Those groups should be banned.  But in the 1950s there wouldn't have been those groups because blacks and Hispanics would not have been allowed in those schools -- they were segregated.  Unless you think that that is correct.  So that whites should stick together and blacks together etc. etc.

[Cronos]

 In Africa, the entire continent was colonized only in the 1800s. There was already a substantial population there.

There is already a substantial population here in America but that doesn't stop millions of people from coming here. I think people go to places because it is a better place to live than where they lived before. And one of the things that make a place is the kind of people who live there.

Yeah, but the millions who come here are, generally, planning to assimilate not to conquer and throw out the original inhabitants (i.e. us).

[Cronos]

But the point I have been trying to make is that the social environment is affected by personalities and vice versa, mating trends are affected by personalities and social environment and genetics affect personalities. All this positive feedback is what creates races and cultures.

Mating trends?  Huh?

[Cronos]

white" or more so, "Asian" is a huge non-descript sample.

"White", "black", "Asian" are all huge non-descript samples. White is a dumb definition as then I'd include Japanese who are 'white'. Ditto for 'blacks' to whom I would include southern Indians and Maoris/Melanesians. Keeping it at the only 3 broad 'races' Caucasian, Afroid and Mongoloid is again too broad. Coming down to british, French etc. again is too broad. How do you define what is broad or not??? THe only real sample is the individual

[Cronos]

I agree, the lower IQ folks are breeding more. Thus, we have Democrats!
:-P

[Cronos]

Hmm.. yeah, Chenghiz Khan would count as an ancestor to a large chunk of Eurasians. From his time onwards China joined the Eurasian, Caucasian, heartland, so that from the 1200s onwards it makes more sense to call it a flat Eurasia which, would include Mediterranean North Africa.
Sub saharan Africa, Australia and the Americas were distinct.