Immigration The sad reality of heritable cognitive differences vs. immigration policies

T

Tomenable

Regular Member
Messages
5,419
Reaction score
1,337
Points
113
Location
Poland
Ethnic group
Polish
Y-DNA haplogroup
R1b-L617
mtDNA haplogroup
W6a
I believe that genetic engineering in the future will help to improve human minds. But meanwhile, we need to preserve high IQ populations, to be capable of inventing ways how to fix lower IQ populations. And to preserve high IQ populations the First World needs reasonable immigration policies, among other things.

That's why groups who don't want to acknowledge that the problem exists, are so dangerous.

They are telling people that everyone is equal, and these claims - when compared with reality by "disadvantaged" groups - are only causing cognitive dissonance for them and unnecessary racial resentments, as well as unnecessary hatred against groups which are on average more gifted (their giftedness being mistaken for "institutional racism", etc.). It would be much better for all of humanity if we just all cooperated.

There are both stupid and smart people in every race, but proportions are different - time to deal with it, and to work on humane and acceptable ways to improve the situation. Nobody is going for a genocide.

Intellectually less gifted groups such as Sub-Saharans also have their own genetic advantages that can be important for humanity. They are just connected with physical abilities, not with mental ones.

And all these comparisons of modern right wing to National Socialists are simply ridiculous.

The Nazis and similar scums actually exterminated mostly intelligent populations, such as Jews. And judging someone as an Untermensch wasn't based on DNA or even on IQ tests. If anything, it was to a larger extent based on physical appearance and cultural-economic factors. What the Nazis did, triggered a series of allergic reactions to sanity and reason after WW2, caused mainly by fear of "another Holocaust".

Had there been no WW2, our world would have been less dominated by the regressive left today.
 
I really hate this idea that people are a certain way and can't change, and I think it's quite harmful to society to suggest that people will always be a certain way. I know that at least on this forum people love to think of many aspects of personality as hereditary. Perhaps certain groups are predisposed to certain mindsets that can be very limiting, but I really refuse to believe that people can't learn, or that we're all a "certain way". Some elements of are personality sure seem to be lifelong- and this is a good thing, it defines who we are. But people can grow and change. We should protect our culture and extoll its benefits, for reasons that we tend to achieve great things as you mention. However, we should not consider other groups as "incapable" of improvement.

The main example I see of what you describe is Muslims vs. Jews. The Jewish people has produced more than its fair share of geniuses over the past few centuries whereas Islam has produced illiteracy, misogyny, intolerance, anger, violence, perversion, and injustice. Perhaps Muslims realize this on some basic level, and this contributes even more to their already-strong hatred of Jews. What pisses me off is that many Europeans aware of this still side with them.
 
That's a pickle. However, giving all people same nutrition and education level the average IQ differences might not be that big between ethnicities or nations.

Saddly, Canadian Government experiment about mass education of Natives wasn't very successful. There were smart individuals who went through schools and assimilated with general population well, but most didn't. Sitting in schools for hours and memorizing tons of material is not coming easy to hunter gatherers, neither 100 years ago, 50 or now. Many methods were tried.
 
I really hate this idea (...)
Click to expand...

Haha, try to avoid using this phrase. :)

That's how stereotypical regressive leftists usually start their sentences. At least in jokes about them.

"I really hate this idea that 1 + 1 = 2", "I really hate this idea that men are taller than women", etc. :LOL:

====================

Anyway - in this thread you can find data from Davide Piffer's 2013 and 2015 studies on intelligence-increasing alleles:

2013 study: http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...thnic-groups&p=4468182&viewfull=1#post4468182

2015 study: http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...thnic-groups&p=4469789&viewfull=1#post4469789

The results of Piffer's studies are optimistic for some populations, but very pessimistic for other populations.

These results indicate that Middle Eastern and South Asian (Indian) populations currently underperform on IQ tests by around 10 points compared to their genotypic potential (as predicted based on allele frequencies).

So if true, it means that the average IQ in the Middle East and India could be between ca. 90 and ca. 101 (depending on country), if only non-innate factors weren't artificially lowering their intellectual abilities (as they currently do).

However, Piffer's study is very pessimistic when it comes to - for example - African-Americans. Data from his 2015 study shows, that Afro-Americans have already reached their maximum genetic potential when it comes to intelligence. Piffer calculated their genotypic IQ as 84 points, and this is what they are currently scoring in tests.

Black Africans who live in Black Africa, on the other hand, have a genetic potential to score in the low 80s, but they are currently scoring in the low 70s, so there is a lot of room for improvement there, just like in MENA countries, South Asia and Vietnam. However, even low 80s will not make Sub-Saharan Africa an intellectual powerhouse.

Vietnam has very similar genetics for intelligence as Japan, South Korea and China, but currently scores in the 90s - so there is a lot of room for improvement there. This refers also to North Korea.

People in 1st World countries in most cases already score as high on IQ tests, as Piffer predicted them to score based on their DNA. And - unfortunately - this includes Sub-Saharans living in a First World country - namely Afro-Americans. They score just 85 but they are not genetically predisposed to score any higher, according to Piffer.

On the other hand, there is still room for improvement in Sub-Saharan Africa itself, as well as in other Third World countries. Surprisingly - despite their European admixture - Afro-Americans are not much better endowed with intelligence-increasing genes than their African cousins. Their innate potential - as predicted by Piffer based on allele frequencies - is only 2 IQ points higher than that of, for example, the Yoruba ethnic group native to Nigeria.

Most of Indians have such underlying genetics that could allow them to score in the mid-90s (even up to 97), which is great because it means that India can potentially become a developed nation.

According to Danish prof. Helmuth Nyborg, the "magical treshold" for a functioning democratic society is 90. Populations with IQ below 90 have serious problems with maintaining democracy, according to Nyborg.
 
LeBrok said:
That's a pickle. However, giving all people same nutrition and education level the average IQ differences might not be that big between ethnicities or nations.
Click to expand...
If we look at frequencies of genes which are known to be correlated with higher intelligence, your statement seems to be true but only in case of some ethnic groups. In case of other ethnic groups - especially these of Sub-Saharan descent - it seems that they will continue to lag behind, because it appears that they just don't have high enough frequencies of genes increasing intellectual abilities (at least as far as alleles discovered so far are concerned). Even if we assume that Afro-Americans can score 100 on IQ tests, by the time they achieve this - others will be scoring 115 already. So they seem to be doomed to lag behind the rest.
 
Tomenable said:
Haha, try to avoid using this phrase. :)

That's how stereotypical regressive leftists usually start their sentences. At least in jokes about them.
Click to expand...
Don't tell anyone how to feel. :) One thing is to feel, other to know and understand.
I wish there were no discernible differences between races, especially if it comes to intellectual abilities, but I have no problem acknowledging reality and talking about this issue.
 
Tomenable said:
If we look at frequencies of genes which are known to be correlated with higher intelligence, your statement seems to be true but only in case of some ethnic groups. In case of other ethnic groups - especially these of Sub-Saharan descent - it seems that they will continue to lag behind, because it appears that they just don't have high enough frequencies of genes increasing intellectual abilities (at least as far as alleles discovered so far are concerned). Even if we assume that Afro-Americans can score 100 on IQ tests, by the time they achieve this - others will be scoring 115 already. So they seem to be doomed to lag behind the rest.
Click to expand...
My hypothesis (already in one of the threads) is that somehow farmers got smarter and improved memory, due to evolutionary adaptation to agricultural lifestyle. Hunter gatherers are lacking this adaptation. Observations and statistics from around the world are confirming this.
 
We've been over this again and again. Any "IQ" analysis that uses data from Lynn is ipso facto unreliable. He's been indicted by other academicians for the lack of scientific rigor he displayed in getting his data.

Plus, as a general proposition, the tests he used are like the SATs in the U.S., they're good for showing how much has been learned, and how well people will do at university, but they are not a substitute for a rigorous, actual analysis of IQ.

In addition, IQ, like most other traits, is the product of the small effect of myriad genes. To assume that you can predict IQ based on a handful of them is ridiculous, in my opinion.
 
IQ only measures how you score on a test. People who worship IQ test results (I'm not saying you) are morons and have something lacking in their lives.
 
LeBrok said:
My hypothesis (already in one of the threads) is that somehow farmers got smarter and improved memory, due to evolutionary adaptation to agricultural lifestyle. Hunter gatherers are lacking this adaptation. Observations and statistics from around the world are confirming this.
Click to expand...

Possible, but I'd bet against this hypothesis. Farmer lifestyle was characterized by monotonous work and poor nutrition. Consensus in modern science is that monotony and lack of sports is like poison for the brain. Even worse, the poor nutrition might represent an evolutionary pressure against brain development in order to save nutritional elements.
 
IQ only measures how you score on a test.
Click to expand...

I wish it was true (I'm not one of these "IQ test worshippers"), but all evidence seems to indicate that it is not. Watch some videos of Stefan Molyneaux - e.g. with James Flynn, Charles Murray, Linda Gottfredson, Helmuth Nyborg, etc. (they were all Molyneaux's guests). If you don't want or have no time for long videos - here is a nice summary of Molyneaux's discussion with Gottfredson:

 
Repeat....Lynn is a fraud.
 
But where do you see Lynn, Angela? Richard Lynn wasn't one of Molyneaux's guests.

BTW - I have an e-mail address of prof. Lynn, I once asked him about IQ differences between Indian castes.

He didn't know specific answers, which surprised me*, but he sent me a link to this article:

http://www.unz.com/akarlin/the-puzzle-of-indian-iq-a-country-of-gypsies-and-jews/

*It seems that many of his IQ scores are indeed "estimated", rather than really tested.
 
LeBrok said:
My hypothesis (already in one of the threads) is that somehow farmers got smarter and improved memory, due to evolutionary adaptation to agricultural lifestyle. Hunter gatherers are lacking this adaptation. Observations and statistics from around the world are confirming this.
Click to expand...
You mean the Finns who got least initial farmer genes in Europe topping Euro average IQ list?
 
Honestly, people, let's get real here. We've been over this as well.

These results, especially the European ones, are based on standardized testing of academic subjects. If you have a great education system, your kids are going to get high scores on these tests. The Finns are well known to have put into place a great education system. I applaud them, but you can't deduce from the evidence of these standardized tests that they're smarter than anyone else in Europe.

I used to be heavily involved in my children's schools, and have spoken at length to a number of educational psychologists. It's their unanimous opinion that you can take any child of around average intelligence and drill them in the kind of math that is on these high school level tests. The East Asian and South Asian parents are very aware of that, and in addition to the work the children do in regular public school, they send their children to specialized, private clinics for a couple of hours each day and all day Saturday in order to get their skills up. It's harder to do for verbally based subjects, but it's somewhat true of them as well.

Hasn't anyone ever taken a real IQ test? Children here in the U.S. are given them whenever a child shows signs that he or she is "gifted" or struggling. The test takes hours of multiple sessions, and is one on one with an educational psychologist. They measure all sorts of things like digit recall, spatial reasoning, memory, speed of processing as well using puzzles and all sorts of other measures to try to get away from strictly academic learning.

If we don't have results based on these kinds of tests, we aren't measuring IQ.
 
arvistro said:
You mean the Finns who got least initial farmer genes in Europe topping Euro average IQ list?
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter if they have the least, they have all the good ones. Yes, I can't claim that all the hunter gatherers have lower intelligence, learning skills and weaker memory, but generally it is the case. Do you have any info or stats how HGs of Russian North are doing in school and modern life in general? I'm curious.
 
@Tomenable,

I dis agree with your strong believe it is proven some populations are genetically more intelligent than others. Being "historically disadvantaged" is a real thing. But you're right some pops are less fit for making a good society than others and this should influence immigration policy.
 
Angela said:
I used to be heavily involved in my children's schools, and have spoken at length to a number of educational psychologists. It's their unanimous opinion that you can take any child of around average intelligence and drill them in the kind of math that is on these high school level tests.
Click to expand...

Then why didn't you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 990 times.

Back
Top