Ignore IQ Tests: Your Level of Intelligence Is Not Fixed for Life

IQ test

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

We’re getting more stupid. That’s one point made in a recent article in the New Scientist, reporting on a gradual decline in IQs in developed countries such as the UK, Australia and the Netherlands. Such research feeds into a long-held fascination with testing human intelligence. Yet such debates are too focused on IQ as a lifelong trait that can’t be changed. Other research is beginning to show the opposite.

The concept of testing intelligence was first successfully devised by French psychologists in the early 1900s to help describe differences in how well and quickly children learn at school. But it is now frequently used to explain that difference – that we all have a fixed and inherent level of intelligence that limits how fast we can learn.

Defined loosely, intelligence refers to our ability to learn quickly and adapt to new situations. IQ tests measure our vocabulary, our ability to problem-solve, reason logically and so on.

But what many people fail to understand is that if IQ tests measured only our skills at these particular tasks, no one would be interested in our score. The score is interesting only because it is thought to be fixed for life.

Who Is Getting Smarter?

Standardized IQ tests used by clinical psychologists for diagnostic purposes, such as the Weschler scale, are designed in such a way that it is not easy to prepare for them. The contents are kept surprisingly secret and they are changed regularly. The score given for an individual is a relative one, adjusted based on the performance of people of the same age.

But even as we become better educated and more skillful at the types of tasks measured on IQ tests (a phenomenon known as the “Flynn effect”, after James Flynn who first noted it) our IQs stay pretty much the same. This is because the IQ scoring system takes into account the amount of improvement expected over time, and then discounts it. This type of score is called a “standardized score” – it hides your true score and merely represents your standing in relation to your peers who have also been getting smarter at about the same rate.

This apparent stability in IQ scores makes intelligence look relatively constant, whereas in fact we are all becoming more intelligent across and within our lifetimes. The IQ test and the IQ scoring system are constantly adjusted to ensure that the average IQ remains at 100, despite a well-noted increase in intellectual ability worldwide.

Politics of IQ Testing

Psychologists are aware that intelligence scores are somewhat subject to cultural influence and social opportunity, but some have still insisted that we cannot raise our IQ by much. This is because our general intelligence (or “g”) is a fixed trait that is insensitive to education, “brain training,” diet, or other interventions. In other words, they say, we are all biologically limited in our intelligence levels.

The idea that IQ is fixed for life is built into the questionable politics of IQ testing. The most serious consequence of this is the use of IQ tests to blame educational difficulties on students rather than on teaching systems.

But it is the job of psychologists to find better ways to teach, not to find better ways to justify the poor performance of students. This particular use of IQ tests has caused one leader in the field of intelligence research, Robert Sternberg, to refer to IQ testing as “negative psychology” in a 2008 article.

All Is Not Lost

Those who hang dearly onto the notion that IQ is fixed for life have managed to ignore decades of published research in the field of applied behavior analysis. This has reported very large IQ gains in children with autism who have been exposed to early intensive behavioral interventions once they have been diagnosed with learning difficulties.

Another 2009 Norwegian study examined the effects of an increase in the duration of compulsory schooling in Norway in the 1960s which lengthened the time in education for Norwegians by two years. The researchers used records of cognitive ability taken by the military to calculate the IQ of each individual in the study. They found that IQ had increased by 3.7 points for every extra year of education received.

More recent studies by John Jonides and his colleagues at the University of Michigan reported improvements in objective measures of intelligence for those who practiced a brain-training task called the “n-back task” – a kind of computerized memory test.

My own research, in the field of relational frame theory, has shown that understanding relations between words, such as “more than,” “less than” or “opposite” is crucial for our intellectual development. One recent pilot study showed that we can considerably raise standard IQ scores by training children in relational language skills tasks over a period of months. Again, this finding challenges the idea that intelligence is fixed for life.

So it’s about time we reconsidered our ideas about the nature of intelligence as a trait that cannot be changed. Undoubtedly, there may be some limits to the development of our intellectual skills. But in the short term, the socially responsible thing to do is not to feel bound by those limits, but to help every child work towards and even exceed them.

 

Image by Wichy / ShutterstockThe Conversation

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Mind & Brain, Top Posts
MORE ABOUT: intelligence
ADVERTISEMENT
  • http://againstjebelallawz.wordpress.com/ Enopoletus Harding

    But what many people fail to understand is that if IQ tests measured only our skills at these particular tasks, no one would be interested in our score.

    -This absolute nonsense without a citation remains absolute nonsense without a citation.
    .
    The question is not whether IQ can be substantially affected by the environment. The question is whether IQ can be substantially positively affected in a lasting fashion after age 17. The “Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory” paper is certainly interesting, but it is an outlier. Replication is needed.

  • cbusenke

    humans already have far more intelligence than they ever needed and exponentially more brain power than 99% ever put to use. I can’t believe we’re getting smarter, either a statistical skew from the subjects selected or the test is being adjusted like social security payments. AHRA, the average human retardation adjustment. I’m not using the word dropped from common usage because of the bastards that use it to refer to those with mental challenges. I’m using to refer to the masses, folks who make tv shows like kardashians a profitable enterprise, Darwin award winners like the gun safety instructor who just got killed because his 8 year old student couldn’t handle the full auto UZI he gave her, etc…intelligence is a curse. I think we’ll set up AI that works well enough for them to take off and leave us here to fade into fossil status. wow, I’m not feeling so cheery today. apologies all

    • lucan

      Experience counts for a lot of our intelligence….and,it does count even though it isn’t added into the IQ score.

  • duguesclin

    Keep the denial of the G factor. Good luck with that. Nobody -of importance- has ever said that you cannot train to score more in IQ tests. What it’s been said, and demonstrated again and again, is that relative distances between individuals stay the same if they receive the same training. Also, that in the long term, almost all the gains obtained from that training are lost if the individuals don’t keep training. In fact, the older the individuals get, the more they re-approach their base IQ if they stop working on it.

    • ericlipps

      Spearman’s g isn’t holy writ; it’s a hypothesis, and one with some significant problems.

      Even if you were right, though, the unhappy fact is that individuals in our society don’t “receive the same training.” Or the same feeding, or the same medical care. Therefore, observed differences among groups (which is what the biggest flap is about) can’t reliably be ascribed to genetics.

      • Hayden Smith

        That is utterly beside the point.

        • ericlipps

          No, it isn’t. You’re assuming a great deal.

          For one thing, I wasn’t talking about training for the IQ test, the way so may people do for the SATs. I was talking about both formal education and the informal sort everyone gets in the course of living their lives. Someone in the inner city who has grown up poor in a violent neighborhood will not get the same stimulus, the same medical care or the same nutrition that someone born into a stable middle-class environment will.

          And that matters. there probably is some underlying genetics-based level of intelligence, but how genes are actually expressed depends on environmental factors. One could be born with the genetics for genius, but if one grows up in dire poverty eating lead paint chips to dull hunger pangs (reportedly, they taste sweet, which of course makes them tempting to hungry little kids) one isn’t likely to reach one’s full theoretical potential. Ditto if one simply grows up seriously malnourished, or was born to an alcoholic mother, or . . . but why go on?

          It always amazes me that so many people are willing to concede that a bad environment can stunt physical growth but turn on a dime when the issue is IQ–especially when the issue is IQ differences between economic or racial groups.

          • Don’t Even Try It!

            …and that could explain why the IQ of the average “Black” is only 85% that of the average “White” person.

          • ericlipps

            Actually, those statistics are outdated; the gap is less now.
            But there are other factors, as well. When IQ tests first came in, they were applied to, among others, Eastern European Jews–who were found to average out as subnormal. Such findings were used to justify immigration restrictions which were still in effect in the late 1930s, when Jews were desperately trying to escape Europe before Hitler’s thugs caught up with them. Now, of course, anti-Semites warn of the danger posed by Jews’ supposedly superior intelligence.
            The point being that IQ tests don’t actually measure intelligence, but rather competence in a carefully selected set of skills which are believed to contribute to success in school–and in America, the tests rest not only on fluency in standard English but on assumed familiarity with various items of the (white)majority culture.

          • Don’t Even Try It!

            I appreciate the information. Thanks, I guess we are never too old to learn.

          • Reg

            That was the first time in history, and the last, that Jews were accused of being stupid.

            As for American blacks, their neighborhoods may be a tad unkempt, but by world standards they are amazingly rich. Big-city libraries are far better stocked than suburban ones, and there is no charge to use them.

          • ericlipps

            And what difference does that make, if you’re given so miserable an early education that you can’t read at all or at best find reading difficult, and if those of your peers who actually do succeed academically tend to be treated (not always, but too often) as “discipline problems” until they take the hint and resume their assigned place at the bottom of the heap? Even white kids who are too studious and get grades that “spoil the curve” take loads of crap, and it’s far worse for blacks.

          • Hard–Truth

            These foolish statements of yours have no merit. Blacks can’t read because their black teachers don’t know how to teach them? No, that’s not it. They don’t have the wit, or the desire, to learn to read competently. You know nothing about what goes on in schools. You are living in a fantasy world.

          • Hard–Truth

            Blacks growing up in upper class homes experience the same one standard deviation deficiency compared to their white peers, as other blacks in lower classes.
            Your argument about environment, is a losing argument.
            IQ tests don’t actually measure intelligence? What do they measure? Proficiency at playing marbles? And why (in a short span of time) do SE Asian boat people outperform blacks who have lived in this country for centuries?
            You should try finding a topic to talk about that you actually know something about, cause this ain’t it.

          • ericlipps

            See my earlier post about what IQ tests were designed to measure. Then take for yourself the advice you give in your final paragraph.

          • Hard–Truth

            Bad news for you ericlipps, you are an ignorant fool. As it happens, I actually do know something about intelligence testing.
            You think talking about something that happened almost a century ago is a good anti-IQ test argument? Stupidity on steroids.
            Do you condemn the practice of physics today, because a century ago conventional wisdom was a “steady state” universe?
            How about medicine? Using dangerous levels of x-rays, and other counterporductive practices a hundred years ago, is a reason to condemn what doctors do now?
            The current (and last several decades) practices/standards for the use of IQ tests, have produced highly accurate results in the measurement of intelligence.
            Based on your repeated ignorant comments, it is unlikely you even know the original purpose of the first IQ test. (You would have to use google, to find out.)
            You libtards think a leftist ideology is sufficient to suffuse yourselves with knowledge and wisdom. In that, you are completely misguided.

          • ericlipps

            The point of bringing up Burt is that many, if not most, subsequent researchers who concluded that IQ was mostly hereditary somehow managed to come up with estimates of its heritability that just happened to match Burt’s, despite the fact that his work (unknown to them) was fraudulent—inviting the suspicion that they took Burt’s numbers as gospel in the first place and built their own research to yield confirming results.

            Your references to physics and medicine are non sequiturs (look it up). The astronomers and doctors of a century ago were wrong, but they weren’t frauds. And as it happens, I do know the original purpose of IQ tests (which, for all I know, you looked up on Google): to identify school-age children who were mentally retarded and therefore would be unlikely to keep up with their age-mates in school.

            By the way, you don’t help your credibility by descending to insulting epithets like “libtards” and babbling about “leftist ideology.” Based on your repeated ignorant comments, one might conclude that you’re just another obnoxious Internet troll.

          • Hard–Truth

            I know that Burt’s research has been refuted. Others, doing research on intelligence, also know it. Therefore they do not base their work on Burt’s.
            Look it up? Look up what? If you are referring to non sequitur, I don’t have to look it up (in order to know the meaning).
            Your putative knowledge about the purpose of the original test of mental ability is, …… wrong. Try googling Alfred Binet. [This is information I have known for decades, as I spent a good deal of time teaching college classes that dealt with this topic.]
            (BTW – the original test was not even referred to as an IQ test. That was a later development.)
            The use of “libtard” and “leftist ideology” is just for “truth in labeling.”
            It is leftists who are pushing an agenda that is in conflict with the truth.
            You assert my comments were ignorant, but you have presented no evidence that anything I said was incorrect.
            The reasonable inference from that, is that you are “just another obnoxious internet troll.”

          • Hard–Truth

            So, ericlipps, you think there is not a link between intelligence and heredity? Read it and weep.
            —————–
            (a partial reference only)

            More Genes Regulating Intelligence Found Just Recently

            The article below which was published in the journal Nature Neuroscience on December 21, 2015, shows a major finding in which two different networks were associated with IQ and also with epilepsy and cognitive impairment syndromes. They called the networks M1 and M3.

            They likened the networks to a football team where all of the players have to be lined up in their particular positions in order for the network to work well. However, if these genes are in the wrong order or if they are mutated, the networks can cause epilepsy, autism spectrum disorders and mental retardation.

            In addition, a new study in the UK found that 65% of the difference in students’ GSCE scores was caused by genetics.

            Researchers have believed for some time that intellect is inherited with studies suggesting that up to 75 per cent of IQ is genetic, and the rest down to environmental factors such as schooling and friendship groups.

            Now Imperial College London has found that two networks of genes determine whether people are intelligent or not-so-bright.

            They liken the gene network to a football team. When all the players are in the right positions, the brain appears to function optimally, leading to clarity of thought and what we think of as quickness or cleverness.

            However when the genes are mutated or in the wrong order, it can lead to dullness of thinking, or even serious cognitive impairments.

            “We know that genetics plays a major role in intelligence but until now haven’t known which genes are relevant,” said Dr Michael Johnson, lead author of the study from the Department of Medicine at Imperial College.

            “This research highlights some of genes involved in human intelligence, and how they interact with each other.

            Earlier this year a team at King’s College London discovered that up to 65 per cent of the difference in pupil’s GCSE grades was down to genetics, after analyzing genetic data from 12,500 twins.

            They found that all exam results were highly heritable, demonstrating that genes explain a larger proportion of the differences between children, between 54 and 65 per cent.

            Previously it was thought that intelligence was determined by the formation of the cerebral cortex, the outermost layer of the human brain, also known as ‘grey matter.’ Grey matter plays a key role in memory, attention, perceptual awareness, thought and language.

            In contrast shared environmental factors such as home and school environment contributed between 14 and 21 per cent. The rest was made up by individual external influences such as diseases or friends.

          • Hard–Truth

            Its clear, you are a complete idiot. Eating paint chips in the ghetto due to hunger, is far, far less of a problem than obesity. What a stupid argument. Are you unaware of food stamps, and all the other goodies provided by the nanny state for the last fifty years?
            The president of Brown University is a black woman who grew up in a Houston ghetto. How do you suppose that happened? Ever hear of Dr. Ben Carson? How do you think he grew up? In an upper class home?
            Try not to be a moron.

          • arekexcelsior

            Lots of research these days as to exposure to lead and its effect on criminality, IQ, etc. It’s a HUGE signal: Might explain the drop in crime in the 90s.

          • Hard–Truth

            So, every stupid criminal who grew up in a ghetto had a steady diet of lead paint? You must have an over active imagination.

          • ericlipps

            You’ve got the argument all wrong. It’s not that every stupid criminal who grew up in a ghetto ate lead paint as a child; it’s that eating head paint can damage a child’s brain, which isn’t in dispute, and that people in poor urban neighborhoods are more likely to live in homes with peeling paint than those who don’t, neither of which points is in dispute.
            And it’s interesting that you say “criminal,” since this issue affects people whether they turn out to be criminals or not. Or do you think every stupid person is a criminal, or that every criminal is stupid? Or do you just assume that black people in ghetto areas are all dumb thugs by nature?

          • Hard–Truth

            There are some basic issues involved. How many ate lead paint? How much lead paint did they eat? Over what period of time did they eat the lead paint? Did they always eat the same amount of lead paint? What was their age range when they ate the lead paint? Are all lead based paints identical? Does the lead in the paint degrade over the lifetime of the paint?
            Without knowing the answers to these questions, and others, reaching clear conclusions is not possible.
            Like I said previously, with food stamps being around for the past half century, and free meals in school lunch rooms, why would anyone assume children are going to be eating paint?
            And if there IS pealing paint within reach of a child, why don’t the parents – sorry, why doesn’t the mother do something about it? And how big of a problem IS pealing paint? It may have been a problem in the early years of the last century, but welfare housing in recent decades has very likely changed, with a concomitant decrease in the use of lead paint.
            Absolute statements, of course, are almost always wrong. But most criminals (though not all) are on the lower end of the IQ spectrum.
            I think that is conventional wisdom in criminology. If you have an interest in knowing if “black people in ghetto areas are all dumb thugs by nature?” you could have a look at FBI crime statistics. That should answer many of your questions.

          • ericlipps

            Aaaand another post from the troll.
            Why do I say “troll”? Because your idea of “argument” includes tossing around insults. Evidently you’re more interested in venting your prejudices and your contempt for those who don’t share them than you are in rational discussion.

          • Hard–Truth

            You may not have noticed, but a very common, almost universal practice of libtards, when communicating with conservatives, is to use all sorts of vile invective (spurious though it is) aimed at their adversary.
            Therefore, due to a concept in linguistics (known as pragmatics) which asserts that for communication to be most effective, it is advisable to employ the sort of semantic style commonly used by the opposite member of the dyad.
            Thus, describing you in unflattering terms is just an efficacious part of the conversational landscape.
            If you will review your own comments about me, you will find they include the repeated use of the word “troll.”
            Is this a “rational” enough explanation for you?

            Are your reading comprehension skills so deficient that you really could not comprehend the information I presented? Maybe if you read the documentation three or four (or more) times, it might begin to dawn on you that the research demonstrated that genes are the primary determinant of intelligence, and that environment plays a far lesser role.

            The post began this way.

            So, ericlipps, you think there is not a link between intelligence and heredity? Read it and weep.
            —————–
            (a partial reference only)

            More Genes Regulating Intelligence Found Just Recently

          • Michelle Crosby

            I think the idiot may be you! Stop trying to throw around your big pseudo intellect, some of us with misley little IQs of 120 can still see through bullshit!

            Kudos to you ericlipps for not resorting to imtimidation, and insults. I believe you won the iq conundrum.

          • Hard–Truth

            I care nothing about “throwing around my big pseudo intellect,” (even though it is not “pseudo”). What I do care about throwing around is facts, truth, and evidence. Even with your (not so) measly IQ of 120, you should have no trouble distinguishing between bullshit and reality. The only thing giving you trouble is your leftist Weltanschauung.
            BTW – I don’t think you know the meaning of conundrum.

          • Hard–Truth

            The interaction between the expression of genes and the influence of environmental factors is known as epigenetics. And it has limitations. Look into ZPD, the “zone of proximal development.”

      • duguesclin

        Yes, because it is impossible to compensate on those variables. It’s impossible to design the studies to compensate for that, right?

        Except that this has been done systematically, consistently, since the fifties or before.

        The truth is that some people will always deny any and all congenital differences in any and all human parameters just because for them absolute equality and meliorism are moral apriorisms.

        • ericlipps

          Actually, it isn’t possible to “compensate” for (not “on”) those variables, and it has therefore not been done “since the fifties or before.” See my prior comment.

          At this point, it’s probably worth nothing that the seminal study in this regard, by Britain’s Cyril Burt, which concluded that IQ differences both among individuals and between groups was 80 percent inherited, has been exposed as outright fraudulent. Burt claimed to derive his conclusion from a study of twins raised together versus twins raised apart–but not only do his numbers not add up, it turns out that at least some of the twin pairs he claimed to have examined didn’t even exist. His work was swallowed eagerly, it seems, because it confirmed what people wanted to believe–that people occupy the social positions for which nature and God meant them.

          And even if none of this were true, 80 percent heritability isn’t the same as 80 percent genetic, because we “inherit” our parents’ (and usually their parents’) social conditions, and these can make a big difference in how, or even whether, we grow up. “Heritability” in the genetic sense is a lot easier to establish in a pea patch á la Mendel than in human society.

      • Hard–Truth

        Wrong. Thomas Bouchard’s research has demonstrated the primacy of heredity in determining intelligence. Environment is a distant second.
        g has more evidence for it than alternative conceptions of intelligence.

        • ericlipps

          Bouchard’s research founders on a fundamentally flawed notion of “heritability.”
          Suppose (remember, this is a hypothetical example) that you have two populations, initially equal in IQ, and that one is given an adequate diet white the other is systematically given a poor one. (Again, remember that this is a hypothetical: in the real-life case we’re talking about the whole environment, not just diet.) Would it be surprising if, in the second generation and beyond, they diverged? Or that those differences would eventually stabilize at some level determined by the degree to which the second population was malnourished?
          “Heritability” measures the degree to which offspring resemble their parents. It does not measure the degree to which differences between groups are due to genetic differences.
          As for your claim that blacks growing up in upper-class homes show exactly the same difference from whites in measured IQ as those growing up in poor homes do to whites in (presumably) those same upper-class homes, that’s nonsense and either you know it or you should know it.

        • arekexcelsior

          Bouchard’s research is as fraudulent as Burt’s.

          • Hard–Truth

            And your evidence? Nothing, nada, zip. Ok. Bouchard should be expelled from the APA, and have all of his publications extirpated.
            Just because you say so. Be sure to let all the relevant organizations know about your decision.

  • ericlipps

    But what many people fail to understand is that if IQ tests measured only our skills at these particular tasks, no one would be interested in our score.

    On the contrary; the first IQ tests were originally designed to identify individuals who were likely either to have trouble keeping up in school or, at the other extreme, were likely to be exceptional students who might benefit from enhanced instruction. It didn’t take long, though, for people to find other, less benign uses for them.

  • karldwed

    “This apparent stability in IQ scores makes intelligence look relatively constant, whereas in fact we are all becoming more intelligent across and within our lifetimes.”

    It isn’t certain that the “Flynn effect” reflects any real changes in general cognitive ability (what most people call intelligence). Hollow IQ gains caused by changes in education and test familiarity are two reasonable hypothesis.

    • cbusenke

      it’s also worth noting the expression “in like Flynn” was created to refer to Errol Flynn and his many successes with women and the fact that he had a large penis

    • facefault

      Why call changes in IQ from education “hollow”? People’s abilities matter more than how they came by those abilities.

  • Raymond Rogers

    “My own research, in the field of relational frame theory, has shown that understanding relations between words, such as “more than,” “less than” or “opposite” is crucial for our intellectual development”

    Is Roche making a subtle dig at his fellow psychologist’s IQ?

    In any case: the comments here and some of the article above treat IQ as though it was a real thing. I have the contrary view that it is just a made up thing (perhaps like Christo’s art) with no objective reality. A collection of questions and scores that that try to evaluate how well a person will do in a particular culture (ours); it is correlated with that but that doesn’t make it an objective thing. I think a culture like Genghis Khan’s or Ancient Sparta would make up different scores because the intellectual parts that go into living would be weighted differently. Trying to sum up the multiple factors in human thinking by one number is a fools errand. In fact I believe some long term study in the 1930’s showed that high IQ only moderately correlated with social or intellectual success. Or another example that I read is that Napoleon only had an IQ of about 128 (Incidentally I don’t know if that is really held to be true ). I would say the weighting in the tests/factors were a poor indicator of “social success” in that case.

    • Hayden Smith

      I am dying to hear how Napoleon’s IQ would have been tested. The test came into existence decades after he died.

      • Hayden Smith

        A real thing? I don’t know. Is your intelligence a real thing?

        • Raymond Rogers

          It’s a cultural thing; similar to knowing how to use a knife and fork. Different cultures would use the results differently (say the ability to do good calligraphy in old China) and reach different valuations. Basically the human mind is a many dimensional _thing_ they are trying to project down to a single number. Incidentally Poincare (the last universal mathematician) scored very poorly on the original versions of IQ tests :):)

    • Hard–Truth

      The study in the 1930’s (by Louis Terman) continued for several decades, and demonstrated that IQ is important across a range of areas (including intellectual, social, and health success).
      The first test that measured mental ability was developed in the early 20th century. Too late for Napoleon.

      • arekexcelsior

        And numerous other studies since then have found that it’s an incredibly poor predictor.

        • Hard–Truth

          “Other studies.” ??? Which ones? Ones made up in the imaginations of libtards? I cited a real study. Have you got any? Intelligence, IS in fact, a good predictor. Prove me wrong if you can.

  • TMS71

    The effects of relational frame theory training notwithstanding our common sense tells us that some people are just innately smarter than others just as some people are innately physically stronger than others. It’s a good thing that intelligence seems amenable to some of our efforts to improve it but this does not really mean that it is not a stable lifelong trait. The author has a point that it is the job of educators to find better ways to teach but those better ways will not level the playing field. They will benefit the smart as much as the less smart. So we should implement them but we should not expect them to erase the performance gap between the innately more intelligent and the innately less intelligent. These differences are most likely the result of many genes that create a more powerful information processing brain in some than in others just as genes create more powerful muscles in some than in others. I believe that the author has made an unwarranted jump from the fact that some interventions seem to improve IQ to the conclusion that innate intelligence is not a major explanatory factor in school and life achievement.

    • facefault

      Common sense also tells us that the Earth is flat and the sun revolves around it. That’s why we supplement common sense with, you know, evidence.

      Also, why would we expect substantial genetic differences in intelligence? There’s no empirical evidence for significant differences – except for the still-unconfirmed KL gene finding, no gene that affects IQ makes even a full point of difference.

      And there’s no theoretical reason to expect differences – genes that affect intelligence should be fixed in the population, since intelligence has been comparably valuable in every environment humans have occupied. (In muscle strength there’s a tradeoff between slow-twitch and fast-twitch muscle, so there’s a tradeoff between strength and endurance depending on environment; but there’s no evidence for such a tradeoff in brains).

      • TMS71

        There are many genes that affect intelligence. They don’t work in a linear fashion where they add a discrete number of IQ points. They affect neural development and account for differences in neural function. They can have synergistic effects. All that needs to be true is that people differ in the number of these favorable gene variants. That would be a genetic basis for difference in intelligence. There needn’t be genes with large effects.
        I said that common sense tells us that some people are innately more intelligent than others. You don’t think that some people are innately more intelligent than others?

        • facefault

          All that you’re saying is plausible, but lacks evidence. This includes the idea that some people are innately more intelligent.

        • ericlipps

          Actually, there are two separate issues here: genetic differences among individuals, which are reasonably well documented, and genetic differences between groups, especially racial groups, which are controversial not merely for the obvious political reasons but because it is impossible to adequately control for environmental factors in studying tis issue. Don’t argue this with me; take it up with the researchers who’ve actually evaluated the studies done in this area.

          Some people, of course, desperately want to believe that certain groups are just plain inferior (üntermenschen, you know) and therefore deserve to be at the bottom of the heap forever.

          • Hard–Truth

            If you would drop your political agenda, and rely on empiricism, you would recognize the existence of differences in intelligence of various races.
            But then, you desperately want to believe (in spite of the evidence) that all racial groups are equivalent.

      • Hard–Truth

        Unfortunately, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

    • Hard–Truth

      You are exactly right.

  • http://democraticprogress.net/ JohnB

    The test is completely bogus. The simple fact that they have to keep readjusting should be a glaring red flag for starters. It is like you were trying to see how fast a car could run a quarter mile but kept changing the definition of what a mile is.

    • Hard–Truth

      You have no understanding of intelligence testing. Better if you do not comment.

      • http://democraticprogress.net/ JohnB

        No YOU no idea what YOU are talking about troll. These IQ tests are by no means systematic in measuring intelligence. For starters there is no scientific consensus on how to consistently accurately measure intelligence. There are precise ways to measure temp or speed for example, but there is no consensus that says if you know how to recite pi to 6 digits you have an IQ of 120. It’s all completely arbitrary and just a matter of an educated guess. The simple fact that there are numerous different tests proves this point. If it was really clear cut they would all ask the same questions.

        • Hard–Truth

          You are an idiot, and also ignorant about the issues relating to intelligence testing. Everything you said is false, but you are probably too stupid to understand it. I could refute your entire comment, but I am fed up with trying to educate libtards. You would prefer to believe your own faux facts, than to accept reality. Enjoy living in your imaginary world.
          P.S. – Unless you have had the courses in Tests and Measurements, Statistics, Psychometrics, Multivariate Analysis, etc. (both college and graduate school), that I have had, you should be a little more modest in your claims about what you know (or what I don’t know).

  • eetom

    There is a great difference between intelligence and the ability to score in IQ test. With more education a person can do more with his intelligence and has a higher IQ score, but that does not mean that he is more intelligent.
    That America can extract more oil from its wells does not mean that America has more oil underground. When a driver learns better driving technique does not necessarily mean that he has a better car.
    How confused can some “scholars” be?

    • artfuldgr

      correct…
      the author confuses capacity with contents..
      a person who has a very high iq, but little learning, has a lot of capacity, and not muc content.
      a person who has an average IQ, but a lot of learning, has filled their capacity….

      the size of the glass does not change (much), but most of us dont fill the glass anyway

      • Hard–Truth

        You have a very poor understanding of the subject. Best if you avoid making comments.

    • Hard–Truth

      You seem to be very, very confused.

  • michael scott

    I never knew that some people actually believe that a person’s intelligence is set for life and cannot be changed. I’ve always known and believed that anyone (who doesn’t have some serious mental deficiency preventing them from being able to do so) can increases their intelligence by learning more knowledge, and then learning how to use that knowledge wisely by using it and not just letting what they’ve learned sit dormant because of their lack of using it. That’s pretty stupid in my opinion that many intelligent people actually choose to believe that a so-called IQ test dictates that you can never become more intelligent and increase your IQ level; especially when many are constantly changing the rules of IQ tests in order to justify this false belief. That reminds me of how many choose to ignore true scientific studies that prove that the so-called theories of evolution, the big bang, and the steady state, are false teachings. I pray that those who believe that no one can increase their intelligence level (IQ) will realize that that’s totally wrong. It’s only logical that as one learns more and uses what they learn that their IQ increases; how else does one explain people becoming very wise by the time they’re old or very old.

    • Hard–Truth

      Old people who are wise, were wise when they were young. Plenty of old stupid/foolish people out there.
      Intelligence and knowledge are two different things. Possible to have a large amount of knowledge, and not be very bright. Important component of intelligence is thinking/reasoning ability.
      Knowledge is not useless, just not everything.

  • dnamatters

    The article implies that an individual’s IQ score can vary widely during his or her lifetime. The only direction of change actually observed, however, is downward. The author ignores the substantial research that shows that while intensive educational interventions can raise childhood IQ test scores by several points, these gains are completely or almost completely lost by adulthood. Study after study has found that while such shared environmental factors can have a big impact on childhood IQ, they have little or no impact on adult IQ, which no one seriously claims can vary widely, except in the case of brain damage. The author offers an explanation for this regression to the group mean: black children who are raised by more intelligent white parents will, they claim, see their IQs eventually fall because of the less intelligent black peers with whom they associate in adolescence and adulthood. This supposedly “anti-racist” position, though, is not as convincing or straightforward (remember Occam’s Razor) as the alternative position: that adult IQ is much more heavily influenced by genetics than by education. In other words, by adulthood people generally manage to develop the maximum cognitive potential of which their brains are capable — but no more. Black children blessed with high-IQ white adoptive parents eventually regress to their own group’s mean IQ score of 85 by adulthood. This in spite of their higher than expected early childhood IQ score. To believe that this regression is due to the effect of adolescent peers would go against everything we know about the importance of early childhood to adult outcomes. We would have to believe that adolescence is a more important formative period than early childhood in one’s cognitive development.

    • Hard–Truth

      Everything you said is exactly correct. And explains why the billions (?) of dollars spent on Head Start have been nothing but a waste. Biology is destiny.

  • ericlipps

    Only an idiot would say that “everybody is the same.” That would mean, for example, that you and I are equally intelligent.
    And here we go again: apparently if you can’t have Cyril Burt as an unchallengeable authority to buttress your claims of racial differences in IQ, you’ll take the Beeb. I’m surprised you’re not invoking the curse of Ham as well.
    You’re still wrong, by the way: even if it’s true that “at least” half of the difference between individuals in IQ is due to genes (which isn’t true just because the BBC supposedly agrees that it is), it doesn’t follow that the same is true for groups. I know it sounds counterintuitive, but it happens to be true. Comparisons among individuals within a group, or in a mixed group, don’t necessarily reflect actual differences among groups.

    • Hard–Truth

      Forget about Burt entirely. No one other than you is citing Burt. There is an abundance of other evidence to falsify your specious claims.
      Perhaps you are not too bright. Either that, or you are just dishonest.
      If you want to know about actual differences among groups (which are real), read The Bell Curve.

  • Bibibibibib Blubb

    Must be why the richest country in the world is Qatar with 78(apparently mentally retarded) average IQ. Also a very low crime rate with very diverse population mostly from South Asia… run by conservative Muslims.

    • Hard–Truth

      Why is Qatar rich?
      Oil was discovered in Qatar in 1940, in Dukhan Field. The discovery transformed the state’s economy.
      Qatar is a high income economy backed by the world’s third largest natural gas reserves and oil reserves.
      Average IQ of 78 (not retarded) not an issue with natural resources providing wealth.
      Africa is getting better? How is Zimbabwe doing? Without whites to run the country, it has turned into a cesspit. Most of the negroes living there wish it would have remained white ruled, so they wouldn’t be starving to death.

      • Bibibibibib Blubb

        Actually Africa is doing much better now than before, just check HDI rankings. Zimbabwe’s GDP also has risen very rapidly since 2008, its back up to 1980s level already. Its so simple just type in HDI trends Africa or the country and GDP in Google. The vast Majority of African countries are doing much better now.

  • DICK_PENIS

    I LIKE PIZZA

  • DoktorThomas

    I think the experimenters are more confused than the test takers, who probably have higher IQ’s.
    Most scientific research, as current constructed, only identifies correlations in the premise. Strong correlations, e.g., because all cancer patients drink water, water must be linked to causing cancer, rarely deliver the meat; they only get people (probably with high IQ’s) to think about the premise, the process and the results. FYI: In the 1960’s researchers did prove the suggested correlation.
    As for IQ leakage, I can give you only anecdotal evidence: the individuals in law school were all very bright (probably high IQ’s); however, when they got to the office after graduation, they park their brains outside the door. This may prove graduating from law school and getting employment afterward lowers one’s IQ (and/or their commonsense).
    If looking to separate the smart from the less smart, IQ testing maybe a solution. But a person like my High School nemesis who had a photographic memory may or may not have had a higher IQ and would certainly skew the curve. But smart he was.
    If problem solving is calculated into IQ then age definitely increases IQ, until dementia levels the playing field …. ©2015

  • Nicolas Moeri

    Moreover, we know today that neurogenesis exists, even at adult age. How can a changing brain provide always the same IQ measure?

    • Hard–Truth

      Neurogenesis, yes. But the number of new neurons is not enough to make a real difference.

  • Hard–Truth

    IQ score may not be “fixed,” but it is highly stable over a person’s lifetime (for most people).

  • Hard–Truth

    ….. it didn’t even account for the biological parents IQ?

    You must be delusional. Biological parents IQ, along with every other permutation, were accounted for.

    ……. the ONE small minesota adoption study

    Still delusional. It is a large scale, longitudinal study.
    (Researchers at the University of Minnesota, led by Thomas Bouchard, launched the landmark study in 1979, and continued for the next 20 years, concluding in 1999.)

    Epigenetics (in the way it operates) is highly complicated, but has not been shown to have a significant effect on the intelligence level of groups.

  • Hard–Truth

    Correct on all points.

  • ericlipps

    I’ve been “hiding” right here, sir. And you don’t prove your point by resorting to insults.
    You don’t prove your point by citing the BBC, either, since you plainly don’t understand the difference between variation among individuals and differences between groups.

    • arekexcelsior

      Kees et al. found that g was literally not parsimonious. The circularity of these people is just amazing. Their theory proves their conclusion, and their data proves their theory!

  • Rob

    Blacks are dumb

    General intelligence is inherited and not equally distributed among human races. IQ tests are designed to measure the general innate and immutable mental capability that involves abstract and cognitive thinking, spatial-relations skills, and logical reasoning. They are designed to measure the ability to:

         •   solve novel problems
         •   retain knowledge and apply skills
         •   comprehend complex ideas
         •   plan and learn quickly and from experience
      
    IQ tests are not designed to measure how much a person has learned, but rather whether a person is capable of learning.

    Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments.

    It was discovered that people who did well on one mental test did well on others, regardless of their content. It was reasoned that different tests must draw on the same global capacity, and dubbed that capacity g, for general intelligence.

    Individual differences in general cognitive ability are reliably measured by IQ tests. IQ is strongly related, probably more than any other single measurable trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic and social variables. IQ is also correlated with a number of variables of the brain, including its size, electrical potentials, and rate of glucose metabolism during cognitive activity. Individual differences in adult IQ are largely genetic, with heritability of about 70 percent. So far, attempts to raise IQ by educational or psychological means have failed to show appreciable lasting effects on cognitive ability and scholastic achievement. The IQ distribution between Blacks and Whites is represented by two largely overlapping bell curves with their means separated by about 15 points, a difference not due to test bias. IQ has the same meaning and practical predictive validity for both groups. Tests do not create differences; they merely reflect them.

    The average score is set at 100, and everyone is rated accordingly. Expressed this way, IQs for a whole population can be arrayed on a single graph. Roughly two-thirds of all Americans fall between 85 and 115, in the fat midsection of the bell-shaped curve, and 95 percent score between 70 and 130.

    By computing a value known as the correlation coefficient, a scientist can measure the degree of association between any two phenomena that are plausibly linked. The correlation between unrelated variables is 0, while phenomena that vary in perfect lock step have a correlation of 1. A correlation of .4 would tell you that 40 percent of the variation in one thing is matched by variation in another, while 60 percent of it is not.

    Current estimates for heritability of IQ ranges up to 0.8 (where 1.0 indicates that monozygotic twins have no variance in IQ and 0 indicates that their IQs are completely uncorrelated). See the Minnesota Twin Family Study, conducted from 1979 to 1999, which followed identical and fraternal twins who were separated at an early age for some fascinating revelations about the powerful influence of genes.

    Studies find no IQ correlation among grown adoptive siblings. But the typical correlations are roughly .35 for half siblings (who share a quarter of their genes), .47 for full siblings (who share half of their genes) and .86 for identical twins (who share all their genes).

    Millions of IQ tests and psychometric experiments conducted world-wide over 100 years have been normed for every conceivable variable and bias, yet demonstrate an intractable intellegence divide between Blacks and the other races. Blacks score lowest on every intelligence test ever devised, including “life”. There has never been an IQ test administered anywhere in the world where the racial rankings didn’t follow the same pattern; Asians, Whites, non-White Hispanics, and then finally Blacks.

    Compared to Blacks, Whites’ brains:

         •   are 7% larger (1438cc versus 1343cc)
         •   are 100 grams heavier
         •   have deeper fissuration in the frontal and occipital regions
         •   have more complex convolutions and larger frontal lobes
         •   have more pyramidal neurons
         •   have 16% thicker supra-grandular layer
         •   react faster on mental chronometry tests
         •   have 600 million more neurons (each carries about 600 billion synapses, which each carry one bit of cortical information)

    Genes contribute to about 90% of the individual variation of brain size.

    Blacks are the only racial group with no DNA from the large-brained Neanderthals, and also the only race without the derived form of MCPH1 microcephalin called haplogroup D which produces increased brain volume.

    Racial activist groups have tried to create their own tests to demonstrate intellectual parity of the races and also attack the integrity of the existing tests and have hired anti-bias experts, but the rankings are always the same; African Blacks average a 70 IQ (only 2% of Whites score this low), but American Blacks average 85 due to mixing with Whites (28% on average), non-White Hispanics 87, Whites 100, Asians 106 and Ashkenazi Jews 115.

    Blacks have by far the lowest IQs of any race; 80% score at or below the “low functioning” category. In fact, only the top 16% of Blacks score as high as the top 50% of Whites. Blacks are socially functional at 70 IQ because that is only one standard deviation below their mean; that equates to a White at 85 IQ.

    Even using tests created by Black psychologists and non-verbal tests designed to be culture-free and unbiased, no amount of testing or wishful thinking shows any improvement in Black IQ. Tests that only require the subject to push buttons in response to flashing lights or memorizing sequences of colored squares projected on a screen Blacks perform worse than Whites, and the gap increases as the patterns become more complicated. The test involves rows of colored squares where one from each row has to be matched with another. More complex images which have distinctive features linked by that feature to other images in an increasing number of rows.

    Another test is a list of numbers read aloud and the subject has to repeat them back in forward and reverse order. The subject is given a relevant fact that has to be considered when making otherwise simple manipulations of numbers and identify designated figures or characters in a given amount of time. The “backward digit span” test is not reinforced by any socialization and is not a taught skill for either race; Whites score better at recalling digits presented in order, but recalling the digits in reverse order requires mental transformation and is a good predictor of IQ. The race gap for the backward digit span is twice as great as for the forward test.

    Raven’s Progressive Matrices is a completely non-verbal test of pattern recognition and reasoning and contains no culturally-specific information, African Blacks scored 70 IQ. Interestingly, the mixed-race students in South Africa had an IQ of 85 — the same as Blacks in the United States, Britain, and the Caribbean. This is a standard deviation above pure Blacks, but also a standard deviation below Whites.

    Genetics limits an individuals’ upper limit to IQ, and environment determines how much of that innate genetic potential will be reached. No amount of nurturing can make one exceed innate genetic potential.

    The IQ race gap doesn’t begin to correlate firmly with adult IQ until about age five, but studies reveal a one standard deviation race gap present by age three.

    In the United States, self-identified Blacks and Whites have been the subjects of the greatest number of studies. The tests show a Black-White IQ difference of about 15 to 18 points (or about one standard deviation) which implies that between 11 and 16 percent of the black population have an IQ above 100 (the general population median). Consistent results were found for college and university application tests such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test and Graduate Record Examination as well as for tests of job applicants in the corporate sector and in the military.

    The least intelligent ten percent of Whites have IQs below 81; forty percent of Blacks have IQs that low. Only one Black in six is more intelligent than the average White; five Whites out of six are more intelligent than the average Black. These differences show in every test of general cognitive ability that anyone, of any race or nationality, has yet been able to devise. And they are reflected in countless everyday situations, “Life is an IQ test.”

    Further, only one-in-3.5 million (.00003%) African Blacks have an IQ of 140 or higher (genius level). But one-in-83 (1.2%) U.S. Whites is a genius. Therefore the per capita genius rate for U.S.-resident Whites is 41,000 times higher than it is for African Blacks.

    The IQ distribution for US-resident Blacks having an average IQ of 85 and a standard deviation of 12.4 doesn’t mean that there are no Blacks at all with IQs above 140; it means that only one Black in about 218,000 will have an IQ above 140. Meanwhile one-in-83 Whites have an IQ above 140. So given equal sized populations there will be about 2,600 times more White geniuses than Black geniuses. Since there are about 5.5 times more Whites than Blacks in the United States, White geniuses will outnumber Black geniuses by a ratio of about one-to-14,300. Therefore, if all the White people in the USA were replaced by Blacks having the IQ distribution of US-resident Blacks the number of geniuses in the country would fall from about 2.4 million to only about 1,000.

    For every one gifted Black there are 8 gifted Whites, 80% of gifted Blacks are mixed race.

    Incidentally, though the average IQ of East Asians is 6 points higher than the average non-Jewish White, the percentage distribution of East Asians with IQs above 140 is slightly lower. The reason for this is that the range of cognitive variation among Whites is greater than among East Asians. Specifically, Asians’ IQs are more clustered around the mean; therefore, Whites produce more geniuses, but also more morons.

    Psychometricians regard IQ tests as having high statistical reliability. A high reliability implies that although test-takers may have varying scores when taking the same test on differing occasions, and they may have varying scores when taking different IQ tests at the same age, the scores generally agree with one another and across time.

    Standardized intelligence testing has been called one of psychology’s greatest successes and is the field’s most widely-used invention. Since standardized tests were first used to identify learning-impaired children in the early 1900s they have become one of the primary tools for identifying children with learning disabilities, they assist the military place new recruits, job screening and for evaluating professional athletes.

    Some occupations seek candidates within specific IQ ranges. There was a recent case where a police officer candidate was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test.

    The NFL famously uses the Wonderlic test in their scouting combines and the racial disparity is evident. Out of a perfect score of 50; offensive tackles=26, centers=25, quarterback=24; versus safeties=19, cornerbacks=18 and receivers=17.

    Black-White IQ Distribution (Google: racial IQ bell curve):

    Blacks:
                     5% above 110 IQ
                     16% above 100 IQ
                     40% above 90 IQ
                     70% above 80 IQ
                     30% below 80 IQ
                     18% below 75 IQ
                     10% below 70 IQ

    Whites:
                     10% above 120 IQ
                     18% above 115 IQ
                     27% above 110 IQ
                     40% above 105 IQ
                     50% above 100 IQ
                     60% below 105 IQ
                     35% below 95 IQ
                     15% below 85 IQ

    So, the top 16% of Black intellectual elites are only as intelligent as the top 50% of Whites.

    As the New York Times put it, “…the difference in I.Q. points between the groups is quite significant. It means that the top sixth of Blacks score only as well on I.Q. tests as do the top half of Whites.”

    IQ scores are used as predictors of educational achievement, special needs, job performance and income. They are also used to study IQ distributions in populations and the correlations between IQ and other variables. The same is true for other cognitive tests such as No Child Left Behind mandated state tests and NAEP tests. All of these cognitive tests show the same racial patterns in test score distribution with Ashkenazi Jews, East Asians (Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans), and Whites showing higher scores than Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, Hispanics, and Blacks showing lower scores.

    The scores on the SAT (especially the SAT-math) and the ACT are for all practical purposes interchangeable with IQ test scores. In 2005, 153,132 Black Americans took the SAT test. They made up 10.4 percent of all SAT test takers. But only 1,132 Black college-bound students scored 700 or above on the math SAT and only 1,205 scored at least 700 on the verbal SAT. On the math SAT, only 0.7 percent of all Black test takers scored at least 700 compared to 6.3 percent of all White test takers. Thus, Whites were nine times as likely as Blacks to score 700 or above on the math SAT. Only 0.16 percent of all Black test takers scored 750 or above compared to 1.8 percent of White test takers. Thus, Whites were more than 11 times as likely as Blacks to score 750 or above on the math SAT.

    This gap is so significant that colleges give a “race bonus” of 230 points to Blacks, 185 to non-White Hispanics and penalize Asians by 50 points, all in an effort to help the low-IQ races gain admittance.

    A person’s level of moral reasoning is correlated with intelligence. Studies sequencing the stages of moral development support what we all know; you have to be cognitively mature to reason morally. IQ tests correlate with moral maturity.

    There is also a strong correlation between IQ and success. Economists have started taking an interest in the value of human capital, particularly the factor that psychologists call cognitive ability. In other words, it’s the ability of a person to solve a problem most efficiently. Not with violence, but by thinking. It is worth noting here that Blacks possess 9.4 times more of the dysfunctional MAOA gene (“warrior gene”) and have mean testosterone levels 19% higher than in Whites, both strongly correlated with impulsive, aggressive and violent behavior.

    Researchers collected information on 90 countries, including far-off lands from the U.S. to New Zealand and Colombia to Kazakhstan. They also collected data on the country’s excellence in science and technology, including the number of patents granted per person and how many Nobel science laureates the country’s people had won in science (there has never been a Black Nobel science laureate).

    They found that intelligence made a difference in gross domestic product. For example, some of the highest National IQs:

              •   108      Singapore
              •   106      South Korea
              •   105      Japan
              •   105      China
              •   102      Italy
              •   101      Iceland
              •   101      Mongolia
              •   101      Switzerland
              •   100      Austria
              •   100      Luxembourg
              •   100      Netherlands
              •   100      Norway
              •   100      United Kingdom

    And the lowest:

              •   69        Malawi
              •   69        Niger
              •   68        Chad
              •   68        Somalia
              •   68        Swaziland
              •   67        Guinea
              •   67        Haiti
              •   67        Liberia
              •   66        Gambia
              •   64        Cameroon
              •   64        Gabon
              •   64        Sierra Leone
              •   64        Mozambique
              •   59        Equatorial Guinea

    Blacks are archaic proto-humans, a different species from Whites and Asians;

    Blacks are the only racial group with no DNA from the large-brained Neanderthals who lived in Europe. The trans-Saharan African migrants mated with the Neanderthals and Denisovans to create a composite hybrid that is modern man. Therefore, we do not share a common ancestor.

    The farther north the populations migrated out of Africa, the more they encountered the cognitively demanding problems of gathering and storing food, gaining shelter, making clothes, and raising children during prolonged winters. Consequently, as the original African populations evolved into present-day Whites and Asians, they did so by hybridizing with Neanderthals which created larger brains and greater intelligence, but also slower rates of maturation, lower levels of sex hormones, and concomitant reductions in sexual potency and aggressiveness, and increases in family stability and social conformity.

    Neanderthals are a different species than Whites, and yet produced fertile offspring (as do many interspecies hybrids). In fact all modern humans (Whites and Asians) are products of that hybridization.

    Blacks have a genetic distance closer to archaic human than to modern human. That genetic distance is farther apart than it is for many species.

    Genetic distance is a measure of the genetic divergence between species or between populations within a species. Populations with many similar genes have small genetic distances. This indicates that they are closely related and have a recent common ancestor.

    The genetic distance between H.Sapien and H.Erectus is only 0.17, while the genetic distance between Blacks and Eurasians is 0.23. Therefore Blacks are more genetically proximate to archaic humans than to modern man (Whites and Asians).

    For comparison, the genetic distance between Blacks and modern man is greater than the genetic distance between the common chimpanzee and the bonobo (0.103, or half the Black-White distance) and between the Gorilla gorilla and the Gorilla beringei (0.04, or 1/6 the Black-White distance). Thus, Whites and Blacks are more genetically distant than two different chimpanzee species, two different gorilla species, Eurasians and Neanderthals, and Eurasians and H.Erectus.

    To be taxonomically consistent Blacks and Whites should be classified into separate species, or at the very least into different subspecies.

    When humans evolved from Blacks they hybridized with the large-brained Neanderthals in southern Europe and created an increase in cranium capacity and a heavier, more developed brain. Blacks are also the only race without the derived form of MCPH1 microcephalin called haplogroup D which produces increased brain volume and density.

    Non-Black humans average 4% Neanderthal DNA. This is significant because there is only 1.5% difference between human and chimpanzee DNA. It is equivalent to having one Neanderthal great-great-great-grandparent. Blacks are the only race with no Neanderthal genes. Blacks also coexisted and interbred with archaic sapiens (H.heidelbergensis) for longer than those who left Africa. At least 30% of the Neanderthal genome made its way into non-Black humans.

    Blacks are Humans 1.0; modern man evolved from Blacks and are Humans 2.0, the improved version. They were formed by hybridization with the large-brained Neanderthals which created larger, denser, more complex brains:

         •   Blacks = 2% Archaic admixture
         •   Whites = 4% Neanderthal admixture
         •   Asians = Neanderthal + Denisovan

    Pure H.Sapiens are Blacks; modern man (Whites and Asians) is hybridized with Neanderthal and is the improved version.

    Blacks belong in the Stone Age, where they were found just 400 years ago.

    Sub-Saharan Blacks did not receive Neanderthal or Denisovan gene introgression, which partly explains why Blacks are the most genetically distant of all the human races.

    However, Blacks received significant gene introgression from other early (and unknown) hominid species, which the other races do not have because they left sub-Sahara before the introgression occurred. These early hominids remain “unknown” due to the simple fact that their DNA has not been retrieved nor sequenced, Only Neandertal and Denisovan DNA have been, thus far.

    Forensic scientists can determine race by cranium shape; Blacks have a small frontal lobe and sloping frontal plane and a smaller cranium-to-mandible ratio. Whites have the largest craniums, an almost vertical frontal slope and a massive frontal lobe. The Asian is very similar and also more evolved. It is the frontal lobe that separates our behavior most from the animals and is responsible for language and rational thought.

    Blacks show primitive traits associated with lower primates, such as prognathism, which is the slope of the face from the forehead to the jaws. A protruding jaw is associated with a sloping forehead which indicates a smaller prefrontal cortex, the area of the brain that handles planning, inhibition and self-control.

    Blacks have more robust cranial bones, simpler cranial sutures, a higher rate of unclosed sutures, a lower cephalic index, a higher rate of saggital keel, more post-orbital constriction, a more sloped forehead, more rectangular eye sockets, a wider nasal index, less nasal prominence, a higher rate of joined nasal bones, a higher rate of sub-nasal prognathism, a lower facial angle, the presence of the “Simian shelf”, a more rectangular palate, larger and wider-apart teeth, fur instead of hair, less spinal curvature, shorter spinal length, a lower sacral index, and longer arms and legs.

    At birth Africans have fewer cranial bones than Eurasians. The skull and other bones in Blacks are thicker and denser, even in the fetus, making them more difficult to break. The Black skull is smaller, with less space in the forehead, but proportionately more at the back.

    Blacks are the only racial group with no DNA from the large-brained Neanderthals, and also the only race without the derived form of MCPH1 microcephalin called haplogroup D which produces increased brain volume and density. This is why their brains are smaller, and less complex.

    Eurasian women have a wider pelvic inlet, and shallower anteroposterior outlet than Black women due to the difference in brain size.

    Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks.

    The average White brain is 1438cc while the average Black brain is 1343cc, or 93% of the average White brain. The heritability of brain size is extremely strong at 0.90 and not one study to date has shown larger brain size for Blacks. The White and Asians brain also has a higher degree of fissuring (higher complexity) in the cerebral cortex of their brains, where abstract and conceptual thought is performed.

    Based on studies of brain weight at autopsy, endocranial volume of empty skulls, head size measurements by the U.S. military and NASA, and two dozen MRI volumetric studies Blacks’ brain size is 7% smaller than Whites’, and 8% smaller than Asians’. There is a correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40 and that these racial differences in brain size are present at birth. Genes contribute to about 90% of the individual variation of brain size.

    In addition to brain size are differences in brain shape, fissuration, number of pyramidal neurons and supra-grandular layer thickness. The depth of fissuration is related to superior intelligence and the brains of Whites have deeper fissures in the frontal and occipital regions. The supra-grandular layer of Blacks’ brains is 16% smaller than it is for Whites’ brains.

    The average human brain contains 86 billion neurons. Whites, on average, have 600 million more neurons than Blacks. Each neuron carries about 600 billion synapses, each of which carries, as a minimum, one bit of cortical information.

    Further, this reflects what we observe in real life (including the large and persistent so-called “Achievement Gap”). People have made long-term observations of the different races and reached rational conclusions; the more White a society is the more prosperous, inventive and safe it is. 19 of the 20 poorest countries are sub-Saharan African (Haiti). In sub-Saharan Africa the only countries that could be considered successful were White-governed, (Rhodesia and S. Africa). To this day they still can’t even feed themselves even though they lived alone in Africa, a vast continent with temperate climates and abundant resources, for 60,000 years. So they cannot blame racism, poverty, imperialism or anything else for their failures.

    Sub-Saharan Africans have never made a contribution to the world. No pre-contact sub-Saharan African society ever created a written language (or even words for abstract ideas), weaved cloth, forged steel, invented the wheel or plow, or devised a calendar or code of laws or any social organization, or system of measurement or math or built a multi-story structure or bridge or sewer or road or railway or a sea-worthy vessel, domesticated animals, exploited underground natural resources or produced anything that could be considered a mechanical device.

    IQ distribution by race/ethnicity:

         •   Ashkenazi Jews = 115
         •   East Asians = 106
         •   Whites = 100
         •   South East Asians = 87
         •   Non-White Hispanics = 86
         •   American Blacks = 85 (average 28% White admixture)
         •   Middle East and North Africans = 84
         •   Sub-Saharan Blacks = 67 (Only 2% of Whites score this low)
         •   Australian Aborigines = 62

    Sub-Saharan Africans never even created a written language. It was the White colonialists who gave the gift of literacy to them.

    No pre-contact sub-Saharan African society ever created a written language or words for abstract ideas, weaved cloth, forged steel, invented the wheel or plow or devised a calendar or code of laws or any social organization or formal religion or system of measurement or math or built a multi-story structure or bridge or sewer or infrastructure of any kind and they never harnessed a river or even drilled well or irrigation or road or railway or sea-worthy vessel, they never domesticated animals or exploited underground natural resources, understood the biological origins of disease, or produced anything that could be considered a mechanical device.

    Blacks are the oldest race, so they should be the most advanced race; but they they never developed at all and had to be domesticated by Whites.

    Civilization didn’t occur until early humans hybridized with Neanderthals. Only after the hybridization were advanced societies created. Blacks, who never hybridized with Neanderthals, never created a civilization and were still living in the Stone Age when Whites discovered them just 400 years ago.

    Hybridizing with the large-brained Neanderthals produced a modern human (Whites and Asians) with an increase in cranium capacity and a heavier, more developed brain. Blacks are also the only race without the derived form of MCPH1 microcephalin called haplogroup D which produces increased brain volume and density.

    Blacks lived alone in sub-Saharan Africa, a vast continent with temperate climates and abundant resources for 60,000 years; so they cannot blame racism, poverty, imperialism or anything else for their failures.

    How could they live with all that shoreline and never think about putting a sail on a ship like every other culture did? Columbus sailed across the ocean 500 years ago — Blacks STILL are incapable of such a feat.

    19 of the 20 poorest countries are sub-Saharan African (Haiti). There has never been a successful Black country. No modern creations or civilization exists in sub-Saharan Africa that was not brought there by Whites. There are no White Third-World nations, but all Black ones are.

    Blacks are the only race incapable of caring for themselves. Whites still have to provide food, medical, financial and engineering aid to Africans. They couldn’t survive without White charity. Blacks became an out-of-control invasive species after Whites domesticated them.

    The 41 nations of sub-Saharan Africa produce no more wealth than the tiny country of Belgium, which has only 1/45 the population. Of all of the region’s economic production, White-run South Africa accounts for three-quarters. That Whites are only 8% of South Africa’s population, it demonstrates how productive and industrious Whites are that so relative few can carry the load for so many unproductive Blacks. But a constantly A constantly dwindling number of Whites are at the mercy of a predatory welfare class and it’s possible they can’t and won’t carry the rest of the population. If things get worse for them, they will simply flee the country.

    Sub-Saharan Africans have never made a contribution to the world. Blacks can only achieve either because they are mixed with White genes or because they reside in White societies. Blacks are unable to achieve within their own race because not enough of them are smart enough to build a sufficient infrastructure. If allowed to become too numerous they destroy previously-thriving and safe White cities.

    This is why Blacks seethe with jealousy and hatred of Whites yet can’t seem to stay away because they want what we create and maintain, no matter if they deserve it or not. They want our peaceful and clean neighborhoods, our law and order, our technology and science, our school systems, our inventions, the jobs we create, the food we grow, the transportation we invent, the entertainment we provide….. Blacks hate us but can’t live without us. That’s why they demand that we take care of them and give them special rights and privileges that we don’t grant ourselves, just to compensate for their inability at living in a modern and technologically-advanced civilization.

    Some groups succeed all the time, everywhere. Some have never succeeded anywhere.

    Blacks are the oldest race, so they should be the most advanced race; but they they never developed at all and had to be domesticated by Whites.

    Civilization didn’t occur until early humans hybridized with Neanderthals. Only after the hybridization were advanced societies created. Blacks, who never hybridized with Neanderthals, never created a civilization and were still living in the Stone Age when Whites discovered them just 400 years ago.

    Hybridizing with the large-brained Neanderthals produced a modern human (Whites and Asians) with an increase in cranium capacity and a heavier, more developed brain. Blacks are also the only race without the derived form of MCPH1 microcephalin called haplogroup D which produces increased brain volume and density.

    Blacks lived alone in sub-Saharan Africa, a vast continent with temperate climates and abundant resources for 60,000 years; so they cannot blame racism, poverty, imperialism or anything else for their failures.
    Google: “race and IQ”, “national IQ”, “race and MAOA gene”, “Neanderthal DNA”, “smaller black brains”, “correlation brain size and IQ”, “achievement gap”, “IQ correlation to achievement”, “NIH Blacks 21% greater testosterone”, Cumoe, D. & Thorne, A. – 2003. Number of Ancestral Human Species: a Molecular Perspective, Rushton, J. Philippe; Jensen, Arthur R (2005). “Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability”, Psychology, Public Policy and Law 11 (2): 246–8, Current Biology, Vol. 13, R134–R136, February 18, 2003, ©2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. PII S0960-9822(03)00074-5; Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease — Genome Biology 2002.

    Racial brain size differences: Whole Brain Size and General Mental Ability: A Review, Int J Neurosci. 2009 Apr; 119(5): 692–732, PMCID: PMC2668913. Rutgers Anthropologist Sets Record Straight on Brain Size and Race. A NYT article that shows claims of racism in measuring skulls was false: Scientists Measure the Accuracy of a Racism Claim. Mismeasuring Skulls: New Research Resolves Historical Controversy, Shows Science Resists Bias; Stanford Department of Anthropology. Brain size, IQ, and racial-group differences: Evidence from musculoskeletal traits, J.Philippe Rushton, Intelligence Volume 31, Issue 2, March–April 2003, Pages 139–155. Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2005, Vol. 11, No. 2, 235–294, Copyright 2005 by the American Psychological Association, DOI: 10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235

    Genetic Distance:
    ESTIMATION OF THE COANCESTRY COEFFICIENT: BASIS FOR A SHORT-TERM GENETIC DISTANCE
    John Reynolds, B. S. Weir, C. Clark Cockerham
    Genetics November 1, 1983 vol. 105 no. 3 767-779

    Number of ancestral human species: a molecular perspective
    D. Curnoe, A. Thorne
    doi:10.1078/0018-442X-00051

    Heritibility of intelligence: Molecular Psychiatry (2015) 20, 98–108; doi:10.1038/mp.2014.105; published online 16 September 2014, Genetics and intelligence differences: five special findings; Common DNA Markers Can Account for More Than Half of the Genetic Influence on Cognitive Abilities, Genetic contributions to variation in general cognitive function: a meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies in the CHARGE consortium (N=53949).

    One standard deviation racial IQ gap by age three: (Broman et al, Montie and Fagan, Brooks-Gunn, Klebanov and Duncan)

    • Rob

      Where is the evidence of Black intelligence?

      Blacks have by far the lowest IQs of any race; 80% score at or below the “low functioning” category.

      The least intelligent 10% of Whites have IQs below 80; 40% of Blacks do.

      Only one-in-six Blacks is more intelligent than the average White; five-in-six Whites are more intelligent than the average Black.

      Only the top 16% of Blacks score as high as the top 50% of Whites. Or as the New York Times put it, “…the difference in I.Q. points between the groups is quite significant. It means that the top sixth of Blacks score only as well on I.Q. tests as do the top half of Whites.”

      Only one-in-3.5 million (.00003%) African Blacks have an IQ of 140 or higher (genius level). But one-in-83 (1.2%) U.S. Whites is a genius. Therefore the per capita genius rate for U.S.-resident Whites is 41,000 times higher than it is for African Blacks.

      US-resident Blacks have higher intelligence than African Blacks due to the approximately 28% average White admixture.

      IQ distribution by race/ethnicity:

           •   Ashkenazi Jews = 115
           •   East Asians = 106
           •   Whites = 100
           •   South East Asians = 87
           •   Non-White Hispanics = 86
           •   American Blacks = 85 (average 28% White admixture)
           •   Middle East and North Africans = 84
           •   Sub-Saharan Blacks = 67 (Only 2% of Whites score this low)
           •   Australian Aborigines = 62

      Therefore, the IQ distribution for US-resident Blacks having an average IQ of 85 and a standard deviation of 12.4 doesn’t mean that there are no US-resident Blacks at all with IQs above 140; it means that only one US-resident Black in about 218,000 will have an IQ above 140.

      So given equal sized populations there will be about 2,600 times more White geniuses than Black geniuses. Since there are about 5.5 times more Whites than Blacks in the United States, White geniuses outnumber Black geniuses by a ratio of about one-to-14,300. Therefore, if all the White people in the USA were replaced by Blacks having the IQ distribution of US-resident Blacks the number of geniuses in the country would fall from about 2.4 million to only about 1,000.

      That is why Blacks are incapable of creating a civilization; there simply are not enough smart Blacks to create an infrastructure for the Black intellectual elite to achieve.

      Racial intelligence differences show in every test of general cognitive ability that anyone, of any race or nationality, has yet been able to devise. And they are reflected in countless everyday situations, “Life is an IQ test.”

      While some tirelessly criticize studies that show Black intelligence to be lower than White they can cite no Black performance that indicates high mean intelligence and instead insist that Black ability is present but hidden by bias. But everyday observation together with no evidence that the races are equal disconfirms racial parity.

      The positive relationship between IQ tests, academic tests and real-world observances demonstrates the existence of a general mental ability. How can there be group or individual differences in intelligence if there is no such trait?

      If the races are equal in intelligence then there should be evidence that they are; absence of such evidence is itself evidence that the races are not equal.

      Compared to Blacks, Whites’ brains:

           •   are 7% larger (1438cc versus 1343cc)
           •   are 100 grams heavier
           •   have deeper fissuration in the frontal and occipital regions
           •   have more complex convolutions and larger frontal lobes
           •   have more pyramidal neurons
           •   have 16% thicker supra-grandular layer
           •   react faster on mental chronometry tests
           •   have 600 million more neurons (each carries about 600 billion synapses, which each carry one bit of cortical information)

      Genes contribute to about 90% of the individual variation of brain size.

      Blacks are the only racial group with no DNA from the large-brained Neanderthals, and also the only race without the derived form of MCPH1 microcephalin called haplogroup D which produces increased brain volume.

      When similarly-performing Black, White and Asian children are compared for age Black children match White children two years younger, and Asian children three years younger.

      It is an ethological rule that the earlier and more regularly a phenomenon appears in a population the more likely it is genetically controlled. Genetics limits an individuals’ upper limit to IQ, and environment determines how much of that innate genetic potential will be reached. No amount of nurturing can make one exceed innate genetic potential.

      Blacks are a separate species from Whites and Asians; Blacks are the only race with no DNA from the large-brained Neanderthals, and therefore do not share a common ancestor with modern man. Blacks have 2% archaic admixture, Whites are hybridized with Neanderthal, and Asians have both Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA.

      Humans didn’t create a civilization until this hybridization. Blacks were still living in the Stone Age when Whites discovered them just 400 years ago.

      Sub-Saharan Blacks did not receive Neanderthal or Denisovan gene introgression, which is why Blacks are the most genetically distant of all the human races.

      Blacks received significant gene introgression from other early hominid species, which the other races do not have because they left sub-Sahara before the introgression occurred. These early hominids remain unknown due to the simple fact that their DNA has not been retrieved nor sequenced; only Neandertal and Denisovan DNA have been, thus far.

      Blacks are also the only race without the derived form of MCPH1 microcephalin called haplogroup D which produces increased brain volume and density.

      Genetic distance is a measure of the genetic divergence between species or between populations within a species. Populations with many similar genes have small genetic distances. This indicates that they are closely related and have a recent common ancestor.

      Blacks have a genetic distance of 0.23 from Whites and Asians, but only 0.17 from Erectus. That means Blacks are more genetically proximate to archaic hominids than to modern man.

      For comparison, the genetic distance between Blacks and modern man is greater than the genetic distance between the common chimpanzee and the bonobo (0.103, or half the Black-White distance) and between Gorilla gorilla and the Gorilla beringei (0.04, or 1/6 the Black/White distance) which are classified as separate species.

      So to be consistent and objective with taxonomic classification systems Blacks and Whites should be classified into separate species, or at least into different subspecies.

      The genetic distance between the races of man is also much greater than that between the breeds of dog, and anyone who has experience with dogs knows what a huge difference breed makes, not only in physical appearance but also in behavior and intelligence.

      We share 98.4 percent of our genes with chimpanzees, 95 percent with dogs, and 74 percent with microscopic roundworms. Only one chromosome determines if one is born male or female. There is no discernible difference in the DNA of a wolf and a Labrador retriever, yet their inbred behavioral differences are immense. Clearly, what’s meaningful is which genes differ and how they are patterned, not the percent of genes. A tiny number of genes can translate into huge functional differences.

      Modern man (Whites and Asians) has on average 5% Neanderthal DNA, therefore he would be an F4 (4th filial generation from full purebred Neanderthal). That is about the same as most claiming Cherokee ancestors today.

      It is equivalent to having one Neanderthal great-great-great-grandparent. Blacks also coexisted and interbred with archaic hominids (heidelbergensis) for longer than those who left Africa.

      Genetics determines the upper limit to IQ, but the environment dictates what percentage of your potential you will reach.

      Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks.

      The average White brain is 1438cc while the average Black brain is 1343cc, or 93% of the average White brain. The heritability of brain size is extremely strong at 0.90 and not one study to date has shown larger brain size for Blacks. The White and Asians brain also has a higher degree of fissuring (higher complexity) in the cerebral cortex of their brains, where abstract and conceptual thought is performed.

      Based on studies of brain weight at autopsy, endocranial volume of empty skulls, head size measurements by the U.S. military and NASA, and two dozen MRI volumetric studies Blacks’ brain size is 7% smaller than Whites’, and 8% smaller than Asians’. There is a correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40 and that these racial differences in brain size are present at birth. Genes contribute to about 90% of the individual variation of brain size.

      In addition to brain size are differences in brain shape, fissuration, number of pyramidal neurons and supra-grandular layer thickness. The depth of fissuration is related to superior intelligence and the brains of Whites have deeper fissures in the frontal and occipital regions. The supra-grandular layer of Blacks’ brains is 16% smaller than it is for Whites’ brains.

      The average human brain contains 86 billion neurons. Whites, on average, have 600 million more neurons than Blacks. Each neuron carries about 600 billion synapses, each of which carries, as a minimum, one bit of cortical information.

      Whites are only 10% of the world’s population, yet are the most industrious, ingenious, and innovative race the world has known. Whites have formed nations, built civilizations, assumed and administrated power, created the Renaissance, the Age of Discovery, the Industrial Revolution, automation, technology, the space program which landed men on the moon and launched probes exploring beyond the solar system, discovered electricity, created wonder drugs and architecture and have harnessed nuclear power, have unlocked the secrets of DNA and relativity, created computer science and the internet age…… sub-Saharan Africans still cannot even feed themselves.

      No pre-contact sub-Saharan African society ever created a written language, or weaved cloth, or forged steel, invented the wheel or plow, or devised a calendar, or code of laws, or any social organization, or formal religion. or system of measurement, or math, or built a multi-story structure or bridge or sewer, or infrastructure of any kind, and they never harnessed a river, or even drilled well or irrigated, or built a road or railway or sea-worthy vessel, they never domesticated animals, or exploited underground natural resources, or produced anything that could be considered a mechanical device.

      Blacks are the only race incapable of caring for themselves. Whites still have to provide food, medical, financial and engineering aid to Africans. They couldn’t survive without White charity. Blacks became an out-of-control invasive species after Whites domesticated them.

      Blacks lived alone in sub-Saharan Africa, a vast continent with temperate climates and abundant resources for 60,000 years; so they cannot blame racism, poverty, imperialism or anything else for their failures. How could they live with all that shoreline and never contemplate putting a sail on a ship like every other culture did?

      Blacks are the oldest race, they had a huge head-start so they should be the most advanced race; but they are the least advanced race. And in fact they never did develop until they were domesticated by Whites.

      19 of the 20 poorest countries are sub-Saharan African (Haiti). There has never been a successful Black country. No modern creations or civilization exists in sub-Saharan Africa that was not brought there by Whites.

      There are no White Third-World nations, but all Black ones are.

      Put Whites on an island and you get England; put Asians on an island and you get Japan; put Blacks on an island and you get Haiti.

      Nowhere Blacks live are they considered achievers. In fact they are universally viewed as unproductive and disruptive to society.

      Simply, life is an IQ test.

      Sub-Saharan Africans have never made a contribution to the world. Blacks can only achieve either because they are mixed with White genes or because they reside in White societies. For every one gifted Black there are eight gifted Whites. 80% of gifted Blacks are mixed-race.

      Today there are 738 million Europeans and 1.2 billion Africans. In 2050, according to the latest U.N. projections, Europe’s population will have dipped to 707 million, while Africa’s population will be 2.4 billion. By 2100, half of all children on earth will be African. On current trends, within 35 years, 1 in every 4 people will be sub-Saharan African. By 2100, there will be 4.4 billion Africans – two of every five human beings overall — and Europe’s population will be just 646 million.

      The 41 nations of sub-Saharan Africa produce no more wealth than the tiny country of Belgium, which has only 1/45 the population. The entire continent of Africa produces less than 1% of the world’s manufactured goods. Of all of the region’s economic production, White-run South Africa accounts for three-quarters of it. That Whites are only 8% of South Africa’s population demonstrates how productive and industrious Whites are that so relative few can carry the load for so many unproductive Blacks.

      Blacks are unable to achieve within their own race because not enough of them are smart enough to even build a sufficient infrastructure to allow for the Black intellectual elite to achieve. If allowed to become too numerous they destroy previously-thriving and safe White cities.

      Blacks cannot achieve on their own without the intervention of Whites giving them all the things they could never produce or maintain themselves. Without the continuous intervention of charity into Black Africa they could not even maintain what they have been given.

      All current Black civilization is in fact transplanted White civilization. There is no Black society on Earth that has independently developed and maintained its own technological way of life. All of the Black nations with the highest GDPs benefited from White-created enterprise to exploit their natural resources.

      Some groups succeed all the time, everywhere. Some have never succeeded anywhere. Blacks are the oldest race so they should be the most advanced, but they have never been successful anywhere. But civilization didn’t begin until humans evolved from Blacks by hybridizing with the large-brained Neanderthals which produced a modern human with an increase in cranium capacity and a heavier, more developed brain. Blacks are also the only race without the derived form of MCPH1 microcephalin called haplogroup D which produces increased brain volume density.

      This is why Blacks seethe with jealousy and hatred of Whites yet can’t seem to stay away because they want what we create and maintain, no matter if they deserve it or not. They want our peaceful and clean neighborhoods, our law and order, our technology and science, our school systems, our inventions, the jobs we create, the food we grow, the transportation we invent, the entertainment we provide….. Blacks hate us but can’t live without us. That’s why they demand that we take care of them and give them special rights and privileges that we don’t grant ourselves, just to compensate for their inability at living in a modern and technologically-advanced civilization.

      Slavery was the best thing to happen to Blacks. After defeating George Foreman for the heavyweight title in Zaire (now Congo), Muhammad Ali returned to the United States where he was asked by a reporter, “Champ, what did you think of Africa?” Ali replied, “Thank God my granddaddy got on that boat.”

      There hasn’t been a single contribution from sub-Saharan Africans to the world. Show me any community, city or state that is predominantly inhabited and run by Blacks anywhere in the world that is equal or superior to a comparable White one. By their fruits ye shall know them. Show me the fruits of that intelligence.

      “There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.” Dr James Watson

    • Rob

      dffd

    • Rob

      Blacks have small brains

      Would you expect a population of small-brain people to have a higher, lower or equal IQ as compared to a population of large-brain people?

      Compared to Blacks, Whites’ brains:

           •   are 7% larger (1438cc versus 1343cc)
           •   are 100 grams heavier
           •   have deeper fissuration in the frontal and occipital regions
           •   have more complex convolutions and larger frontal lobes
           •   have more pyramidal neurons
           •   have 16% thicker supra-grandular layer
           •   react faster on mental chronometry tests
           •   have 600 million more neurons (each carries about 600 billion synapses, which each carry one bit of cortical information)

      Genes contribute to about 90% of the individual variation of brain size.

      Blacks are the only racial group with no DNA from the large-brained Neanderthals, and also the only race without the derived form of MCPH1 microcephalin called haplogroup D which produces increased brain volume.

      The correlation between brain size and IQ across 25 primate species is 0.77 (where 1.0 indicates that monozygotic twins have no variance in IQ and 0 indicates that their IQs are completely uncorrelated).

      Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks.

      The average White brain is 1438cc while the average Black brain is 1343cc, or 93% of the average White brain. The heritability of brain size is extremely strong at 0.90 and not one study to date has shown larger brain size for Blacks. The White and Asians brain also has a higher degree of fissuring (higher complexity) in the cerebral cortex of their brains, where abstract and conceptual thought is performed.

      There are also racial differences in brain shape, fissuration, number of pyramidal neurons and supra-grandular layer thickness. The depth of fissuration is related to superior intelligence and the brains of Whites have deeper fissures in the frontal and occipital regions. The supra-grandular layer of Blacks’ brains is 16% smaller than it is for Whites’ brains.

      Based on studies of brain weight at autopsy, endocranial volume of empty skulls, head size measurements by the U.S. military and NASA, and two dozen MRI volumetric studies Blacks’ brain size is 7% smaller than Whites’, and 8% smaller than Asians’. There is a correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40 and that these racial differences in brain size are present at birth. Genes contribute to about 90% of the individual variation of brain size.

      In addition to brain size are differences in brain shape, fissuration, number of pyramidal neurons and supra-grandular layer thickness. The depth of fissuration is related to superior intelligence and the brains of Whites have deeper fissures in the frontal and occipital regions. The supra-grandular layer of Blacks’ brains is 16% smaller than it is for Whites’ brains.

      The average human brain contains 86 billion neurons. Whites, on average, have 600 million more neurons than Blacks. Each neuron carries about 600 billion synapses, each of which carries, as a minimum, one bit of cortical information.

      Blacks are the only racial group with no DNA from the large-brained Neanderthals, and also the only race without the derived form of MCPH1 microcephalin called haplogroup D which produces increased brain volume.

      Even before birth, population group differences in average brain size are found from the ninth week of intrauterine life with White fetuses averaging larger brain cases and smaller faces Black fetuses, with the differences becoming more prominent over the course of fetal development.

      Weighing brains at autopsy, Whites averaged heavier brains than Blacks and had more complex convolutions and larger frontal lobes. Subsequent studies have found an average Black–White difference of about 100 g. Studies have found that the more White admixture (judged independently from skin color), the greater the average brain weight in Blacks. In a study of 1,261 American adults, Ho et al. (1980) found that 811 White Americans averaged 1,323 g and 450 Black Americans averaged 1,223 g. Since the Blacks and Whites were similar in body size, differences in body size cannot explain away the differences in brain weight.

      The same three-way pattern of race differences has been found using the simplest culture-free cognitive measures such as reaction time tasks, which 9- to 12-year-old children perform in less than 1 s. Lynn (2006) found that East Asian children from Hong Kong and Japan were faster than European children from Britain and Ireland, who in turn were faster than African children from South Africa. Using similar tasks, this pattern of racial differences was also found in California (Jensen, 1998; Rushton & Jensen, 2005). Within each group, the children with higher IQ scores perform faster those with lower scores.

      Race differences start in the womb. Blacks are born earlier and grow quicker than Whites and Asians. The three-way race pattern occurs in milestones such as sexual maturity, family stability, crime rates, and population growth.

      Black babies mature more quickly than White babies, while Asian babies mature more slowly. Black babies in a sitting position are more able to keep their heads up and backs straight from the start. White babies often need six to eight weeks to do these things. It is unlikely that social factors could produce these differences. A basic law of biology shows that longer infancy is related to greater brain growth.

      Black babies spend the least time in the womb. In America, 51% of Black children have been born by week 39 of pregnancy compared with 33% of White children. In Europe, Black babies of even professional mothers are born earlier than White babies.

      Black children sit, crawl, walk, and put on their own clothes earlier than Whites or Asians. The findings are measured by such tests as Bayley’s Scales of Mental and Motor Development and the Cambridge Neonatal Scales.

      Asian children, on the other hand, mature more slowly than do White children. Asian children often do not walk until 13 months. Walking starts at 12 months for white children and 11 months for Black children.

      ~~~~~~~~~~

      Meta-analysis of associations between human brain volume and intelligence differences

      AUTHORS: Pietschnig, Penke, Wicherts, Zeiler, Voracek

      ABSTRACT: “By means of a systematic review of published studies and unpublished results obtained by personal communications with researchers, we identified 88 studies examining effect sizes of 148 healthy and clinical mixed-sex samples. Our results showed significant positive associations of brain volume and IQ.”

      2015, October

      PMID: 26449760

      ~~~~~~~~

      Brain mass differences between racial groups in the US

      Jensen (1998) summarizes the brain mass findings from the Case-Western Reserve (1980) study (N= 811 W, 450 B). An age matched and height adjusted B-W differences of ~100g (~.78SD) was found, which is commensurate with the findings of Bean (1906), Mall (1909), Pearl (1934), and Vint (1934) as described in Rushton and Ankney (2009). Holloway (2002) found a B-W difference of 63 grams (N = 1,391 W; 615 Black). Similar findings have been found based in imaging studies (see 5). In their study, Isamah, et al. (2010) found that African Americans have 1 SD less total cerebrum volume than European Americans.

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Contrary to most purely environmental theories, racial differences in brain size show up early in life. Data from the U.S. National Collaborative Perinatal Project on 19,000 Black children and 17,000 White children showed that Black children had a smaller head perimeter at birth and, although Black children were born shorter in stature and lighter in weight than White children, by age 7 ‘catch-up growth’ led Black children to be larger in body size than White children. However, Blacks remained smaller in head perimeter (Broman et al., 1987). Further, head perimeter at birth, 1 year, 4 years, and 7 years correlated with IQ scores at age 7 in both Black and White children (r = 0.13 to 0.24).

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Brain Size Differences. Studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) find a correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40. Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. Race differences in brain size are present at birth. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks.

      “Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause,” write the authors. The Black-White difference has been found consistently from the time of the massive World War I Army testing of 90 years ago to a massive study of over 6 million corporate, military, and higher-education test-takers in 2001.

      “Race differences show up by 3 years of age, even after matching on maternal education and other variables,” said Rushton. “Therefore they cannot be due to poor education since this has not yet begun to exert an effect. That’s why Jensen and I looked at the genetic hypothesis in detail. We examined 10 categories of evidence.”

      1. The Worldwide Pattern of IQ Scores; East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture. Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.

      2. Race Differences are Most Pronounced on Tests that Best Measure the General Intelligence Factor (g); Black-White differences, for example, are larger on the Backward Digit Span test than on the less g loaded Forward Digit Span test.

      3. The Gene-Environment Architecture of IQ is the Same in all Races, and Race Differences are Most Pronounced on More Heritable Abilities; Studies of Black, White, and East Asian twins, for example, show the heritability of IQ is 50% or higher in all races.

      4. Brain Size Differences; Studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) find a correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40. Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. Race differences in brain size are present at birth. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks.

      5. Trans-Racial Adoption Studies; Race differences in IQ remain following adoption by White middle class parents. East Asians grow to average higher IQs than Whites while Blacks score lower. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found race differences were even greater than at age 7: White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89.

      6. Racial Admixture Studies; Black children with lighter skin, for example, average higher IQ scores. In South Africa, the IQ of the mixed-race “Colored” population averages 85, intermediate to the African 70 and White 100.

      -June 2005, Psychology, Public Policy and Law, a journal of the American Psychological Association

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      According to a new study, just published in the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) newsroom, scientists have definitively found the genes which control brain size and intelligence.

      Dozens of studies have found race differences in brain size, whether measured by MRI, endocranial volume, brain weight at autopsy or external head size (with or without corrections for body size).

      Most were carried out on the three major races of East Asians, Europeans, and Africans. Averaging all the data, the following figures have emerged: Brain size average for East Asians = 1364cm; Whites = 1347cm; and Blacks = 1267cm.

      The overall mean for East Asians was 17cm more than for Whites and 97cm more than for Blacks.

      Since every cubic centimeter of brain tissue contains millions of brain cells and billions of synapses, the race differences in brain size help to explain the race differences in IQ.

      The latest overview, billed as the “world’s largest brain study to date,” saw a team of more than 200 scientists from 100 institutions worldwide collaborate to map the human genes that boost or sabotage the brain’s resistance to a variety of mental illnesses and Alzheimer’s disease.

      Additionally, the study (also published in the journal Nature Genetics), found new genes which control “differences in brain size and intelligence.”

      “We searched for two things in this study,” said senior author Paul Thompson, professor of neurology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and a member of the UCLA Laboratory of Neuro Imaging.

      “We hunted for genes that increase your risk for a single disease that your children can inherit. We also looked for factors that cause tissue atrophy and reduce brain size, which is a biological marker for disorders like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, Alzheimer’s disease and dementia.”

      Three years ago, Thompson’s lab partnered with geneticists Nick Martin and Margaret Wright at the Queensland Institute for Medical Research in Brisbane, Australia, and with geneticist Barbara Franke of Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre in the Netherlands.

      The four investigators recruited brain-imaging labs around the world to pool their brain scans and genomic data, and Project ENIGMA (Enhancing Neuro Imaging Genetics through Meta-Analysis) was born.

      “Our individual centers couldn’t review enough brain scans to obtain definitive results,” said Thompson, who is also a professor of psychiatry at the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA.

      “By sharing our data with Project ENIGMA, we created a sample large enough to reveal clear patterns in genetic variation and show how these changes physically alter the brain.”

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Recent reviews (by Nisbett et al. (2012b) and Mackintosh (2011)) confirm current data does show an average difference in brain size and head-circumference between American Blacks and Whites.

      Brain size is found to have a correlation of about .35 with intelligence and cites studies showing that genes may account for as much as 90% of individual variation in brain size, concluding that race differences in average brain size could be an important argument for genetic contribution to racial IQ gaps.

      – Considerations Relating to the Study of Group Differences in Intelligence, Earl Hunt1 and Jerry Carlson, The University of Washington
      – American Psychologist, Vol 67(6), Sep 2012, 503-504

      On the outside, there’s not a lot of difference between Black heads and White ones. There is a slight difference, however, with Whites having the larger heads. But the big difference is in the size of the brain. Blacks have thicker skulls, which means that a higher percentage of their head is bone instead of brain.

      Blacks are the only race without the derived form of MCPH1 microcephalin called haplogroup D which appeared about 37,000 years ago and is associated with increased brain volume.

      Empirical data obtained from brain weight at autopsy, endocranial volume of empty skulls, head size measurements by the U.S. military and NASA, and two dozen MRI volumetric studies have shown that brain volumes average 1427 cubic centimeters for Whites, but only 1361 cubic centimeters for Blacks.

      In weight measurements, the brains of African Blacks were found to weigh an average of 1157 grams, whereas those of pure Whites weighed an average of 1323 grams. The brains of US-resident Blacks, who have a bit of White mixture in their genetic makeup, average 1223 grams in weight.

      That 100-gram weight difference, between White Americans and US-resident Blacks, corresponds to an approximate 600 million neuron advantage for Whites. In 600 million neurons, there are about 600 billion synapses, each of which carries, as a minimum, one bit of cortical information.

      Also, Whites have a larger genus to splenium ratio (front to back part of corpus callosum), which indicates that Whites probably have more activity in the frontal lobes which are thought to be the seat of intelligence. One study found that White cerebrums exhibited 14% more sulsification, or fissuring, as compared with those of Blacks. So, not only are White brains larger, they are also significantly more complex.

      Blacks also have considerably smaller frontal lobes. Frontal lobes are responsible for planning complex cognitive behavior, personality expression, decision making and moderating social behavior.

      This is a genetic trait because even malnourished Asians from poor countries have a larger brain on average than well fed blacks from western countries.

      Sources:

      Willerman et al. (1991) Using MRI obtained r’s ranging from .26 to .56 between IQ and the size of specific brain structures and an overall r of .38 between full-scale IQ and gray matter volume when body size is controlled for. Replications by Raz et al. (1993) and Wickett, Vernon and Lee (1994) found correlations between IQ and brain size of .41 and .47-49. Egan et al. (1994) found an r of .32 between IQ and brain size in a sample whose SD for IQ was 9.3.

      Beals, K. L., Smith, C. L., & Dodd, S. M. (1984). Brain size, cranial morphology, climate, and time machines. Current Anthropology 25, 301–330.

      Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g Factor. Westport, CT: Praeger.

      Rushton, J. P. & Ankney, C. D. (1996). Brain size and cognitive ability: Correlations with age, sex, social class, and race. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 3, 21-36.

      Ho, K. C., Roessmann, U., Straumfjord, J. V., & Monroe, G. (1980). Analysis of brain weight: I and II. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine 104, 635–645.

      Johnson F. W. & Jensen (1994). Race and sex differences in head size and IQ. Intelligence 18: 309–33

      Rushton JP. (1997). Cranial size and IQ in Asian Americans from birth to age seven. Intelligence 25: 7–20.

      Rushton JP (1991). Mongoloid-Caucasoid differences in brain size from military samples [and NASA]. Intelligence 15: 351–9.

      Cranial Capacities:

      Study                    Black               White                Asian             Black/White

      Ho et al., 1980          1267                1370                                   .92

      Gould, 1981              1356                1426                 1426              .95

      Beals, 1984             1276                1362                 1380              .93

      Herskovits, 1993         1295                1421                 1451              .91

      Ruston (Army) 92         1346                1361                 1403              .98

      Ruston (ILO), 1994       1228                1284                 1312              .95
                  

      ————–

      Abstract:

      Genome-wide association studies establish that human intelligence is highly heritable and polygenic.

      General intelligence is an important human quantitative trait that accounts for much of the variation in diverse cognitive abilities. Individual differences in intelligence are strongly associated with many important life outcomes, including educational and occupational attainments, income, health and lifespan. Data from twin and family studies are consistent with a high heritability of intelligence, but this inference has been controversial. We conducted a genome-wide analysis of 3511 unrelated adults with data on 549 692 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and detailed phenotypes on cognitive traits. We estimate that 40% of the variation in crystallized-type intelligence and 51% of the variation in fluid-type intelligence between individuals is accounted for by linkage disequilibrium between genotyped common SNP markers and unknown causal variants. These estimates provide lower bounds for the narrow-sense heritability of the traits. We partitioned genetic variation on individual chromosomes and found that, on average, longer chromosomes explain more variation. Finally, using just SNP data we predicted ~1% of the variance of crystallized and fluid cognitive phenotypes in an independent sample (P=0.009 and 0.028, respectively). Our results unequivocally confirm that a substantial proportion of individual differences in human intelligence is due to genetic variation, and are consistent with many genes of small effects underlying the additive genetic influences on intelligence.

      Molecular Psychiatry, 2011: 996-1005.

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Intelligence

      Volume 18, Issue 3, May–June 1994, Pages 309–333

      Race and sex differences in head size and IQ
      Arthur R. Jensen, Fred W. Johnson

      Abstract

      An analysis of IQ in relation to head size (and by inference, brain size) was performed on some 14,000 children and their full siblings, almost evenly divided by race (white and black) and sex, on whom data were obtained at ages 4 and 7 years in the National Collaborative Perinatal Project. Within each race × sex group, IQ is significantly correlated with head size, age and body size having been partialed out. A significant positive correlation between IQ × head size exists not only within subjects (at ages 4 and 7) but also within families and between families (at age 7 only). The within-families correlation (at age 7) is consistent with an intrinsic or pleiotropic correlation between the mental and physical variables. No significant positive correlation within families appeared at age 4, despite a significant within-subjects correlation at that age. As yet, there are only speculative explanations of the disparity between the age 4 and 7 within-family correlations of head size with IQ. Although general body size is also correlated with IQ within subjects and between families, the correlation does not exist within families in either age group, which rules out a pleiotropic correlation between body size and IQ. There are both race and sex differences in head size, although the sex difference in IQ is nil. White and black children who are matched on IQ show, on average, virtually zero difference in head size.

      Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Arthur R. Jensen, School of Education, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA.

    • Rob

      Blacks are violent

      Blacks have mean testosterone levels 19% higher than in whites. This is why 1-in-4 Black men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer but only 1-in-8 White men and 1-in-13 Asian men will. Testosterone is associated with impulsive, aggressive and violent behavior.

      The Black homicide rate is 17 per 100,000, a rate over 9x that of the White rate, and comparable to some of those most murderous countries in the world.

      If the homicide rate for the country as a whole were the White-only rate, the homicide rate would drop 84%, making the U.S. rate comparable to European countries.

      Black males age 18-35 are only 4% of the U.S. population, yet commit 50% of homicides. Black males (all ages) are only 6% of the U.S. population, yet commit 46% of all violent crimes, and 50% of the gun homicides. If Blacks were removed from the equation, the U.S. gun homicide rate would be equal to Great Britain’s, who have some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the world.

      Therefore, the U.S. has a Black problem, not a gun or violent crime problem.

      In 2013, according to FBI statistics, Blacks committed an average of 486,945 violent crimes against Whites, whereas Whites committed only 99,403 violent crimes against Blacks. This means Blacks were the attackers in 84.5 percent of the violent crimes involving Blacks and Whites. By age 23, half of Blacks males have been arrested.

      Blacks have a very high percentage carrying the dysfunctional form of the MAOA gene which does not produce a protein needed to break down old serotonin in their brains. This causes them to be agitated, aggressive and impulsive. The popular term for this is the “warrior gene” which could be considered propaganda to put a positive spin on those who possess this dysfunctional gene which is highly-correlated to criminality.

      Comprehensive Psychiatry published a large study on the rates at which black and white Americans carry shortened, or dysfunctional, MAOA genes.

      The gene can come in the form of 2, 3, 3.5, 4, or 5 allele. A 3-repeat allele is considered dysfunctional and is what is referred to as the “warrior gene”. A 2-repeat allele is considered very dysfunctional. People with a 2-repeat allele MAOA gene have a permanent chemical imbalance in their brain making the person more likely to be agitated, aggressive, and impulsive.

      According to the study published in Comprehensive Psychiatry, 34.6% of Whites and 53.4% of Blacks have 2-repeat allele or less. However, only .5% of whites have the 2-repeat (2R) allele version compared to 4.7% of blacks.

      That means Blacks are 9.4 times more likely to have the extremely dysfunctional version of the gene than Whites. Considering that Black Americans are 9 times more likely to commit murder, this is very significant.

      Other studies have shown even higher rates of occurrence of the 2-repeat (2R) allele version of the gene in Blacks.

      It was discovered that Black males carrying 2R were more likely to be involved in extreme violence (shooting and stabbing) than Black men with other MAOA variants. The relationship between the rare MAOA version and antisocial behaviors has raised eyebrows because, quite simply, this gene is not distributed equally across ethnic groups. In the Add Health database, 5.5% of African American men, 0.9% of Caucasian men, and 0.00067% of Asian men have 2R.

      The association between 2R and committing a shooting or stabbing crime was statistically significant. The MAOA-2R has become a symbol of a new era in behavioral genetics research — an era that has reintroduced race into the nature versus nurture debate over the source of ethnic behavioral differences

      Notes: There are other genes associated with violent and/or impulsive behavior. The MAOA gene is only one of them. However, the effects of a shortened MAOA gene are well documented. The chemical imbalance its creates can be observed in a laboratory.

      Blacks possess 10x more of the dysfunctional MAOA (or “warrior gene”) that is associated with violent and/or impulsive behavior.

      ~~~~~~~~~~~

      Abstract:

      A line of research has revealed that a polymorphism in the promoter region of the MAOA gene is related to antisocial phenotypes. Most of these studies examine the effects of low MAOA activity alleles (2-repeat and 3-repeat alleles) against the effects of high MAOA activity alleles (3.5-repeat, 4-repeat, and sometimes 5-repeat alleles), with research indicating that the low MAOA activity alleles confer an increased risk to antisocial phenotypes. The current study examined whether the 2-repeat allele, which has been shown to be functionally different from the 3-repeat allele, was associated with a range of antisocial phenotypes in a sample of males drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Analyses revealed that African-American males who carried the 2-repeat allele were, in comparison with other African-American male genotypes, significantly more likely to be arrested and incarcerated. Additional analyses revealed that African-American male carriers of the 2-repeat allele scored significantly higher on an antisocial phenotype index and on measures assessing involvement in violent behaviors over the life course. There was not any association between the 2-repeat allele and a continuously measured psychopathic personality traits scale. The effects of the 2-repeat allele could not be examined in Caucasian males because only 0.1% carried it.

      Authors: Kevin M. Beavera, John Paul Wright, Brian B. Boutwell, J.C. Barnesd, Matt DeLisie, Michael G. Vaughnf

      ~~~

      Monoamine oxidase A genotype is associated with gang membership and weapon use.

      Beaver KM1, DeLisi M, Vaughn MG, Barnes JC.

      ABSTRACT:

      A functional polymorphism in the promoter region of the monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) gene has been found to be associated with a broad range of antisocial phenotypes, including physical violence. At the same time, it is well known that gang members represent some of the most serious violent offenders. Even so, no research has ever examined the association between MAOA and gang membership.

      RESULTS:

      The low MAOA activity alleles conferred an increased risk of joining a gang and using a weapon in a fight for males but not for females. Moreover, among male gang members, those who used weapons in a fight were more likely to have a low MAOA activity allele when compared with male gang members who do not use weapons in a fight.

      CONCLUSIONS:

      Male carriers of low MAOA activity alleles are at risk for becoming a gang member and, once a gang member, are at risk for using weapons in a fight.

      Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      PMID: 20152292

      ~~~

      Serum testosterone levels in healthy young black and white men.

      Blacks in the United States have the highest prostate cancer rate in the world and nearly twice that of whites in the United States. The 2:1 black-to-white ratio in prostate cancer rates is already apparent at age 45 years, the age at which the earliest prostate cancer cases occur. This finding suggests that the factor(s) responsible for the difference in rates occurs, or first occurs, early in life. Testosterone has been hypothesized to play a role in the etiology of prostate cancer, because testosterone and its metabolite, dihydrotestosterone, are the principal trophic hormones that regulate growth and function of epithelial prostate tissue. Mean testosterone levels in blacks were 19% higher than in whites, and free testosterone levels were 21% higher. Both these differences were statistically significant. A 15% difference in circulating testosterone levels could readily explain a twofold difference in prostate cancer risk.

      J Natl Cancer Inst. 1986 Jan;76(1):45-8.

      PMID: 3455741

      ~~~~~~~~

      The 2-repeat allele of the MAOA gene confers an increased risk for shooting and stabbing behaviors.

      Beaver KM1, Barnes JC, Boutwell BB.

      Abstract

      There has been a great deal of research examining the link between a polymorphism in the promoter region of the MAOA gene and antisocial phenotypes. The results of these studies have consistently revealed that low activity MAOA alleles are related to antisocial behaviors for males who were maltreated as children. Recently, though, some evidence has emerged indicating that a rare allele of the MAOA gene-that is, the 2-repeat allele-may have effects on violence that are independent of the environment. The current study builds on this research and examines the association between the 2-repeat allele and shooting and stabbing behaviors in a sample of males drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Analyses revealed that African-American males who carry the 2-repeat allele are significantly more likely than all other genotypes to engage in shooting and stabbing behaviors and to report having multiple shooting and stabbing victims. The limitations of the study are discussed and suggestions for future research are offered.

      PMID: 24326626

      ~~~~~~~~

      Barnes, B. Genes, agents and the institution of responsible action. New Genetics and Society 21(3), 291-302 (2003).

      Beaver, K. M. et al. Monoamine oxidase A genotype is associated with gang membership and weapon use. Compr. Psychiatry 51(2), 130-134 (2009).

      Brunner, H. G. et al. Abnormal behavior associated with a point mutation in the structural gene for monoamine oxidase A. Science 262, 578-580. (1993).

      Buchen, L. In their nature. Nature 467, 146-148 (2010).

      Caspi, A. et al. Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science 297(5582), 851-854 (2002a).

      Caspi, A. et al. Supplementary material. Description of methods and measurements used in the Dunedin multidisciplinary health and development study. Science 297 (2002b).

      Denno, D. W. “Behavioral Genetics Evidence in Criminal Cases: 1994–2007” in Farahany N. A. (ed) The impact of behavioral sciences on criminal law (Oxford University Press, chapter 10, 2009).

      Lea, R. & Chambers, G. Monamine oxidase, addiction and the ‘warrior’ gene hypothesis. New Zealand Medical Journal 120, 1250 (2007).

      Levitt, M. Genes, environment and responsibility for violent behaviour: “Whatever genes one has it is preferable that you are prevented from going around stabbing people”. New Genetics and Society 32(1), 4-17 (2013).

      Shih, J. C et al. Monoamine oxidase: from genes to behaviour. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 22,197-217 (1999).

      ~~~~~~~~

      MAOA is an enzyme that degrades neurotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamine in the brain — is coded for by the MAOA gene. Neurotransmitters play a pivotal role in mood, arousal, and emotions, even affecting impulse control. Since the 1990s scientists have identified several versions of the MAOA, which are usually categorized as low-activity or high-activity variants. MAOA genes are classified based on how many times a short sequence — a functional strip of DNA — repeats itself within a variable region of the gene. The most common variant, MAOA-4R, has four repeats and is associated with high-activity breakdown of neurotransmitters. Alternate forms of the MAOA, including the 2-repeat (2R) and 3-repeat (3R) versions, contain fewer repeat sequences.

      The 2R and 3R variants are often lumped together in studies of the low-activity MAOA gene. (Although the 5R version has a large number of repeats, it too is less active than the 4R version.) The two classes of MAOA versions correlate with different behavioral tendencies. Low-activity variants are thought to lead to reduced levels of MAOA in the brain, possibly shifting mood by changing serotonin levels.

      But it was 2R — the “extreme warrior gene” — that captivated researchers searching for a genetic basis of criminal predispositions. Guo’s team analyzed data on male youth from Add Health — a national sample of adolescents in grades 7-12. Their findings showed that the rare variant, 2R, was correlated with higher levels of self-reported serious and violent delinquency.

      More recently, Beaver’s team has focused only on the 2R variant rather than the low-expression variants combined. He and his colleagues have discovered that African American males carrying 2R were more likely to be involved in extreme violence — shooting and stabbing — than African American men with other MAOA variants. The relationship between the rare MAOA version and antisocial behaviors has raised eyebrows because, quite simply, this gene is not distributed equally across ethnic groups. In the Add Health database, 5.5% of African American men, 0.9% of Caucasian men, and 0.00067% of Asian men have 2R. Since the rare MAOA variant is virtually non-existent in whites, all of the males in Beaver’s study were black Americans.

      Beaver’s sample of 133 African American men from the Add Health database included 6% that carried 2R. Overall, 5.6% of the men in the sample reported shooting or stabbing someone at some point in their lifetime. The association between 2R and committing a shooting or stabbing crime was statistically significant. Based on Beaver’s evidence, 2R appears to increase the risk of shooting or stabbing a victim during adolescence or adulthood. For some commentators in the public arena, MAOA-2R has become a symbol of a new era in behavioral genetics research — an era that has reintroduced race into the nature versus nurture debate over the source of ethnic behavioral differences.

      Beaver’s studies have shown that the 2R variant has a robust association with violent behaviors, arrest, and incarceration. His research is applauded by supporters of behavioral genetics, but it has also drawn criticism. It focuses on an antisocial-linked gene that reportedly occurs more frequently in African American men than in males of other ethnic groups. This has led some popular writers to speculate that MAOA-2R might account for — or at least play a significant role in — the relatively higher rates of violent crime in African Americans.

      ~~~~~

      Mass and Serial Killers

      Mass Killers:

      There have been 70 mass shooters since 1982.

      45 by whites, 11 by blacks, 6 by Asians, 4 by Latinos, 3 by Native American.

      Per capita:

      Whites make up 77.7% of the populations and 64% of the shootings -13.7
      Latinos make up 17.1% of the populations and 5.7% of the shootings -11.4
      Blacks make up 13.2% of the populations and 15% of the shootings +1.8
      Asians make up 5.3% of the populations and 8.5% of the shootings +3.2
      Native Americans make up 1.2% of the populations and 4% of the shootings +2.8

      Serial Killers:

      According to the FBI 90 percent of serial killers are male, and 46 percent of those are white.

      Black serial killers have comprised over half of documented serial killers since the dawn of the 21st century at 56 percent, making up a total of 40 percent in years dating back to 1900.

      As Blacks are only 13% of the U.S. population they are heavily over-represented as serial killers.

      Criminal profiler Pat Brown says serial killers are usually reported as white because the media typically focuses on “All-American” white and pretty female victims who were the targets of white male offenders, that crimes among minority offenders in urban communities, where crime rates are higher, are under-investigated, and that minority serial killers likely exist at the same ratios as white serial killers for the population. She believes that the myth that serial killers are always white might have become “truth” in some research fields due to the over-reporting of white serial killers in the media.

      According to some sources, the percentage of serial killers who are African American is estimated to be between 13 and 22 percent. Another study has shown that 16 percent of serial killers are African American, what author Maurice Godwin describes as a “sizeable portion”. However, the 2013 Radford/FGCU Serial Killer Database annual statistics show, for the decades 1900–2010, that the percentage of African American serial killers is 40.7%. Popular racial stereotypes about the lower intelligence of African-Americans, and the stereotype that serial killers are white males with “bodies stacked up in the basement and strewn all over the countryside” may explain the media focus on serial killers that are white and the failure to adequately report on those that are black.

      Child Molesters:

      Myth: Whites Are More Likely to be Pedophiles and Child Molesters

      There is a long-standing myth that Whites are more likely to molest children than any other race. This goes back to some stereotype of the creepy, nerdy, weirdo White guy who can’t get laid so he molests kids.

      % of total child abusers:

      White                            51%
      African American                 25%
      Hispanic                         15%
      American Indian/Alaska Natives    2%
      Asian/Pacific Islanders           1%

      Relative to their population, likelihood of child abuse compared to background population rate:
      American Indian    +100%
      Blacks             +92%
      Hispanics          no difference
      Whites             -35%
      Asian              -67%

      ~~~~~

      FBI Table 43 (2013)

      Blacks are 13 percent of the population and commit 32.5% of all crimes against family and children. That is 2.5 times their population.

      Whites are 66 percent of the population and commit 65% of all crimes against family and children. That is 1 times their population.

      Therefore, a Black is 2.5 times more likely to be a pedophile than a White.

    • Rob

      Google: National IQ Congo

      ….then: IQ Koko the gorilla

      LOL

      IQ correlates strongly to job performance, increased wealth, increased income, economic growth, livability in a U.S. state, cooperation, life expectancy and infant mortality.

      It is estimated that a minimum IQ of 90 is required just to maintain a technological society.

      The more White a society is the more successful (safe and prosperous) it is.

      The following intelligence scores came from work carried out earlier this decade by Richard Lynn, a British psychologist, and Tatu Vanhanen, a Finnish political scientist, who analysed IQ studies from 113 countries, and from subsequent work by Jelte Wicherts, a Dutch psychologist. Lynn and Vanhanen benchmarked their IQ results so that Britain is 100. America scores 98 on this scale, and the world average is 90. IQ`s are assumed to form a normal probability distribution (“bell curve”) with the standard deviation set at 15.

      National IQ correlates at 0.73 with living standard.

      Each 10 point increase in IQ generally doubles economic growth, assuming the country has a market economy:

                •   108      Singapore
                •   106      South Korea
                •   105      Japan
                •   105      China
                •   102      Italy
                •   101      Iceland
                •   101      Mongolia
                •   101      Switzerland
                •   100      Austria
                •   100      Luxembourg
                •   100      Netherlands
                •   100      Norway
                •   100      United Kingdom
                •   99        Belgium
                •   99        Canada
                •   99        Estonia
                •   99        Finland
                •   99        Germany
                •   99        New Zealand
                •   99        Poland
                •   99        Sweden
                •   98        Andorra
                •   98        Australia
                •   98        Czech Republic
                •   98        Denmark
                •   98        France
                •   98        Hungary
                •   98        Latvia
                •   98        Spain
                •   98        United States
                •   97        Belarus
                •   97        Malta
                •   97        Russia
                •   97        Ukraine
                •   96        Moldova
                •   96        Slovakia
                •   96        Slovenia
                •   96        Uruguay
                •   95        Israel
                •   95        Portugal
                •   94        Armenia
                •   94        Georgia
                •   94        Kazakhstan
                •   94        Romania
                •   94        Vietnam
                •   93        Argentina
                •   93        Bulgaria
                •   92        Greece
                •   92        Ireland
                •   92        Malaysia
                •   91        Brunei
                •   91        Cambodia
                •   91        Cyprus
                •   91        Lithuania
                •   91        Thailand
                •   90        Albania
                •   90        Bosnia
                •   90        Chile
                •   90        Croatia
                •   90        Kyrgyzstan
                •   90        Turkey
                •   89        Cook Islands
                •   89        Costa Rica
                •   89        Laos
                •   89        Mauritius
                •   89        Serbia
                •   89        Suriname
                •   88        Ecuador
                •   88        Mexico
                •   88        Samoa
                •   87        Azerbaijan
                •   87        Bolivia
                •   87        Brazil
                •   87        Guyana
                •   87        Indonesia
                •   87        Iraq
                •   87        Myanmar
                •   87        Tajikistan
                •   87        Turkmenistan
                •   87        Uzbekistan
                •   86        Kuwait
                •   86        Philippines
                •   86        Seychelles
                •   86        Tonga
                •   85        Cuba
                •   85        Eritrea
                •   85        Fiji
                •   85        Kiribati
                •   85        Peru
                •   85        Trinidad and Tobago
                •   85        Yemen
                •   84        Afghanistan
                •   84        Bahamas
                •   84        Belize
                •   84        Colombia
                •   84        Iran
                •   84        Jordan
                •   84        Marshall Islands
                •   84        Micronesia
                •   84        Morocco
                •   84        Nigeria
                •   84        Pakistan
                •   84        Panama
                •   84        Paraguay
                •   84        Saudi Arabia
                •   84        Solomon Islands
                •   84        Uganda
                •   84        United Arab Emirates
                •   84        Vanuatu
                •   84        Venezuela
                •   83        Algeria
                •   83        Bahrain
                •   83        Libya
                •   83        Oman
                •   83        New Guinea
                •   83        Syria
                •   83        Tunisia
                •   82        Bangladesh
                •   82        Dominican Republic
                •   82        India
                •   82        Lebanon
                •   82        Madagascar
                •   82        Zimbabwe
                •   81        Egypt
                •   81        Honduras
                •   81        Maldives
                •   81        Nicaragua
                •   80        Barbados
                •   80        Bhutan
                •   80        El Salvador
                •   80        Kenya
                •   79        Guatemala
                •   79        Sri Lanka
                •   79        Zambia
                •   78        Congo
                •   78        Nepal
                •   78        Qatar
                •   77        South Africa
                •   76        Cape Verde
                •   76        Congo
                •   76        Mauritania
                •   76        Senegal
                •   74        Mali
                •   74        Namibia
                •   73        Ghana
                •   72        Tanzania
                •   71        Central African Republic
                •   71        Grenada
                •   71        Jamaica
                •   71        St Vincent, Grenadines
                •   71        Sudan
                •   70        Antigua, Barbuda
                •   70        Benin
                •   70        Botswana
                •   70        Rwanda
                •   70        Togo
                •   69        Burundi
                •   69        Cote d’Ivoire
                •   69        Ethiopia
                •   69        Malawi
                •   69        Niger
                •   68        Angola
                •   68        Burkina Faso
                •   68        Chad
                •   68        Djibouti
                •   68        Somalia
                •   68        Swaziland
                •   67        Dominica
                •   67        Guinea
                •   67        Guinea-Bissau
                •   67        Haiti
                •   67        Lesotho
                •   67        Liberia
                •   67        Saint Kitts
                •   67        Sao Tome
                •   66        Gambia
                •   64        Cameroon
                •   64        Gabon
                •   64        Sierra Leone
                •   64        Mozambique
                •   62        Saint Lucia
                •   59        Equatorial Guinea

      A least developed country (LDC) is a country that, according to the United Nations, exhibits the lowest indicators of socioeconomic development, with the lowest Human Development Index ratings of all countries in the world. A country is classified as a Least Developed Country if it meets three criteria:

      Poverty (adjustable criterion: three-year average GNI per capita of less than US $992, which must exceed $1,190 to leave the list as of 2012)

      Human resource weakness (based on indicators of nutrition, health, education and adult literacy) and

      Economic vulnerability (based on instability of agricultural production, instability of exports of goods and services, economic importance of non-traditional activities, merchandise export concentration, handicap of economic smallness, and the percentage of population displaced by natural disasters)

      34 of the 47 LDCs are sub-Saharan African. There are a combined 48 sub-Saharan countries with a total population of one billion earning an annual per capita GDP of $1,720 in 2014 USD and a life expectancy of 57 years.

      Some groups succeed all the time, everywhere. Some have never succeeded anywhere. Blacks are the oldest race so they should be the most advanced, but they have never been successful anywhere. Civilization didn’t advance until humans evolved from Blacks by hybridizing with the large-brained Neanderthals which produced a modern human with an increase in cranium capacity and a heavier, more developed brain. Blacks are also the only race without the derived form of MCPH1 microcephalin called haplogroup D which produces increased brain volume and density.

    • Rob

      Primitive Traits

      Blacks are a separate species from Whites and Asians

      In addition to brain size are differences in brain shape, fissuration, number of pyramidal neurons and supra-grandular layer thickness. The depth of fissuration is related to superior intelligence and the brains of Whites have deeper fissures in the frontal and occipital regions. The supra-grandular layer of Blacks’ brains is 16% smaller than it is for Whites’ brains.

      Blacks are the only racial group with no DNA from the large-brained Neanderthals, and also the only race without the derived form of MCPH1 microcephalin called haplogroup D which produces increased brain volume.

      Even before birth, population group differences in average brain size are found from the ninth week of intrauterine life with White fetuses averaging larger brain cases and smaller faces than Black fetuses, with the differences becoming more prominent over the course of fetal development.

      Weighing brains at autopsy, Whites averaged heavier brains than Blacks and had more complex convolutions and larger frontal lobes. Subsequent studies have found an average Black–White difference of about 100 g. Studies have found that the more White admixture (judged independently from skin color), the greater the average brain weight in Blacks. In a study of 1,261 American adults, Ho et al. (1980) found that 811 White Americans averaged 1,323 g and 450 Black Americans averaged 1,223 g. Since the Blacks and Whites were similar in body size, differences in body size cannot explain away the differences in brain weight.

      The same three-way pattern of race differences has been found using the simplest culture-free cognitive measures such as reaction time tasks, which 9- to 12-year-old children perform in less than 1 s. Lynn (2006) found that East Asian children from Hong Kong and Japan were faster than European children from Britain and Ireland, who in turn were faster than African children from South Africa. Using similar tasks, this pattern of racial differences was also found in California (Jensen, 1998; Rushton & Jensen, 2005). Within each group, the children with higher IQ scores perform faster those with lower scores.

      Race differences start in the womb. Blacks are born earlier and grow quicker than Whites and Asians. The three-way race pattern occurs in milestones such as sexual maturity, family stability, crime rates, and population growth.

      Black babies mature more quickly than White babies, while Asian babies mature more slowly. Black babies in a sitting position are more able to keep their heads up and backs straight from the start. White babies often need six to eight weeks to do these things. It is unlikely that social factors could produce these differences. A basic law of biology shows that longer infancy is related to greater brain growth.

      Black babies spend the least time in the womb. In America, 51% of Black children have been born by week 39 of pregnancy compared with 33% of White children. In Europe, Black babies of even professional mothers are born earlier than White babies.

      Black children sit, crawl, walk, and put on their own clothes earlier than Whites or Asians. The findings are measured by such tests as Bayley’s Scales of Mental and Motor Development and the Cambridge Neonatal Scales.

      Asian children, on the other hand, mature more slowly than do White children. Asian children often do not walk until 13 months. Walking starts at 12 months for white children and 11 months for Black children.

      In a combination of 19 studies on Black and White brain sizes, every single one shows Whites with a significantly larger brain size than Blacks. The calculated average White brain is 1398g and 1438cc while the average Black brain is 1275g and 1343cc – 91% and 93% of the average White brain. The heritability of brain size is extremely strong at 0.90 and not one study to date has shown larger brain size for Blacks, nor has any study shown anywhere close to equal brain size or structure for Blacks and Whites.

      The White brain has a high degree of fissuring (higher complexity) and the Black brain has a lower degree of fissuring (lower complexity) in the cerebral cortex of their brains, where abstract and conceptual thought is performed.

      Blacks have smaller skulls than Whites and a lower brain capacity. The long, narrow skull of Blacks is superior at dissipating heat and the more spherical skulls of Whites better retains heat which is explainable by the fact that Blacks evolved in a hot climate (Africa) and Whites evolved in a cold climate (Europe).

      Prognathism, the absence of “Facial flatness”, is significantly higher in Blacks than Whites and even higher in apes. The facial angle for Whites is 82°, 70° for Blacks as well as H.Habilis and H.Erectus, and 60° for gorillas. Prognathism is associated with a sloping forehead, which corresponds to a smaller frontal lobe, which is the part of the brain responsible for abstract and conceptual thinking.

      Blacks have higher rates of primitive traits compared to Whites. Blacks have more robust cranial bones, simpler cranial sutures, a higher rate of unclosed sutures, a lower cephalic index, a higher rate of saggital keel, more post-orbital constriction, a more sloped forehead, more rectangular eye sockets, a wider nasal index, less nasal prominence, a higher rate of joined nasal bones, a higher rate of sub-nasal prognathism, a lower facial angle, the presence of the “Simian shelf”, a more rectangular palate, larger and wider-apart teeth, less spinal curvature, shorter spinal length, a lower sacral index, and longer arms and legs.

      One can undeniably attribute the vast majority of these traits more strongly to chimpanzees, gorillas, H.Erectus, and archaic H.Sapiens compared to modern anatomical humans, hence justifying the label “Primitive.”

      The dome of the Asian skull is round and the face is flat. Although the Caucasian skull is a bit longer, it is very similar to the Asian skull, indicating that the Asians and Caucasians did not separate into two races all that long ago, or that there was interbreeding between their lineages.

      The African skull is quite different from the Asian and Caucasian skulls, indicating a much greater genetic distance between Eurasians and Africans than between Europeans and Asians. Compared to Asian and Caucasian skulls, the African skull is narrower. The bones of the skull (and the rest of the body) are denser and thicker. The eye sockets are rounder and proportionately larger and the distance between them is greater. The slight bump at the top of the head suggests a “saggital keel,” a ridge along the top of the head from the forehead to the back of the skull for attaching chewing muscles and strengthening the skull from blows received in fighting. The opening for the nose is wider, the nose bones protrude less, and the teeth more massive, with the incisors meeting at an angle.

      The most noticeable difference is the protruding jaw, a condition known as “prognathism,” a trait found in apes and in ancient human fossil skulls, even those not from Africa. The considerable gap between the cheekbones (“zygomatic arches”) and the indentation on the sides behind the eye sockets (“post-orbital constriction”) indicate that the more massive jaw was serviced by powerful chewing muscles that passed through the gap.

      At birth, Africans have fewer cranial bones than Eurasians. The skull bones (and other bones) in Africans are thicker and denser, even in the fetus, making them more difficult to break, which is an aid in head butting and fighting as blows to the head can easily be fatal. Some anthropologists believe skulls got thicker about 1.6 to 1.8 million years ago when erectus developed clubs as weapons, resulting in more cracked skulls. Denser bones (and less fat) make Africans less buoyant and less capable swimmers, but reduce their susceptibility to osteoporosis.

      The long, narrow skull of the Africans (dolichocephalic) loses heat the fastest and the more spherical skull of the Asians (brachycephalic) better retains heat. Comparing black, white, and Northeast Asian (Mongol) skulls, the black skull is more simian as it is long and narrow. The white and Mongol skulls are rounder and about the same size, but the cheek bones flair out more on the Mongol skull. There is a correlation of 0.37 between cranial capacity and the cephalic index, i.e., the long, narrow skulls of Africans have a smaller cranial capacity.

      The African skulls are very different from the skulls of all the other populations, even the Australian aborigines. The Black skull is smaller, with less space in the forehead, but proportionately more at the back.

      The difference between Eurasians and Africans in their nasal spines is dramatic. The anterior nasal spine is a small bone that extends outward from the middle of the base of the nasal cavity; it supports a nose that protrudes. The nasal spine is prominent in Caucasians, less so in Asians and small or absent in Africans. The race of a skull can be determined by placing a pen across the base of the nasal cavity. If the pen is held in place by the nasal spine, the skull is Caucasian; if it rolls off, the skull is African; chimpanzees and gorillas also lack a true anterior nasal spine.

      Simian prognathism (a protruding jaw with a recessed nose) is a very primitive trait that is characteristic of apes. A jutting jaw is needed if the teeth are large, plus it is an advantage in fighting as it permits a bigger bite and makes the eyes less vulnerable.

      Prognathism, the absence of “facial flatness” can be measured by means of the facial angle, the slope of the face from the forehead to the jaws. The facial angle is 70° for the “Black” (i.e., Congoids); H. habilis and H. erectus also have a facial angle of about 70°. An angle of 60° has been given for the Hottentots and Bushmen, and 66.6° for the Australian aborigines below the nose. Orangutans have a facial angle of 58°. A facial angle of 100° as the epitome of beauty. Africans have “remarkable prognathism.”

      A protruding jaw is usually associated with a sloping forehead which indicates a smaller prefrontal cortex, the area of the brain that handles planning, inhibition, and self control. Thus, the absence of prognathism is seen as less bestial and an indication of higher intelligence.

      In Eurasians, the upper teeth usually overlap the lower incisors, but in Africans the upper incisors are mounted in the jaw at an angle and project forward so that they meet the lower at an angle. The gorilla’s teeth meet at an even greater angle. African teeth are more primitive than Eurasian teeth and there are many other differences in their structures.

      A larger diameter pelvis will be selected for if baby head size, and therefore brain size, increases. Africans, with the smallest skulls, also have the smallest pelvis and give birth more easily. Pelvic measurements can be used not only to distinguish males from females, but even American white males from American black males, with about 75% accuracy.

      The sacral index is the breadth of the sacrum (the five fused vertebrae that are connected to the pelvis) as a percentage of its length. Walking upright increased the sacral index, enabling the sacrum to better support the internal organs, so a low sacral index is more primitive and a high sacral index is more modern. As usual, Blacks are closest to the apes. Note that the Blacks and the Andamenese are close together, especially for the females. The hips of blacks are also narrower, which makes walking and running more efficient for them. Overall Europeans have the highest sexual dimorphism, even before birth, and Asians the lowest.

      Vertebrae can also be used to help determine race. A “simian notch,” a much narrower second sacral vertebra, that is much narrower laterally than the first or third vertebrae, is characteristic of pongids [apes] and is frequent in Africans, among whom it appears to be a primary character.

      The heel bone projects more in Africans and differs in length, breadth, shape, and position, giving Africans a greater ability to sprint and jump. This is one reason why Africans excel in sports that require jumping. African feet are flatter and there is more separation between the first and second toes.

      Blacks have arms which are longer, relative to body height, than those of Whites. This feature, together with their much thicker cranial bones, gives Black athletes an advantage over Whites. The skeletal and muscular peculiarities of Blacks’ lower limbs have given them considerable success as sprinters, but have left them relative undistinguished as distance runners.

      The hair of a Black is black, crispy, and “woolly” in texture, it is flat and elliptical with no central canal or duct like the hair of Whites.

      The nose is thick, broad and flat, often turned up nostrils exposing the red inner lining of the mucous membrane similar to an ape.

      The arms and legs of the Black are relatively longer than the White. The humerus is shorter and the forearm longer thereby approximating the simian form.

      The eyes are prominent, iris black and the orbits large. The eye often has a yellowish sclerotic coat over it like that of a gorilla.

      The Black has a shorter trunk the cross-section of the chest is more circular than Whites. The pelvis is narrower and longer as it is in an ape.

      The mouth is wide with very thick, large and protruding lips.

      Black skin has a thick superficial layer which resists scratching and impedes the penetration of germs.

      The Black has a larger and shorter neck akin to that of anthropoids.

      The cranial sutures are more simple than in the white type and close together earlier.

      The ears of Blacks are roundish, rather small, standing somewhat high and detached thus approaching the simian form.

      The Black is more powerfully developed from the pelvis down and the White more powerfully developed in the chest.

      The jaw is larger and stronger and protrudes outward which, along with lower retreating forehead, gives a facial angle of 68 to 70 degrees as opposed to a facial angle of 80 to 82 degrees for Whites.

      The hands and fingers are proportionally narrower and longer. The wrist and ankles are shorter and more robust.

      The frontal and paricial bones of the cranium are less excavated and less capacious. The skull is thicker especially on the sides.

      The brain of the Black on the average is 9% smaller than Whites.

      The teeth are larger and are wider apart than in the White race.

      The three curvatures of the spine are less pronounced in the Black than in the White and thus more characteristic of an ape.

      The femur of the Black is less oblique, the tibia (shin bone) more curved and bent forward, the calf of the leg high and but little developed.

      The heel is broad and projecting, the foot long and broad but slightly arched causing flat soles, the great toe is shorter than in the White.

      The two bones proper of the nose are occasionally united, as in apes.

      Genetic distance is a measure of the genetic divergence between species or between populations within a species. Populations with many similar genes have small genetic distances. This indicates that they are closely related and have a recent common ancestor.

      Blacks have a genetic distance of 0.23 from Whites and Asians, but only 0.17 from Erectus. That means Blacks are more closely related to archaic hominids than to modern man.

      This is intuitive because we understand that humans evolved from Blacks in Africa.

      For comparison, the genetic distance between Blacks and modern man is greater than the genetic distance between the common chimpanzee and the bonobo (0.103, or half the Black-White distance) and between Gorilla gorilla and the Gorilla beringei (0.04, or 1/6 the Black/White distance) which are classified as separate species.

      So to be consistent and objective with taxonomic classification systems Blacks and Whites should be classified into separate species, or at least into different subspecies.

      The genetic distance between the races of man is also much greater than that between the breeds of dog, and anyone who has experience with dogs knows what a huge difference breed makes, not only in physical appearance but also in behavior and intelligence.

      Blacks are the only race with no DNA from the large-brain Neanderthal (Blacks have 2% archaic admixture). Whites are hybridized with Neanderthal, and Asians have both Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA.

      Modern man has on average 5% Neanderthal DNA, therefore he would be an F4 (4th filial generation from full purebred Neanderthal). That is about the same as most claiming Cherokee ancestors today.

      It is equivalent to having one Neanderthal great-great-great-grandparent. Blacks also coexisted and interbred with archaic hominids (heidelbergensis) for longer than those who left Africa.

      Blacks also the only race without the derived form of MCPH1 microcephalin called haplogroup D which produces increased brain volume.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

The Crux

A collection of bright and big ideas about timely and important science from a community of experts.
ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collapse bottom bar
+