At 7/16/13 11:08 PM, poxpower wrote:
Look at the USA. The blacks living there are infinitely better off than the ones living in Africa. If every country in Africa was run by white people, a billion black people would see their lives vastly improved within a single generation.

That's real tangible improvement that both black and white people should want.

So what you're essentially saying is black people all over the planet are better off owned and controlled under the watchful eye of whites (Just like slavery)? That just might be one of the racist things I'm ever seen someone say.

Take that fucking bullshit to stormfront.

At 7/23/13 11:35 AM, Baby-Bottle-Bob wrote:

So what you're essentially saying is black people all over the planet are better off owned and controlled under the watchful eye of whites (Just like slavery)? That just might be one of the racist things I'm ever seen someone say.

Take that fucking bullshit to stormfront.

In every country where blacks are a minority they are better off than the blacks in the countries where blacks are the majority. In fact they flee their own countries by the millions to go to other ones.

Pick any measurable variable and you see they are better off being governed by other races. But pick "freedom" or "racism" and then you can make any shit up that you want.

I have read the counter-argument to this and that's all it is. "Oh well they suck because whites are like....stealing their resources and blabla". Fuck you assholes the entire world dumps billions and billions of money in charity to Africa every single year.
Germany, Viet Nam, South Korea, Japan, France, England.. none of them needed 100 years of hand-outs to rebuild their country.
Fuck look at Germany. Based on this idea of "permanent damage to a country because of whites" then they should be SUPER DUPER FUCKED after two wars and the wall.. But just 25 years later they're kicking Europe's ass.

But Haiti is still a shithole 200 years after they gained their independence despite constant and massive international aid. In fact, it's worse than ever.
But RIGHT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE VERY SAME ISLAND, Dominican Republic, which is predominantly whites and mixed caucasian/african races is doing just fine. Most of the black population there are black refugees from Haiti.

Oh reality, how it burns.

Btw the fact they WILLINGLY flee their own countries mean that THEY THEMSELVES consider life to be better in countries other than their own.

They are voting with their feet.

I have no idea what possible argument you could make to pretend like they don't have it better here despite constant claims ( by them and others ) of white oppression and ancestral damage due to slavery.

The blacks who come to other countries from places with no history of white oppression or slavery do just as poorly.

REALITY, THE BURNING CONTINUES.

Apologies to casual browsers, shitâEUTMs about to get a bit tl;dr. Pox has misread my last three posts, so IâEUTMm going to try and be a little more detailed.

At 7/23/13 08:27 AM, poxpower wrote: If you were correct in your theory, the gains from these programs would be permanent and would erase the gaps. They don't.

Furthermore if you were correct, adults could "practice thought" and one could become significantly better at IQ tests.

Further evidence that reading Freakonomics does not make one an expert in psychology. If you simply read my previous post before attempting to refute it you would see that IâEUTMm not talking about playing Nintendo DS Brain Trainer and subtracting 3 apples from 5 apples before the other kids; IâEUTMm talking about schema, naturally acquired and constantly reinforced by day to day life, which become increasingly hard to change as a person comes out of childhood and neuroplasticity decreases. This is not new and revolutionary at all; schema theory is almost the founding principle of cognitive psychology as we know it. Neuroplasticity is fundamental to the physiological approach, especially the idea that it decreases after childhood. Reinforcement was the first principle of behaviourism, going right back to Pavlov. The fact these seem like new ideas to you is, quite frankly, astonishing. You are attacking ideas accepted near universally by doctors and professors without knowing principles that someone who had taken a two-week crash course in psychology would.

Not only that but it's redundant as if personality mostly cannot change ( as we know from, again, the twin studies )

This is simply wrong. I donâEUTMt know what twin studies youâEUTMve read, but ACTUAL twin studies have shown personality traits are at least 46% due to environment, and very often shown as higher, though IâEUTMll admit this data is fairly obscure.

and if it determines IQ then IQ is genetically determined and race-dependent ANYWAY since various races score differently at a very early age on the personality traits you mention, way before environment could be said to have any impact.

Well, as I just said, even a very conservatively minded person would have to concede that personality is half way due to environment. However, IâEUTMll get back to the point about race and personality because I checked up the crying baby studies you mentioned, and found some very interesting stuff tied up right here.

But I am not the one suggesting introversion somehow causes high IQs. I have no idea why that would be a useful point to make anyway as facts on IQ can be studied independently of a person's introversion / extroversion.

Of course, personality is made up of a myriad number of traits, possibly infinite, all of which will influence the way a person thinks and thus their schema and intelligence, but I will agree that introversion/ extroversion is a good place to start (even if it wonâEUTMt give us anywhere near the full effect of personality on IQ). This factor was probably the first personality trait ever studied, so it is particularly damning that IQ and extroversion/ introversion that do not correlate. I mean, who would suggest introversion somehow correlates with high IQs? Nope, I have no idea either. Erm. Except that they do correlate, it is well accepted within the scientific community that they do, and you were simply too ignorant, lazy and arrogant to perform a Google search on the subject.

So I was right, and you were talking out of your ass without doing the bare minimum of research. More on that topic.

The crying baby studies: I must admit that when you mentioned them earlier, I couldnâEUTMt quite remember where IâEUTMd heard of them, developmental psychology surpassed only by psychodynamic psychology as my least favourite field. However, I did some digging through my old notes, a couple Google searches and soon enough found it: Kagan et al 1994, studying differences between Chinese and American babies. ItâEUTMs worth noting that Kagan is one of the most pro- physiological psychologists in his field and by far the most famous to go as far as he has. HeâEUTMs the reason developmental psychologistâEUTMs use the word âEUoetemperamentâEU, referring to his studies focused on discrediting of the blank state theory. So, what was his explanation of the data? That the Chinese babies cried less because Chinese mothers were shown not to tend to their children when they do cry. He put it down to nurture.

You used this study saying it supported the idea of race and IQ being tied together even at a young age. It isnâEUTMt about race, itâEUTMs about culture. It isnâEUTMt about IQ, itâEUTMs about personality. It doesnâEUTMt support a genetic explanation, it discredits it.

The same explanation is given in all KaganâEUTMs later studies too, and even Cole and TanâEUTMs 2007 replication of the study. You didnâEUTMt just read a different study. You cited a study that disproved your argument and bullshitted like it supported you.

I can think of three different explanations, 1) You read of the study in racist literature (we know that youâEUTMre an aficionado of David Duke) and didnâEUTMt check your sources, 2) You skim read the study so poorly as to genuinely think that this was âEUoeway before culture could have any effectâEU or 3) You purposefully ignored what inconvenienced your race and IQ theory and cherry picked the findings in a vain attempt to win an online argument.

So which is it? Are you repeating racist diatribes unthinkingly, researching in an inexcusably poor manner or purposefully misleading us? Are you stupid, lazy or dishonest?

At 7/22/13 11:36 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 7/22/13 08:42 PM, Revo357912 wrote: That said, while there is a strong genetic link to race and intelligence, I'd also like to point out that it can be indeed overcome with changes in culture, food, habits, etc.

No this is precisely the point. It can't. That's the shocking revelation of analyzing twin data. No matter what you do, the gap is there.
The only way you could is with eugenics.

@Revo357912 Just to clarify: The evidence you bring to the table suggests some people have a genetic predisposition to seek out certain foods and, indeed, environments that might lead to higher (or lower) IQs.

This seems to make sense: despite many, many generations of separation, soul food and the foods of Ghana (where most slaves were originally shipped from) take a similar approach to spicing and seasoning (both are also likely to kill you before you reach retirement, but damn that shit is flavourful).

This wouldn't be controlled for in twin studies or adoption studies. Both would go out and seek the same environment, and thus expose themselves to the same epigenetic processes.

Pox is talking out of his arse, with the most limited of understandings of psychology and a handful of studies he decides prove anything he wants them to.

At 7/23/13 04:58 PM, AxTekk wrote: Of course, personality is made up of a myriad number of traits, possibly infinite, all of which will influence the way a person thinks and thus their schema and intelligence, but I will agree that introversion/ extroversion is a good place to start (even if it wonâEUTMt give us anywhere near the full effect of personality on IQ). This factor was probably the first personality trait ever studied, so it is particularly damning that IQ and extroversion/ introversion that do not correlate. I mean, who would suggest introversion somehow correlates with high IQs? Nope, I have no idea either. Erm. Except that they do correlate, it is well accepted within the scientific community that they do, and you were simply too ignorant, lazy and arrogant to perform a Google search on the subject.

It's worth clarifying actually, subtypes of introverts with the other big five personality traits are sometimes less intelligent than their extrovert partners (ENTP in particular leave other personality types WRECKT). Re reading my paragraph, I think it's worth pointing out that it's only certain introvert types that enjoy this advantage, and that actually some extrovert schema can lead to god-tier verbal reasoning levelling the playing field.

Point remains that intelligence and personality are correlated. Pox just deemed it a "shitty" field of psychology not worth the time of an intellectual giant like himself.

At 7/23/13 07:38 PM, AxTekk wrote: It's worth clarifying actually, subtypes of introverts with the other big five personality traits are sometimes less intelligent than their extrovert partners (ENTP in particular leave other personality types WRECKT). Re reading my paragraph, I think it's worth pointing out that it's only certain introvert types that enjoy this advantage, and that actually some extrovert schema can lead to god-tier verbal reasoning levelling the playing field.

Point remains that intelligence and personality are correlated. Pox just deemed it a "shitty" field of psychology not worth the time of an intellectual giant like himself.

THE QUADRUPLE POST RAISES ITS MAJESTIC HEAD ONCE AGAIN, TO BRING SAUCE TO A MAYBE DUBIOUS PEOPLE

At 7/23/13 07:51 PM, AxTekk wrote: THE QUADRUPLE POST RAISES ITS MAJESTIC HEAD ONCE AGAIN, TO BRING SAUCE TO A MAYBE DUBIOUS PEOPLE

Thank you for eloquently putting into words how I felt initially when I stumbled onto this thread, what you just cited was insightful, interesting and validated by evidence, now prepare for it to be categorically ignored by pox.

At 7/23/13 08:23 PM, Fim wrote:

At 7/23/13 07:51 PM, AxTekk wrote: THE QUADRUPLE POST RAISES ITS MAJESTIC HEAD ONCE AGAIN, TO BRING SAUCE TO A MAYBE DUBIOUS PEOPLE

Thank you for eloquently putting into words how I felt initially when I stumbled onto this thread, what you just cited was insightful, interesting and validated by evidence, now prepare for it to be categorically ignored by pox.

You 've got it in one mate. And then he'll start a new thread. Exactly like what happened here, because racists hide behing "intellectual honesty" the same way fascists hide behind "freedom of speech" and abandon it whenever it becomes inconvenient .

At 7/23/13 04:58 PM, AxTekk wrote:

The fact these seem like new ideas to you is, quite frankly, astonishing.

You're going on and on about how neuroplasticity is set in adulthood like that proves YOUR case somehow.

Well, as I just said, even a very conservatively minded person would have to concede that personality is half way due to environment.

IQ is NOT personality.
Not all traits are equally affected by environment.
And second... thanks for.. proving my point???
???
50% genetic is more than enough to create unbridgeable gaps between both individuals and groups of individuals.

No idea what point you're trying to make.

So I was right, and you were talking out of your ass without doing the bare minimum of research. More on that topic.

That the Chinese babies cried less because Chinese mothers were shown not to tend to their children when they do cry. He put it down to nurture.

I am fully prepared to admit that all crying data is meaningless and wrong as, again, it doesn't matter one bit. I really am not going down the path of arguing that especially since the data is so sparse an weak. It was just an example among many possible ones.

You used this study saying it supported the idea of race and IQ being tied together even at a young age.

No.
It only fits into Rushton's larger theory on human evolution. Whether right or wrong it doesn't affect the other differences.

Before you go in depth with this maybe you should actually be familiar with what, say, Rushton did instead of assuming he's some crazed racist who makes shit up to justify another holocaust.

Here's a good paper summarizing his research and life:
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2012RaceandRus hton.pdf

It does quite a nice job of explaining his research, his data and the sheer an blatant hypocrisy of his critics and other academics.

At 7/23/13 08:46 PM, AxTekk wrote:

You 've got it in one mate. And then he'll start a new thread. Exactly like what happened here, because racists hide behing "intellectual honesty" the same way fascists hide behind "freedom of speech" and abandon it whenever it becomes inconvenient .

Not only did Fim ignore my latest reply to him here but the thread you just quoted is one WHERE MY FINAL POST IS AN UNANSWERED RETORT TO NARONIC WHICH YOU KNOW HE IGNORED BECAUSE HE POSTED LATER ON WHEREAS I HAVE NOT.

Why? I have to fucking reply to everyone in every thread I ever started now or else I am "running away"??
How do you even know I saw the rest of that thread? I didn't even post on page 3 where apparently two other people debated after I had gone.

Yet here we are in a thread where several people have attacked me and who I have replied to every time. Now only YOU remain.

And you two nimrods have the balls to attack me for running away?

And hilariously enough, Rushton and other race realists are CONSTANTLY under fascist attacks by YOUR SIDE. They shut down conferences, try to make them lose their jobs, bully book publishers, hide their data and so on and so forth just because they are afraid that their ideology might be wrong.

You chickenshit hypocrites.

I invite anyone to go watch this debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9FGHtfnYWY

You tell me who the fascist anti-scientific one is.
Rushton debates are consistently like this.

It makes me sad how pathetically stupid and childish scientists can be. They're like Cenk from TyT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roAOXYXM_l8

Look at how his monkey ass gets schooled. He can't comprehend what's happening to him.

I love watching these. They're my new "Dawkins vs angry redneck mongoloid" videos. The shit that people have said about Dawkins lol. "Inflammatory, arrogant, heathen, immoral". Idiots.

At 7/16/13 11:23 PM, Camarohusky wrote: What has been done to filter out nongenetic reasons for the disparities such as nutrition, education, money, and so on?

Well the problem of controlling for socio-economic status is that IQ better predicts one's future earnings than the earnings of one's parents predict one's IQ, and the mainstream opinion is that one's IQ strongly influences the sorts of careers that are open to you. As a result, trying to determine IQ gaps by controlling for socio-economic status will often involve trying to find IQ gaps after controlling for IQ differences, which isn't terribly helpful.

One hint we have that IQ differences are [largely] not a result of different environments is a thing known as sub-test heritability. IQ tests generally have different components [similar to how the SAT has reading and math], such as visual-spacial reasoning, verbal reasoning, etc. For individuals, these components do not all have equal Heritabilities. That is to say, some of them are more heavily influenced by differences in environment while others are not.

If the gaps were caused by differences in environment, we would expect those subtests with the lower heritabilities to have wider gaps and the subtests with higher heritabilities to have narrower gaps. However this is not observed.

But all of that is somewhat besides the point, because the "environmental" side of the debate may very well be able to list possible ancillary causes for the IQ Gap, but they seldom provide any estimates [or justifications for those estimates] showing how much of the variation in the scores can be attributed to variations in X or Y enviromental factor.

It's one thing to say that nutrition could cause differences in IQ, it's another to actually show whether and to what extent those differences manifest themselves in the real world.

At 7/22/13 11:36 PM, poxpower wrote: At 7/22/13 08:42 PM, Revo357912 wrote:

While I am very confident that genetic differences to affect things such as intelligence and physical structure, especially ethnicity, I have found it to be only a portion of the puzzle.

Well like I said since people have started studying this, the % of behavior attributed to genetic factors in humans has steadily rised.

Yes, and part of those genetics are epigentics, which are directly influenced by environment and can be carried on by offspring. I recommend you read into that. Epigentics would show why some cycles continue in offspring, especially since they can reinforce themselves. Therefore, changing the epigentics a couple generations by changing the environment would therefore change the type of influence those genetics would have.

Mental illnesses are in the brain and they are genetic. There is nothing someone affected by retardation can do to ever become a Nobel prize winner in physics.

No, but there are factors that can turn a genius into someone with retardation. If a culture, for example, eats a certain food that causes less brain cells to develop (and that behaviour is in turn affected by epigentics which is in turn affected by enviroment), then genitically that culture/race/ethnicity will have lower IQ's. The same can be said with those who eat foods which increase brain cells, such as MSG.

Yet we are to believe that there is such a thing as a "normal" brain and that this brain's potential is wholly determined by environment and learning.

Well, I don't know who determines it is wholly dependent on environment, but people I know who have studied into this surely don't. That is only part of it. Imagine, for example, if Einstein was born in a tribe in Australia. would it have led to the same results? The same would be true of the opposite. The potential is set, but how much of it is used is determined by the environment.

And second you have to accept that there is no such thing as a race. That all the obvious physical differences and groups in humans all over the world affect every single part of the body but the brain.

I never did say it doesn't affect the brain; I agree with you on that.
I'm saying though that environment (which includes in my definition things such as culture) can affect the brain's development in the long term.

Here's a good example:
Middle Eastern s.
A long time ago, they were one of the most advanced people, building things like the Hagia Sophia and advanced Mathematical equations. Now fast forward to now.

even food can have a deep impact

food only has an impact as far as malnutrition goes ( which could explain why a lot of African countries have such a low IQ or a part of the lower IQs of poor people ).

Therefore you are already admitting that environment can have an impact.
Not only that, but it is also not malnutrion which can affect, but diet.
Things such as Umami and Seafood rich diets can affect as well, especially over a couple of generations.

That said, while there is a strong genetic link to race and intelligence, I'd also like to point out that it can be indeed overcome with changes in culture, food, habits, etc.

No this is precisely the point. It can't. That's the shocking revelation of analyzing twin data. No matter what you do, the gap is there.
The only way you could is with eugenics.

Or Epigenetics, which I really think you should look into.

At 7/23/13 11:03 PM, Revo357912 wrote:

Yes, and part of those genetics are epigentics, which are directly influenced by environment and can be carried on by offspring.

Ok there seems to be this constant misconception that the claim is that it's 100% genetic.
I don't know why people assume this. Anyway. That isn't or was never the claim.

As for epigenetics I am sure it could be a fascinating area of study in humans and races but I am not aware that there's a substantial body of research that has been done on this.

Who knows what it could explain if only this subject wasn't so taboo and people actually researched it fairly.

eats a certain food

I am not aware that there are foods that could explain the widespread and constant differences.
Malnutrition on the other hand can be widespread.

The topic of nutrition is extremely complicated though, conclusions keep changing every 5 years. There simply seems to be no way to control properly for these things.

The potential is set, but how much of it is used is determined by the environment.

As long as you have a method of measuring potential abstract of the type of environment you are talking about then Einstein would have had roughly the same IQ anywhere in the world at any time in history.

Or Epigenetics, which I really think you should look into.

I will

At 7/23/13 11:30 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 7/23/13 11:03 PM, Revo357912 wrote:

Yes, and part of those genetics are epigentics, which are directly influenced by environment and can be carried on by offspring.

Ok there seems to be this constant misconception that the claim is that it's 100% genetic.
I don't know why people assume this. Anyway. That isn't or was never the claim.

To clear any misunderstanding Pox, I meant that of the portion of genetics that affects a person, a good deal is epigenetics, which is in turn affected by environment and continues on in a cycle. I'm not saying it is 100% genetics.

As for epigenetics I am sure it could be a fascinating area of study in humans and races but I am not aware that there's a substantial body of research that has been done on this.

Who knows what it could explain if only this subject wasn't so taboo and people actually researched it fairly.

It isn't as taboo since it also affects things such as the odds of your offspring getting a tattoo or smoking as well.

eats a certain food

I am not aware that there are foods that could explain the widespread and constant differences.
Malnutrition on the other hand can be widespread.

The topic of nutrition is extremely complicated though, conclusions keep changing every 5 years. There simply seems to be no way to control properly for these things.

One such "food" (more of a specific flavour found in certain foods) is Umami, which in the right amounts, stimulates brain cell growth through brain cell excitement. Asian culture heavily eats Umami containing foods, while African culture rarely does.

As for nutrition, we can agree that food scarcity can be considered malnutrition for now to not over complicate things.

The potential is set, but how much of it is used is determined by the environment.

As long as you have a method of measuring potential abstract of the type of environment you are talking about then Einstein would have had roughly the same IQ anywhere in the world at any time in history.

He would have had the same IQ, but he wouldn't have necessarily been able to do the same things, and thus would not have been considered a genius. Meanwhile, someone who would not have had his same IQ, but still a high one, and given abundant resources as well as much opportunity to increase their education would have.

On another note though, IQ is actually not a perfect measure of intelligence, and does not really factor in creativity, which is an important factor when it comes to advancements in science.

At 7/24/13 12:39 AM, Revo357912 wrote:

To clear any misunderstanding Pox, I meant that of the portion of genetics that affects a person, a good deal is epigenetics, which is in turn affected by environment and continues on in a cycle. I'm not saying it is 100% genetics.

I don't know, I have no data on this. If you do please share it.

One such "food" (more of a specific flavour found in certain foods) is Umami, which in the right amounts, stimulates brain cell growth through brain cell excitement. Asian culture heavily eats Umami containing foods, while African culture rarely does.

"Thus, umami taste is common to foods that contain high levels of L-glutamate, IMP and GMP, most notably in fish, shellfish, cured meats, mushrooms, vegetables (e.g., ripe tomatoes, Chinese cabbage, spinach, celery, etc.) or green tea, and fermented and aged products (e.g., cheeses, shrimp pastes, soy sauce, etc.).[25]"

This to me seems to describes a large variety of diets everywhere in the world yet the IQ differences are divided along racial lines seemingly independent of how many tomatoes or wheels of cheese a population consumes.

If you could come up with some kind of actual evidence for this then I'd be surprised.

He would have had the same IQ, but he wouldn't have necessarily been able to do the same things, and thus would not have been considered a genius. Meanwhile, someone who would not have had his same IQ, but still a high one, and given abundant resources as well as much opportunity to increase their education would have.

Again, doesn't matter as the point of contention here is solely IQ.

On another note though, IQ is actually not a perfect measure of intelligence, and does not really factor in creativity, which is an important factor when it comes to advancements in science.

Well come up with a way to measure creativity and I bet you it heavily correlates with intelligence.

At 7/24/13 12:56 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 7/24/13 12:39 AM, Revo357912 wrote:

To clear any misunderstanding Pox, I meant that of the portion of genetics that affects a person, a good deal is epigenetics, which is in turn affected by environment and continues on in a cycle. I'm not saying it is 100% genetics.

I don't know, I have no data on this. If you do please share it.

I used too, but don't have access to JSTOR anymore...

One such "food" (more of a specific flavour found in certain foods) is Umami, which in the right amounts, stimulates brain cell growth through brain cell excitement. Asian culture heavily eats Umami containing foods, while African culture rarely does.

"Thus, umami taste is common to foods that contain high levels of L-glutamate, IMP and GMP, most notably in fish, shellfish, cured meats, mushrooms, vegetables (e.g., ripe tomatoes, Chinese cabbage, spinach, celery, etc.) or green tea, and fermented and aged products (e.g., cheeses, shrimp pastes, soy sauce, etc.).[25]"

This to me seems to describes a large variety of diets everywhere in the world yet the IQ differences are divided along racial lines seemingly independent of how many tomatoes or wheels of cheese a population consumes.

The levels of Umami are different though, and strongest in Fermented vegetables, mushrooms, and seafood, which are the main common diets of many Asian cultures.

Likewise, Tomatoes were not eaten for a long time, and once they were, notice which cultures ate them.

More interesting is the relation between umami intensity and it's relation to IQ as you have pointed out:
Asain cultures=highest IQ=highest Umami intensity foods (dark green vegetables, mushrooms, fermented vegetables, and fish/shellfish)
White cultures= Medium in IQ range = medium umami intensity foods (cheese, cured meats, less dark green vegetables, less shelfish)
African cultures = Lowest on IQ range = least of umami foods.

Combine that with the effect epigenetics can play over long generations and you have a strong correlation that parallels the one you have pointed out.

He would have had the same IQ, but he wouldn't have necessarily been able to do the same things, and thus would not have been considered a genius. Meanwhile, someone who would not have had his same IQ, but still a high one, and given abundant resources as well as much opportunity to increase their education would have.

Again, doesn't matter as the point of contention here is solely IQ.

Agreed, but it is still important because it means that results are not solely based on IQ and also on available resources which can improve a society/nation in general.

On another note though, IQ is actually not a perfect measure of intelligence, and does not really factor in creativity, which is an important factor when it comes to advancements in science.

Well come up with a way to measure creativity and I bet you it heavily correlates with intelligence.

Until it does, there is no way to know, but it is hard to be sure. I would assume many artists would be highly intelligent if such were the case, but have not looked into the IQ range of artists.

At 7/24/13 02:00 AM, Revo357912 wrote:

The levels of Umami are different though, and strongest in Fermented vegetables, mushrooms, and seafood, which are the main common diets of many Asian cultures.

how do you even measure that?
Is there an actual chemical involved here?

More interesting is the relation between umami intensity and it's relation to IQ as you have pointed out:
Asain cultures=highest IQ=highest Umami intensity foods (dark green vegetables, mushrooms, fermented vegetables, and fish/shellfish)
White cultures= Medium in IQ range = medium umami intensity foods (cheese, cured meats, less dark green vegetables, less shelfish)
African cultures = Lowest on IQ range = least of umami foods.

There's a much more reasonable explanation and it's brain sizes and cortical neurons. Australian aborigines have the smallest brains out of all groups and asians have the biggest ones.
Brain size and intelligence correlate.

Don't need to go much deeper than that with this umami / msg stuff.

There's been endless theories to sidestep the obvious genetic one and every time you can find populations and groups that escape these theories.

Combine that with the effect epigenetics can play over long generations and you have a strong correlation that parallels the one you have pointed out.

Again if that was true then blacks in the USA would score as high as whites since they have had the same diet for generations. Unless I am not understanding something here.

Until it does, there is no way to know, but it is hard to be sure. I would assume many artists would be highly intelligent if such were the case, but have not looked into the IQ range of artists.

Well when creativity can be measured such as for inventions or scientific advances then it certainly seems that the smarter you are, the more innovative ideas you come up with.

At 7/23/13 08:54 PM, poxpower wrote: You're going on and on about how neuroplasticity is set in adulthood like that proves YOUR case somehow.

Im talking about it because it refutes your point that the fact IQ doesnâEUTMt change after childhood disproves my point. If you had known about neuroplasticity you wouldnâEUTMt have any reason to believe that your point refuted mine at all (assuming you do not simply ignore fundamental psychological facts whenever suits). Let me lay this out for you for the fourth time this thread:

PERSONALITY: A mixture of hereditable biological systems like the ARAS, BAS etc. and largely (though not entirely) childhood experiences determine the way a person will process information. (NOTE: There is a very big difference between hereditability and heredity. IE: the Asian babies crying less because of there being no incentivisation to do so which Kagan noted, reversing the extroverted tendencies we know would have been innate in around half the children).

SCHEMA: All information is processed by idiosyncratic cognitive constructs. How you think determines how you process information, determining the problems a person will be best/ worst at solving and which situations a person will be most/ least intellectually suited.

REINFORCEMENT: As well as becoming instinctive, these cognitive processes become more and more efficient. Every time a person thinks about anything, the schema they use become more reinforced and instinctive.

NEUROPLASTICITY: The ability for new patterns in neurosynapses is very keen in childhood and becomes less and less so with adulthood. Thus the schema a child adopts will generally determine the manner in which their intellect presents itself.

Basically, a causal relationship between personality and IQ has been qualified by basic psychological facts which explains the phenomena you talk about (Asians with inattentive mothers generally coming out with personalities best suited to analytical thinking and matching IQs, Caucasians with more attentive mothers generally coming out with personalities more suited to holistic thinking and matching IQs). IQ does not test inherent mental ability holistically because it only tests certain schema and not others.

The point is, Pox, that you were wrong on 1) children being too young to have their IQs effected by culture, 2) innate personalities being responsible for the cross race data you brought up (delayed gratification, crying babies), 3) personality having no impact on IQ and thus 4) IQ being a holistic measure of intellect irrespective of the way a person channels their intellect. ThatâEUTMs every point youâEUTMve brought up about psychology, without exception. Mazel Tov.

50% genetic is more than enough to create unbridgeable gaps between both individuals and groups of individuals.

No idea what point you're trying to make.

That you are entirely wrong saying personality cannot change. That it is at least half changeable. That you can sway a personâEUTMs rating on the MBTI by a whole 50% with the right environment.

And a 50% inheritance of what are very mild trends between races being called "unbridgeable" is laughable, but you might be right about some races being one personality type more than another for whatever reasons. However, if this is true then a) that shows that IQ is measuring where they channel their intellect rather than their intellect itself and also b) the personality differences between races do not even nearly fit the evolutionary pattern you seem obsessed with cramming any and all data into. Here, have fun.

I am fully prepared to admit that all crying data is meaningless and wrong as, again, it doesn't matter one bit. I really am not going down the path of arguing that especially since the data is so sparse an weak. It was just an example among many possible ones.

Actually, you neednâEUTMt admit that. It isn't meaningless or wrong at all. I was surprised that it might have supported your case because itâEUTMs a solid piece of research, and when (I assume) Rushton brought it up, he was bringing up a very respected study that has been replicated many times orchestrated by a big figure in psychology. It just so happens that both the data and Kagan's reading of it contradicts Rushton's entirely. Whether or not it was you who originally said the study was evidence against culture being responsible for race differences is irrelevant: they were being so intellectually dishonest as to directly contradict the studies findings. This damages their credibility a lot, and it damages yours a lot too for not checking a source even briefly before assuming it demonstrates your point.

It only fits into Rushton's larger theory on human evolution.

The point is that it doesn't. It directly contradicts the theory. It was your example that different races of children show differences in traits from an age where environment couldnâEUTMt possibly effect them and you believed in it's accuracy very passionately: it is now known that it shows differences in traits in children younger than any of your other studies being caused by environment, and by an environment created by the cultures of different races rather than their genetics in particular.

Please, complete the blatant hypocrisy and tell me why you now think itâEUTMs a bad study.

Oh, and some stuff on creativity.

At 7/24/13 02:00 AM, Revo357912 wrote:

At 7/24/13 12:56 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 7/24/13 12:39 AM, Revo357912 wrote: On another note though, IQ is actually not a perfect measure of intelligence, and does not really factor in creativity, which is an important factor when it comes to advancements in science.

Well come up with a way to measure creativity and I bet you it heavily correlates with intelligence.

Until it does, there is no way to know, but it is hard to be sure. I would assume many artists would be highly intelligent if such were the case, but have not looked into the IQ range of artists.

Actually, there is a large body of research showing creativity to be largely environmental (Harrington 1999, McRae 1997, Ekval 1999 are the first ones I could find in my old EPQ notes), and although all psychologists agree IQ below 70 is highly detrimental to creativity, after that the correlation weakens greatly and seems to have more to do with how a good learning environment with plenty of resources = more IQ and more creativity. This is supported by the fact that when you surpass an IQ of 120, getting to those classified as âEUoegiftedâEU by the IQ system, any further correlation with creativity vanishes completely.

The reason for this isn't so much that creativity has nothing to do with intellect as it is that IQ and creativity are two different dimensions of intellect and require different kinds of tests (although Pox would have you believe otherwise, the vast majority of academic opinion is that IQ is not the full picture of intellect at all). See why here and see here how one of the divergent thinking tests Kaufman talks about (the TCTT) is better than IQ at predicting creative achievement (even in writing despite the obvious advantage writers will have with verbal reasoning). Furthermore, success in creative fields like music and art have also been shown to have a lot more to do with deliberate practice than natural talent by a whole slew of recent books and articles (my personal favourites being: Talent Is Overrated by Geoff Colvin and this gloriously free article by K Anders Ericsson).

At 7/24/13 01:07 PM, AxTekk wrote:

Basically, a causal relationship between personality and IQ has been qualified by basic psychological facts which explains the phenomena you talk about

Ok I knew it, you have no clue what I am talking about.
Personality can be tested independent of IQ.

Read this paper: http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2012RaceandRus hton.pdf

Then you'll know what the points of contention are instead of coming at me with personality tests and obsessing on this child crying thing which again is completely meaningless to me and was just an offhand example from the top of my head. I have no studied that particular data point and I don't give a shit about it as it's definitely too hard to control for to have significance when compared to other things that ARE easy to measure: Iq, brain size, twinning rates, response speed, cortial neurons.

Again read the paper and come back to this discussion.

The point is, Pox, that you were wrong on 1) children being too young to have their IQs effected by culture,

No that is not the point, the point is that differences appear very early on in children, before you can claim that non-upbringing culture ( i.e. external racism, institutional bullshit etc. ) causes these gaps, which is always what people retort when faced with twin studies that show adopted children do well or not depending more on their biological parents and not their adoptive parents.

2) innate personalities being responsible for the cross race data you brought up (delayed gratification, crying babies),

You are confusing personality with executive functions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_functions

3) personality having no impact on IQ and thus

I don't think it matters or that you can show which causes which if it even is the case that one causes the other.
Again irrelevant.

4) IQ being a holistic measure of intellect irrespective of the way a person channels their intellect.

Intelligence potential and academic achievement are not the same but certainly high IQ is heavily correlated ( and I would say obviously the cause of ) high academic achievement, better jobs, more scientific advances and more accomplished intellectual lives as measured any possible way you choose.

If your point is to somehow tell me that a really really smart caveman can't win a nobel prize because nobel prizes haven't been invented yet then... congratulations you don't understand the point.

That you are entirely wrong saying personality cannot change.

I don't remember saying that.
And it's executive functions I am talking about, from which certain personality traits can derive while others probably are not very related.

You keep confusing personality with IQ somehow which I find fascinating.

and when (I assume) Rushton brought it up

Nope I think it was Jared Taylor who mentioned it in a speech. He is not a scientist. I don't know where he got it from. I have yet to come across it in Rushton but I have only started reading his things.

The point is that it doesn't. It directly contradicts the theory.

Not really as Rushton himself has found outlying cases where the order isn't maintained for whatever reason. Read the paper I posted, it's quite short and it explains his theory and research well.

It was your example that different races of children

Again read the paper, there's mention of many other traits that are strongly backed by evidence ( gestation period, age of walking, baby brain size and so on ) as well as data on adults.

At 7/24/13 01:15 PM, AxTekk wrote: how a good learning environment with plenty of resources = more IQ and more creativity.

No that's bullshit, you can't magically boost IQ like that.
As for creativity, it depends how you measure it.

It's not true that the correlation vanishes for domains where intelligence matters intensely like physics or maths.
But I imagine it fades pretty fast for things like painting or music writing.

(although Pox would have you believe otherwise, the vast majority of academic opinion is that IQ is not the full picture of intellect at all).

I never said that.
It's just the single best predictor / measure of intelligence we have and it happens to be pretty damn good.

Furthermore, success in creative fields like music and art have also been shown to have a lot more to do with deliberate practice than natural talent

I think you misunderstand what IQ measures.
It's a measure of intelligence potential. It's basically a measure of how fast you can understand things and how complex the most complex thing you can understand is.

That's why someone with a low IQ can never beat someone with a high IQ if both practice, say, math as much. The bigger the difference, the more the low IQ person has to work to match the high IQ one and there is a plateau they will never break through.

It's easy to understand and measure in sports, harder to grasp and quantify for intellectual tasks.
But not impossible.

Look at how well IQ and academic achievement correlate. If we had more widespread IQ data you could probably show that IQ never ceases to rise on average the higher you go in notoriety for highly demanding fields like physics, biology, astrophysics etc.

You could even determine how hard a subject is simply by how high the IQ plateau is in that field.

At 7/24/13 09:22 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 7/24/13 02:00 AM, Revo357912 wrote:

The levels of Umami are different though, and strongest in Fermented vegetables, mushrooms, and seafood, which are the main common diets of many Asian cultures.

how do you even measure that?
Is there an actual chemical involved here?

Yes, there are. Several in fact, that can produce the umami response.

More interesting is the relation between umami intensity and it's relation to IQ as you have pointed out:
Asain cultures=highest IQ=highest Umami intensity foods (dark green vegetables, mushrooms, fermented vegetables, and fish/shellfish)
White cultures= Medium in IQ range = medium umami intensity foods (cheese, cured meats, less dark green vegetables, less shelfish)
African cultures = Lowest on IQ range = least of umami foods.

There's a much more reasonable explanation and it's brain sizes and cortical neurons. Australian aborigines have the smallest brains out of all groups and asians have the biggest ones.
Brain size and intelligence correlate.

My point is though that those brain sizes were influenced by the environment over many generations, not sporadic mutations, and that they actually reinforce themselves through epigenetics to continue.
Notice for example how the physical structures of those ethnicities are best adapted for where they originate from. That means environment had some form of influence as to why those ethnicities exist, which means that changing an ethnicities environment for a very long period of time can change what is currently the norm.

Not only that, but I dispute your brain size equals intelligence since Einstein's brain was of normal size.
There is a difference however in the way it is formed and what parts are bigger; in his case, the parietal lobe that was 15 percent larger than the average brain's. The parietal lobe was also missing the Sylvian fissure, a divider that separates the parietal lobe into two sections. If anything, it would be different parts of the brain being bigger and developed in different ways among ethnicities that would make more sense to me rather than simply the brain's overall size.

Combine that with the effect epigenetics can play over long generations and you have a strong correlation that parallels the one you have pointed out.

Again if that was true then blacks in the USA would score as high as whites since they have had the same diet for generations. Unless I am not understanding something here.

No, you have it wrong. They would score less than whites, but higher than the population in which they originate from (Africa I guess in this case). The reason is because diet of blacks here would have been affected by the epigentics of their point of origin; not to mention certain situations, such as slavery for hundreds of years, actually had a direct effect on the genetics of blacks here.

At 7/24/13 09:22 AM, poxpower wrote: There's a much more reasonable explanation and it's brain sizes and cortical neurons. Australian aborigines have the smallest brains out of all groups and asians have the biggest ones.
Brain size and intelligence correlate.

This, I have to say, is actually really interesting to look at.

On the genetic side of things, there are two genes that affect brain size and IQ.

The first one is a variant on HMGA2, the weaker of the two genes in terms of it's impact on intellect. It's also the one most responsible for intercranial volume out of the two. It is interesting to note that it is also has a strong impact on height, perhaps to be expected, but it effects intercranial volume slightly more than height, but it is worth noting p value for this is not very strong, and has been largely overstated. It's also worth noting that this gene is only thought to account for about an IQ point and a half.

The other is Rs7294919 and it increases hippocampus size. This makes sense: the hippocampus is necessary for memory, and memory is tested for on IQ tests. (Whether or not memory is interchangeable with intellect is up to you... I understand the case for it, but it's always been the part I've scored worst for on IQ tests so I have kind of a vendetta against it!) However, there a couple of things worth mentioning here: memory techniques like pegging systems can increase the effectiveness of a person's memory greatly, and genii from recent times (some of relative celebrity) and also of past times attributed a large amount of their ability to their memory techniques and exercises. Moreover, Maguire's famous 1997 study on black cab drivers demonstrated the elasticity of the hippocampus, as the physiology changed with time allowing the prosterior hippocampus to grow greatly in size (providing it is used well and often). This leads me to say that while this gene gives some people a marked advantage, it's hardly creating an unbridgeable gap between races.

tl;dr Shit's hella interesting, but I don't think it accounts for quite the gap in racial intelligence Pox takes it to. Idk about the epigenetic side though...

At 7/24/13 02:05 PM, Revo357912 wrote:

Yes, there are. Several in fact, that can produce the umami response.

Well what evidence do you have to say umami foods make people smarter?
Did anyone study this?

My point is though that those brain sizes were influenced by the environment over many generations, not sporadic mutations, and that they actually reinforce themselves through epigenetics to continue.

You know I don't think it's particularly relevant as if epigenetics have an effect at all, it must be quite small as the consistency of the data from humans all over the world would suggest.

I don't see how it could affect the entire population of China or Japan or all the African-americans etc.
Unless I am not understanding how this works.

Notice for example how the physical structures of those ethnicities are best adapted for where they originate from. That means environment had some form of influence as to why those ethnicities exist, which means that changing an ethnicities environment for a very long period of time can change what is currently the norm.

Yeah that's just regular evolution.

Not only that, but I dispute your brain size equals intelligence since Einstein's brain was of normal size.

It doesn't equal, it correlates.
I think they have found a 0.3-0.4 correlation of brain size to IQ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_intelligence

No, you have it wrong. They would score less than whites, but higher than the population in which they originate from (Africa I guess in this case). The reason is because diet of blacks here would have been affected by the epigentics of their point of origin; not to mention certain situations, such as slavery for hundreds of years, actually had a direct effect on the genetics of blacks here.

Can you design an experiment that controls for epigenetic factors?
Because so far it sounds impossible to distinguish from just regular evolution.

At 7/24/13 02:21 PM, AxTekk wrote:

This, I have to say, is actually really interesting to look at.

Again read Rushton's paper and you will see that his findings and conclusions are irrefutable unless you basically attack the validity of his data, which they certainly have tried to do, as well as just trying to get him fired.

Sad day for them, the last 15 years of data has just further reinforced his initial claims and his ideas are gaining traction.

On the genetic side of things, there are two genes that affect brain size and IQ.

You know that can be interesting but it's not necessary to know as IQ and brain size/ weight can be found without knowing any of the genes that cause them.

I've scored worst for on IQ tests

Take this one then: http://www.iqtest.dk/main.swf

This leads me to say that while this gene gives some people a marked advantage, it's hardly creating an unbridgeable gap between races.

I would assume that it depends what you measure.
As it stands now there seems to be genetically determined plateaus to mental potential. Most people probably don't even come to close to achieving their genetic max in anything so it stands to reason that you could select random individuals of any race and train to be to better than average at almost anything relevant in society.

Some things you probably can't change much at all like scores on Raven's matrices and some thing you can probably change a lot like teaching some dude to operate a zamboni really well.

But note that this break down for large populations. You can't give a personal life coach to every black person to try and make them at least attain the same statistical averages in income, crime, IQ etc. as the white average.

Not to mention that some executive functions are probably almost impossible to change, like all those gay kids that were send to "deconversion" camp.
Sure you might get them to not act gay anymore, but they're still gay.

Truth is not considered true if it is not Politically Factual. That is, all "truth" must support Political Correctness for it to be considered true in public.

That being said, some things are squarely used for anti-"some race" purposes, not for educational purposes. That does not justify censorship, however.

Am I the only one? :P

At 7/22/13 08:42 PM, Revo357912 wrote:

That said, while there is a strong genetic link to race and intelligence, I'd also like to point out that it can be indeed overcome with changes in culture, food, habits, etc.

If we're talking about narrow sense heritability, a between-group heritability of IQ that is lower than 1

There's a difference between saying that African American IQs can be raised through X environmental means and saying that through environmental means the IQ Gaps between the populations can be eliminated entirely.

Also keep in mind that in heritability estimates, epigenetic effects are counted as enviromental rather than genetic.

lol what the fuck this isn't the 1920s kid

At 7/23/13 09:04 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 7/23/13 08:46 PM, AxTekk wrote:

You 've got it in one mate. And then he'll start a new thread. Exactly like what happened here, because racists hide behing "intellectual honesty" the same way fascists hide behind "freedom of speech" and abandon it whenever it becomes inconvenient .

Not only did Fim ignore my latest reply to him here but the thread you just quoted is one WHERE MY FINAL POST IS AN UNANSWERED RETORT TO NARONIC WHICH YOU KNOW HE IGNORED BECAUSE HE POSTED LATER ON WHEREAS I HAVE NOT.

I didn't ignore your comment, I'm just not going to waste time debating someone who is so closed to having their opinions changed, whenever I show you something that conflicts with your theory you either ignore it or just say its wrong. Yet you're more than happy to keep spouting off Rushton despite how invalidated and debunked his 'research' is in the scientific community and expecting us to take it as gospel truth. I'm having quite enough watching you argue and throw tantrums from a distance.