How to prepare for the coming science of genetic racial variations, and a summary of the full case for the genetics of racial differences in intellige

[ApostateAbe]

In my opinion, the evidence that intelligence confers survival value is in the clades of animals and especially mammals, in which relatively high intelligence is common. Humans have OBSCENELY high intelligence, seemingly because of a bizarre accident of evolution: runaway sexual selection in which females select only the most powerful males.

I'm not sure what species you are describing. Human females don't select only the most powerful males.

See the 1989 study by David M. Buss: "Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures." Male wealth is the common male sexual advantage.

 

[Trausti]

But high intelligence is important to navigate an urban setting, to negotiate a loan, to plan agriculture, etc. These are things that cockroaches and elephants needn't worry about, but are critical to human survival.

Actually social intelligence is needed to navigate an urban setting and negotiate in business. Planning agriculture and such are learned skills not so much dependent on high IQ just diligent study.

Planning agriculture is a behavioral trait - eat the corn today or wait several months for it to grow? If you eat the corn today and have few other food options, then your chance of leaving offspring who survive to reproductive adulthood diminish.

 

[Axulus]

Throughout human history, the most dominant males tended to have many wives. Genghis Khan is just one example, who had so many children that 1 out of 200 humans today are believed to be direct decedents of him. There are also other examples of such:

Since 2003 there have been other cases of “super-Y” lineages. For example the Manchu lineage and the Uí Néill lineage. The existence of these Y chromosomal lineages, which have burst upon the genetic landscape like explosive stars sweeping aside all other variation before them, indicates a periodic it “winner-take-all” dynamic in human genetics more reminiscent of hyper-polygynous mammals such as elephant seals.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/g...ect-descendants-of-genghis-khan/#.VSbnUvnF9j8

Ah. Cherries. Picked!

It has repeated itself many times. It is a general pattern and not an isolated event:

Ten Other Men Left Genetic Legacies So Huge They Rival Genghis Khan's

A new study shows that 10 other men founded large Y-chromosome lineages

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...s-genghis-khan-180954052/#SZSqSl7YddF1fy47.99

And these are just the huge ones. There would be many other examples of much smaller but still sizable lineages (dozens of children, multiple wives) having a significant impact on gene frequency in the human population witnessed today.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Actually social intelligence is needed to navigate an urban setting and negotiate in business. Planning agriculture and such are learned skills not so much dependent on high IQ just diligent study.

Planning agriculture is a behavioral trait - eat the corn today or wait several months for it to grow? If you eat the corn today and have few other food options, then your chance of leaving offspring who survive to reproductive adulthood diminish.

Nothing you said takes a high IQ to figure out.

according to the US Army, my father had an IQ of 110. Just an average guy. But he could plant a penny nail and reap a nine foot crow bar. Because he was taught farming by his father and because he had talent for horticulture. He was in law enforcemnet for 25 years and never pulled his weapon, not even in the riots of '68 because he had a high social social intelligence, he was an empath, he could reach people where they were and bring them to where he wanted them.

This IQ thing isn't about a score on a test. Never was, never will be.

But I guess if a score on test is all you have going for you, you kinda have to believe that it is.

 

[Trausti]

Planning agriculture is a behavioral trait - eat the corn today or wait several months for it to grow? If you eat the corn today and have few other food options, then your chance of leaving offspring who survive to reproductive adulthood diminish.

Nothing you said takes a high IQ to figure out.

according to the US Army, my father had an IQ of 110. Just an average guy. But he could plant a penny nail and reap a nine foot crow bar. Because he was taught farming by his father and because he had talent for horticulture. He was in law enforcemnet for 25 years and never pulled his weapon, not even in the riots of '68 because he had a high social social intelligence, he was an empath, he could reach people where they were and bring them to where he wanted them.

This IQ thing isn't about a score on a test. Never was, never will be.

But I guess if a score on test is all you have going for you, you kind have to believe that it is.

Fluid v. crystallized intelligence.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I'm not sure what species you are describing. Human females don't select only the most powerful males.

See the 1989 study by David M. Buss: "Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures." Male wealth is the common male sexual advantage.

Putting the flaws of the study aside - that can be a thread of it's own -- wealth is not the same thing as power and females don't tend to all reproduce with the most powerful males, they may on the surface tend to select mates with resources, abition and intelligence, but underlying this they tend to favor generosity, dependability, and emotional stability. This is one of the reasons why lower status males reproduce with just as much frequency if not more. You probably know many dolts who have great lives and many children and are married to females. These men are not powerful and they reproduce with frequency. This fact throws a wrenching the claim that "runaway sexual selection in which females select only the most powerful males."

Then there is the problem of the children, if women only select for the most powerful men, wouldn't the traits of females also breed women who were independent power seekers as well, uninterested in lower status males?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Throughout human history, the most dominant males tended to have many wives. Genghis Khan is just one example, who had so many children that 1 out of 200 humans today are believed to be direct decedents of him. There are also other examples of such:

Since 2003 there have been other cases of “super-Y” lineages. For example the Manchu lineage and the Uí Néill lineage. The existence of these Y chromosomal lineages, which have burst upon the genetic landscape like explosive stars sweeping aside all other variation before them, indicates a periodic it “winner-take-all” dynamic in human genetics more reminiscent of hyper-polygynous mammals such as elephant seals.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/g...ect-descendants-of-genghis-khan/#.VSbnUvnF9j8

Ah. Cherries. Picked!

It has repeated itself many times. It is a general pattern and not an isolated event:

Ten Other Men Left Genetic Legacies So Huge They Rival Genghis Khan's

A new study shows that 10 other men founded large Y-chromosome lineages

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...s-genghis-khan-180954052/#SZSqSl7YddF1fy47.99

And these are just the huge ones. There would be many other examples of much smaller but still sizable lineages (dozens of children, multiple wives) having a significant impact on gene frequency in the human population witnessed today.

But still their genetic heritage is watered down as time goes on. I can trace my line to Charlemagne, but some say that 90% of Western Europeans are descended from him. Considering how ineffective his more immediate offspring are, I'm not certain that the traits passed on were superior outside of the context of Charlemagne's life.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

But high intelligence is important to navigate an urban setting, to negotiate a loan, to plan agriculture, etc. These are things that cockroaches and elephants needn't worry about, but are critical to human survival.

Actually social intelligence is needed to navigate an urban setting and negotiate in business. Planning agriculture and such are learned skills not so much dependent on high IQ just diligent study.

This tends to be true. I know many smart individuals who cannot navigate the social environment and know many dumb individuals who wind up on top because they know how to navigate social situations through their personalities, not through rational strategic thought.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Nothing you said takes a high IQ to figure out.

according to the US Army, my father had an IQ of 110. Just an average guy. But he could plant a penny nail and reap a nine foot crow bar. Because he was taught farming by his father and because he had talent for horticulture. He was in law enforcemnet for 25 years and never pulled his weapon, not even in the riots of '68 because he had a high social social intelligence, he was an empath, he could reach people where they were and bring them to where he wanted them.

This IQ thing isn't about a score on a test. Never was, never will be.

But I guess if a score on test is all you have going for you, you kind have to believe that it is.

Fluid v. crystallized intelligence.

... doesn't explain a bloody thing that would make this plethora of threads have anything to do with the price of of tea in China or the lived lives of people on planet earth.

Engineering people who do better on IQ tests won't stop war, won't end heartache, won't make people who lack social and emotional skills any more appealing, wont strengthen anyone's character.

And it won't stop anyone from being afraid or being hurt or nor help to learn how to survive either and find contentment..

 

[Trausti]

Engineering people who do better on IQ tests won't stop war, won't end heartache, won't make people who lack social and emotional skills any more appealing, wont strengthen anyone's character.

Ah, but maybe we can engineer people to be more motivated? As behavior is heritable, some people have benefited from parents, grandparents, or other ancestors, who conferred selected positive genes for motivation. Others, nah.

When children are unmotivated at school, new research suggests their genes may be part of the equation. A study of more than 13,000 twins from six countries found that 40 to 50 percent of the differences in children's motivation to learn could be explained by their genetic inheritance from their parents.

The results surprised study co-author Stephen Petrill, who thought before the study that the twins' shared environment -- such as the family and teachers that they had in common -- would be a larger factor than genetics. Instead, genetics and nonshared environment factors had the largest effect on learning motivation, whereas the shared environment had negligible impact.

"We had pretty consistent findings across these different countries with their different educational systems and different cultures. It was surprising," said Petrill, who is a professor of psychology at The Ohio State University.
The results strongly suggest that we should think twice before automatically blaming parents, teachers and the children themselves for students who aren't motivated in class.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150408113309.htm

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Ah, but maybe we can engineer people to be more motivated? As behavior is heritable, some people have benefited from parents, grandparents, or other ancestors, who conferred selected positive genes for motivation. Others, nah.

But isn't motivation based on interest? And wouldn't we be selecting for interests in certain subjects? One individual might be motivated to work with their hands, while another developed a scholarly motivation, another yet may be motivated by caring for others, and another for the quest for power.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Ah, but maybe we can engineer people to be more motivated? As behavior is heritable, some people have benefited from parents, grandparents, or other ancestors, who conferred selected positive genes for motivation. Others, nah.

When children are unmotivated at school, new research suggests their genes may be part of the equation. A study of more than 13,000 twins from six countries found that 40 to 50 percent of the differences in children's motivation to learn could be explained by their genetic inheritance from their parents.

The results surprised study co-author Stephen Petrill, who thought before the study that the twins' shared environment -- such as the family and teachers that they had in common -- would be a larger factor than genetics. Instead, genetics and nonshared environment factors had the largest effect on learning motivation, whereas the shared environment had negligible impact.

"We had pretty consistent findings across these different countries with their different educational systems and different cultures. It was surprising," said Petrill, who is a professor of psychology at The Ohio State University.
The results strongly suggest that we should think twice before automatically blaming parents, teachers and the children themselves for students who aren't motivated in class.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150408113309.htm

So its not just IQ you want to modify but behavior. You want to genetically modify people into goodness.

 

[Trausti]

Ah, but maybe we can engineer people to be more motivated? As behavior is heritable, some people have benefited from parents, grandparents, or other ancestors, who conferred selected positive genes for motivation. Others, nah.



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150408113309.htm

So its not just IQ you want to modify but behavior. You want to genetically modify people into goodness.

I don't want to genetically modify anybody. At some point this ability / technology will come into grasp. Heck, gene therapy for illness already exists. But I cannot imagine how genetic engineering beyond illness would be practical. There are so many traits, how do you keep up with the Joneses?

 

[bilby]

This also makes me think about evolution. Most everything that exists in evolved species is there for a reason. Could be pure accident or there may be some benefit in a particular set of genes.
Are blacks of a given genetic IQ as part of a package deal? If we democratically alter their IQ, is there a cost we haven't anticipated? .

There is something to be said for that point. Rushton's plausible theory is that tropical races adapted to their chaotic unpredictable climates through greater reproductive rates. Greater intelligence may actually be an impediment to that strategy, as children are costly and a threat to the survival of adults. Maybe a case can be made that the ancestors of Polynesians and Australian Aborigines living in northern climates had greater intelligence than their modern descendents, in which case we would know that low intelligence is a positive adaptation, not a lack of adaptation. If civilization completely breaks down through a nuclear winter or whatever, it may be greater reproductivity, not greater intelligence, that ensures the survival of the human species.

Rushton's theory rather founders on the fact that tropical climates are actually more predictable than temperate climates.

That suggests strongly that it is not so much a 'plausible theory' as it is a 'bullshit rationalisation'.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

(7) WE CAN SOLVE THE GENETIC RACE GAPS. We have the option of finally narrowing the divisive racial IQ gaps through democratically-directed genetic engineering.

Uh huh

If it is found that some races have more intelligent people than others, why would we want to "close the gap"?

Do you propose giving genetic engineering boosts to couples based on what race they happen to be? Isnt that racist discrimination in itself?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I am adding an eighth talking point. The suggestion came from someone on Facebook.

(8) EVERYONE BELONGS TO THE SAME SPECIES. Though there can be infinitely many racial subdivisions, there is one race that unites us all: the human race. The best moral systems apply to ALL members of this race.

Fuck you and your arrogant human moral superiority complex. The best moral systems have nothing to do with humans. And being "humane" is not a virtue.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I am adding an eighth talking point. The suggestion came from someone on Facebook.

(8) EVERYONE BELONGS TO THE SAME SPECIES. Though there can be infinitely many racial subdivisions, there is one race that unites us all: the human race. The best moral systems apply to ALL members of this race.

Fuck you and your arrogant human moral superiority complex. The best moral systems have nothing to do with humans. And being "humane" is not a virtue.

Don't kid yourself. If a cow ever got the chance, he would eat you and everyone you care about.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Fuck you and your arrogant human moral superiority complex. The best moral systems have nothing to do with humans. And being "humane" is not a virtue.

Don't kid yourself. If a cow ever got the chance, he would eat you and everyone you care about.

Cows are vegetarians. I doubt they would herd us into holocaust trucks to our slaughter, like we do to pigs and cows. Everytime I see the pig holocaust truck on the highway, I remember that we are not very nice to other species. But those are other species, so I guess that's one thing. We are real dicks to members of our OWN species though too, and even to members of our own subgroup. More so than many other animals on this planet.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Don't kid yourself. If a cow ever got the chance, he would eat you and everyone you care about.

Cows are vegetarians. I doubt they would herd us into holocaust trucks to our slaughter, like we do to pigs and cows. Everytime I see the pig holocaust truck on the highway, I remember that we are not very nice to other species. But those are other species, so I guess that's one thing. We are real dicks to members of our OWN species though too, and even to members of our own subgroup. More so than many other animals on this planet.

The line was from The Simpsons, but there is some truth in it. Some science news lately has been that we now know that cows and other presumed "herbivores" like wild deer are actually omnivores, eating eggs out of nests.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Step 1) Define intelligence
Step 2) something something
Step 3) Rule the world