The Big Brain Cipher- Brain Size-IQ and The fallacies in J.Phillippe Rushton’s theory


The Big Brain Cipher – The fallacies in J. Philippe Rushton ‘s theory

Many are familiar with J. Philippe Rushton . Rushton is a British born psychologist that believes Black Africans low IQ scores are due to the fact Black Africans have smaller brains than Europeans and Asians. The fact that Rushton is a psychologist and has arrived at this conclusion all the more points to his own short comings. Being a psychologist one should factor in all available data from socio-economic, environmental and psycho-social data-all aspects of psychology not just brain size and genetics which are aspects of biology. Again Rustin is a psychologist, he is neither a geneticist nor biologist.  It seems Rushton has failed to take in all possible data relevant to such a study purposely or by lack of insight on his own part. Rushton also has arrived at his conclusions using indirect data. For example Rushton jumps to the conclusion that African American low IQ is due to African Americans having a smaller brain with out factoring in psycho-social & or environmental factors. Nor does he delve into brain anatomy or function, two things that also could possibly explain away any assumed big brain advantage. These are all factors I will address and in the end clearly illustrate the holes in Rushton’s theory.

I will briefly state that most minorities are marginalized & suffer from some form of oppression or discrimination by the larger group they live near or with in. The Dalits and Tamil populations of India, American Indians,Rohingya Muslims of Burma, Palestinians and almost any marginalized or minority group has been labeled lazy, ignorant, violent and suffers from unemployment and poor education. So when looking at other marginalized populations outside and with in the U.S. one finds the same social-environmental dynamics and the same symptoms. It takes a small leap of logic to conclude the socio-environmental conditions are the primary causation of the social ills or at the very least significant contributing factors. Where you have a population that is discriminated against you will also find members of the dominant/privileged  group assuming the symptoms of this discrimination(lack of achievement, crime, etc) are inherent natural traits of the oppressed group. Rushton being a member of a privileged group has fallen into this faulty line of thinking. Clearly there are psycho-social dynamics that are in effect here that Rushton seems to overlook in the case of Black Americans.  Rushton  either ignores, minimalizes or dismisses as non existent the effects of slavery, Jim Crow (American Apartheid) and systemic racism (such as conservative pundits like Dinesh D’Souza has) . Rather than investigate social, cultural or psychological factors that may be stifling Black academic achievement and IQ scores the psychologist J.Ruston choses to theorize this lack of achievement is based in genetics and biology. Again for a psychologist to ignore phenomena rooted in his field of study and to base his theory on phenomena out side his field of expertise is not only strange but disturbing.

So lets address the “boogie man” / “elephant” in the room

Are Europeans and Asians brains bigger than Black Africans?

Why yes they are but here lies the rub. European and Asians also have bigger eyeballs. In fact all people living in and or native to northern latitudes have bigger brains and eyeballs.
You can see this dynamic with in the populations living at varying latitudes in Europe. As you travel north in latitude studies show Northern Europeans have bigger eyeballs and brains than Southern Europeans
This being the case the people with the biggest brains and eyeballs are Eskimos or the Inuit people who live near the North Pole. European and Asian brains are bigger in the areas dealing with sight. During the ice age it was dark and difficult to see. Also today due to sunlight refraction it is more difficult to see in Northern latitudes.
Neanderthal man who was an early cousin to homo sapiens (us) evolved during the ice age and had a bigger brain than any human.

We can tell from early Neanderthal artifacts they were less intelligent than homo sapiens archaic or homo sapiens sapiens(us/modern man) so their bigger brains did not equate to a higher intelligence. In fact it appears to have been substantially lower Europeans and Asians like Neanderthal developed in the northern hemisphere during ice age climatic changes. Both Asians and Europeans evolved bigger eyes and optic nerve areas to see better and developed bigger brains to deal with the extra sight sensory input
So now we understand “why” Europeans and Asians have bigger brains. The next question is does this correlate with their inherently having a higher IQ than Africans?

First lets look at two areas of the brain Asians and Europeans have increased size and have more grey matter dedicated to:

capas-cortex untitled11319243937371

Above we have illustrated the visual cortex . Again note this extra brain matter is dedicated to analyzing increased visual input. Another area larger in Asians and Europeans are the lateral ventricles (seen in image below) These are filled with cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) which bathes and cushions the brain and spinal cord . The lateral ventricles do not consist of any grey or white matter.

Cognitive functions such as -executive functions, planning, abstract reasoning, impulse control, sustained attention and insight are not carried out in these areas. These functions are carried out primarily in the frontal lobe were the Orbitofrontal Cortex is located.

 African Americans in fact have a larger orbitofrontal cortex  than Caucasians.



Location of Orbitofrontal Cortex

A Plos Genetics study states-  In models examining specific brain regions, the only statistically significant difference was that African-Americans exhibited larger left OFC volumes than Caucasians. However, when regional ratios were examined (regional volume/total cerebral volume), the African-American cohort exhibited greater ratios for the right amygdala and bilaterally for the OFC “

The Plos study states that over all:

“there were no statistically significant differences in total gray matter, total white matter, or ventricular CSF volumes.

 (Plos- ) 

Scientist explain why poeple that evolved in northern climes have bigger eye balls & brains & what that extra brain matter is used for & below I have another link from another source.

 Another point Rushton glazes over is the fact that women have smaller brains than men. When asked about this in a recent documentary “Race and Intelligence : Science’s Last Taboo” Rushton stated that “the difference between men and women’s brains is due to spatial ability, the difference between White, Black and East Asian brains is due to general intelligence” he ends this statement in saying “ this is what we think.” He does not explain why brain size does not correlate to higher intelligence between White men and White women but he indicates brain size is something significant between Blacks and Whites. He simply states this is what he thinks. Again he does not factor in any environmental or cultural elements that a psychologist should. Rushton is arriving at conclusions from biological and incomplete educational data. I say incomplete because if I test an African American child raised in a drug and gang infested project and a White child raised in suburbia and conclude the Blacks lower score is due to his or her brain size alone I am disregarding the whole environmental factor. Not until I can test a Black person and White person who not only share the same economic bracket but both have cultures that support or encourage education my test data will always be skewed.

This is like testing two mice in different mazes. One maze is relatively simple & benign the other more complicated & filled with obstacles designed to discourage the rodent. The mouse in the simpler maze would complete the maze quicker & at a higher % than the mouse in the maze filled with obstructions. Would any one with common sence & a non biased world view assume the mouse with the easier maze to be inately more intelligent because he completes his maze at a higher frequency? I doubt it but this is what we are dealing with in regards to this Black/White IQ issue

As a psychologist Rushton should understand that the psychological legacy of racism and slavery has affected Black culture negatively and the presence of systemic racism in today’s society act as a negative psychological effect. A psychologist should not be negating these factors and should be doing further research into them to arrive at an accurate answer. The conclusion Rushton has arrived at is the equivalent of a florist stating the white roses grown in fertilizer and sunlight are inherently superior to red roses grown in poor soil not only because the white roses have grown bigger & taller but because the roses are white. If the florist does not consider the conditions the roses were grown in the florist conclusions will be invalid. Some might theorize “well” since Europeans & Asians have bigger eyeballs thus cans see better and have a bigger brain dedicated to the increased sensory input and the analysis of this input perhaps this gives them some type of edge. The opposite of this is shown in studies. People who are myopic (nearsighted) tend to have higher IQ’s

So this would suggest the increased eyesight of Asians and Europeans would at best be a non factor in intelligence Again I must point out the whole brain size argument is invalid because again Whites and Asians only possess more brain matter used for sight sensory intake and processing. This is the same as if certain human groups had a brain that possessed a larger primary olfactory cortex for smelling . This in no way would make one smarter. The latest studies state that overall a bigger brain(with in the human range of 1100 grams to 1400 grams)does not equate to higher intelligence. You do have older yet relatively recent studies that state brain size does equate to higher intelligence and men are more intelligent than women because of this. Throwing a wrench in the conclusions arrived at by these studies are women like the last Guinness world record holder for IQ – Marilyn vos Savant who IQ was tested at 228.
For those who may state Savant is an outlier recently overall women have now begun to outscore men in IQ test

There are some who may argue that since Black Africans and other dark skinned peoples possess higher amounts of melanin & melatonin which acts as an neurotransmitter by which neurons (brain cells) communicate to each other. This coupled with the fact Blacks have a functional pineal gland and a larger orbitofrontal cortex arguments can be made that Black Africans are more intelligent and this is why many are still able to achieve academically and economically in spite of a societal system that’s is set against them.

I state this to simply point to oppossing arguments stating Blacks are inherently more intelligent but simply perform poorly academically due to systemic forms of discrimination.

I my self feel we all have the same base potentially but people & populations achieve or under achieve depending on what environment they have been reared & or live in.

I theorize people such as Rushton not only suffer from a cultural arrogance but psychologically deal with “White guilt” by placing blame on the victims for a plight their ancestors have placed them in and they themselves have helped perpetuate or remained apathetic to. This is a well known psychological defense tactic. In fact the term “blaming the victim” was a term coined by William Ryan  in his 1971 book Blaming the Victim. In the book, Ryan described victim blaming as an ideology used to justify racism and social injustice against black peoplein the United States  (wiki-    ) You will find this “victim blaming attitude” common in people who are part of the upper, ruling  or privileged classes. By labeling a people  inherently inferior the inference is  made that their socio economic condition is of their own making. This slippery slope could even have one arrive at the conclusion that slavery, colonization and all other subjugation of peoples of color throughout the world are the fault of the subjugated. This circles around to the ‘White mans burden” mental state that states Europeans have done colonized peoples a favor for bringing them technology and so called civilization. The North Western Europeans who control much of the world seem to have forgotten they were the barbarians who with their “big brains” brought about Europe’s dark ages. They have forgotten they have borrowed (directly or indirectly) most of the technology that allowed them to conquer the world from their Asian, Arab and African brothers. Such theories as Rushton’s fall flat in the face of the absence of any early ancient North Western European civilizations.  You will find no pyramids in ancient Berlin no Pantheons in an ancient Norway. All early civilization are found near or with in the worlds tropical zone. Europe’s earliest civilization were the Minoans who were located south of Italy on the modern Islands of Crete and Thera, the most southern parts of Europe-nearest to Africa and the middle east.

Frescos from Europe’s earliest known civilization the ancient Minoan-circa 2700 BCE – 1500 BCE


In many ways I regard the African American as a Ferrari engine that’s been dropped into a Chevy chassis and connected to a Ford transmission. An unsuspecting driver will curse the engine stating that it is a piece of junk and just doesn’t run right. The fact is that the reason for the malfunction is that the engine has been connected to a system that is not designed for it. Even though the Ferrari is one of the worlds best built and efficient engines as long as its connected to a system not designed for it, it will perform badly. This has been the Black mans plight in North America. A human with so much potential but held back by the very system he must live in.

(Brilliant Blacks From BCE to Present)




 Mansa Musa

 Angelo Soliman

Neil deGrasse Tyson


42 thoughts on “The Big Brain Cipher- Brain Size-IQ and The fallacies in J.Phillippe Rushton’s theory

  1. Your anti-Rushton stance, while popular, does a poor job of countering his arguments. The Neanderthal’s larger brain, for instance, is hypothesized to have been devoted much more to bodily control due to the stocky, muscular morphology of the creature than to executive functioning ( This means that brain size is not the be-all-and-end-all of intelligence, as you correctly point out, (though it is a very good indicator in non-human primates:,%20and%20not%20encephalization%20quotient,%20best%20predicts%20cognitive%20ability%20across%20non-human%20primates.pdf ). The trouble is that you still accept Rushton’s basic premise in your own argument. You just claim that the greater volume of brain mass in Asians and Caucasians goes solely to visual processing (a vast overstatement of the evidence you present) and then say that it’s not the whole brain that matters, just certain parts.

    This is where you really slip up. You claim that blacks have a larger orbitofrontal cortex volume than whites. There are a number of massive problems with this. First, the orbitofrontal cortex is just one of several structures in the brain responsible for executive functioning, and not necessarily the one that dictates intelligence. There is also the anterior cingulate cortex and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. The orbitofrontal cortex is involved in impulse control; the DLPFC more involved in abstract thinking. But even then, the brain is not purely a set of discrete entities – these entities must coordinate, which means that, yes, much more than just the frontal lobes are involved in measures of intelligence ( And not just that, but rates of gray and white matter, density of neurons, mylenization, these all contribute to how well a CNS functions. In other words, you’re being even more selectively reductionist than Rushton, who admits his ignorance and is using what amounts to heuristics (acceptable heuristics in most of the biological sciences but politicized when it comes to humans) to draw his conclusions.

    The other problems lie with the claim that blacks do in fact have a larger orbitofrontal cortex than whites. In fact, that bit of datum comes from a study entitled “Variability in Frontotemporal Brain Structure: The Importance of Recruitment of African Americans in Neuroscience Research” (, a title bemoaning the limited number of minority candidates the authors of the study could entice into participating. In fact, the authors only had 25 black subjects, which is not a statistically robust number. Any conclusions drawn are therefore tentative. Next, the total group differences showed statistically significant findings in only two cases: greater *left* orbitofrontal cortex in blacks, and greater total brain volume in whites. When controlled for age, blacks also showed greater volume of the left amygdala.

    Now what do these findings indicate? According to the authors of the study in their discussion, not much: “Our findings have neither clear clinical implications nor clear implications for differences in brain function. The OFC and amygdala are functionally linked and contribute to stimulus assessment and face recognition.” However, one might speculate that, since the left orbitofrontal cortex responds more to the possibility of reward as opposed to the right’s response to punishment ( and the left and right amygdala seem to mirror this (, the only conclusion to really be drawn from what has been discussed here is that on average blacks might be more sensitive to situations in which they could possibly yield some reward, as well as a strong motivational response to attempt to attain that reward, without a comparably developed sense of caution, restraint, or fear of punishment. Such a theory would be consistent with the finding that blacks in the United States, more than whites or any other minority group, have the highest self-reported self-esteem (

    As a couple of end notes, you conflate various types of melanin. Having the melanin found in skin is unrelated to neuromelanin, which is synthesized in the brain. Moreover, the fact that albinos are not on average any less intelligent than anyone else suggests strongly that skin melanin (rather than neuromelanin) is utterly irrelevant to intelligence, and anyone suggesting otherwise is not only ignorant, but quite possibly racist (

    Perhaps most egregiously, you use vivid anecdotes (Marilyn vos Savant), which are outlier data points, to attempt to discount statistical averages. This is flagrantly fallacious and intellectually dishonest.

    Actually, that’s not the worst thing. You resort to the “systemic discrimination” trope to explain lower black IQ’s, higher rates of black criminality, and so forth, but present no evidence here that would lead one to believe this is the case. Your bit of argumentum ad populum is woefully inadequate, especially when what little evidence you do present fails to soundly quash Rushton’s case.

    As I understand it (not having read him), Rushton is trying to use evolutionary psychology or sociobiology (perfectly legitimate grounds to work from as a psychologist – many psychologists deal in neurology and endocrinology all the time despite not being M.D.s) and the like to explain the underperformance of blacks. At best, your post casts doubt on approach reliant solely on brain size (and I’ve no idea to what extent Rushton’s case actually does that – I am inclined to distrust your implication that it is this and only this that Rushton harps on). But you do yourself no credit with the loose associations, incomplete data, and various mental contortions and assumptions (social oppression theory) – none of it explains black underperformance. The one thing that could – your insistence on system discrimination or social oppression – you do not advance any evidence for. In fact, you merely assert, post hoc, the bizarre idea that the orbitofrontal cortex alone could be the reason there are black scholars, intellectuals, politicians, business leaders, etc. But again, this relies on the unsubstantiated discrimination/oppression theory, discounts forty years of affirmative action, and does not much explain why the supposed superior intelligence of Africans did not lead them to outperform the early Chinese or the Renaissance Era Europeans. You could resort to a geographic theory like Jared Diamond’s, I suppose, but then you’re giving a legal defense rather than a parsimonious, scientific one.

    • I will properly digest your full comment but in brief response I didn’t infer that the brains in its parts are less than the whole in determining IQ. If i did so this was not intended. Im fully aware that the whole brain communicates & the whole brain plays a part in cognitive function & memory The refrence to the Black prefrontal Orbital cortex being larger was simply a counter to those who feel Whites & Asians greater white & or grey matter give them inate superiorIQ

    • Sorry for the late response but ill address your reply by saying this.
      First my main argument was that the bigger brains found in peoples that originate in northern latitudes bigger brain size is an evolutionary adaptation to severe dark & cold ice age climatic conditions. The Average added brain size has nothing to do with increased intelligence rather increased eyesight. As i stated in my post,Myopic people score higher on average than people with
      20/20 vision. One reason for this increased intelligence is that nearsighted people must use multiple areas on the brain to discern what they see. By the brain regularly communicating with various other sections of the brain this extra data processing builds up the connection between neurons thus over the years the myopic person is able to process information, problem solve, extrapolate, etc better than the average person

      Also as i mentioned in the blog varying size of brains are seen within homogeneous populations ie: German brains are bigger than Greek brains. Northern English people have larger brains than southern English people
      Whats funny about this the Greeks gave northern European barbarians civilization via their influence on the Romans (who also had smaller brains than the less civilized north western European tribes) If this larger brain meant higher intelligence then why didn’t the big brained Germanic tribes develop a complex civilization independently like say the Sumerians or Egyptians? They didn’t begin to elevate untill Rome conqured parts of Northern Europe & later the Arabs & Moors introduced them to higher learning via their contact with each other during the Crusades & the Moorish rule over all or parts of the Spainish peninsula for close to 700 years. This is a change of environment that lead Europeans to today’s world dominance not inherently race based IQ
      Again my statement “an argument can be made” shows im simply implying that other biological brain based superiority theories exist claiming the oppisite of Rushtons theory that Whites & Asians have higher IQ because their Brains are bigger.
      As for melanin conflation I never mentioned neuro melanin. I stated Blacks have more melanin & melatonin

      Melatonin receptors appear to be important in mechanisms of learning and memory in mice,[81] and melatonin can alter electrophysiological processes associated with memory, such as long-term potentiation

      Melatonin helps increase memory under stress (link to abstract)

      & in Eva S Shechernhammer book “Melanin: from Molecules to Theory she states (im paraphrasing) significantly lower levels of calcification of the pineal gland points to higher levels of melatonin in Blacks
      I will admit to my knowledge no studies on rates of melatonin by race has been done -so we shall see

      Also Rushtons theory was constructed through a racist lens & he did his research to validate what he believed not to find a truthful answer. Im not saying he did this purposely but racism is thoroughly ingrained in the fabric of this society & Rushtons obviously developed his beliefs due to racist notions from the minor to the major he was exposed to growing up & living in this society. my mention of Marilyn Savant was me giving an acception to other inaccurate studies who state women are inherently less intelligent than men. It wasn’t in reference to Rustons theory becuase as I state in the blog Rushton’s beliefs was that brain size didn’t effect any difference in IQ or intelligence between White men & women but it does between Whites & Blacks. As I wrote in the blog in a BBC documentary on race & iq he simply stated this is what he thinks but gave no data to back his belief up & you cry im not giving proof of certain side statements but Rushton gives no concrete data or hypothesis why he believes brain size is irrelevant between White men & women in his 60 or so paged paper. I will agree that Marilyn Savant an outlier. Also saying women have inherently lower intelligence than men is a thing of the past
      Women have raised their average iq scores to now slightly edge past male scores
      James Flyn states that:
      ” He adds that the “improvement is more marked for women than for men because they were disadvantaged in the past.”
      So thankfully I’m not the only person that understands social & physical environment effects IQ significantly & it has been proven that iq scores of disadvantaged populations or segments of society can increase & even surpass the iq scores of those formerly in the lead. so that being said I will add this to my blog in general because I again agree the mentioning of Marilyn Vos alone is not a robust or fair argument.
      As for my mentioning of systemic racism effecting Afro Americans negatively & not having refrenced any studies on this ….well for one again my main argument wasn’t “systemic racism negatively effects IQ” it 2nd well its myriads of studies & statistics that show the racist bias & inequity in the judicial , educational,employment, housing & even the medical systems so I would assume only someone severely prejudicial would even doubt the statement that this type of discrimination would negatively effect IQ scores among other things of Afro Americans.
      “Rushtons big brain/higher IQ theory is scientifically flawed based on why Europeans & Asian brains are bigger.
      Han type Asians (because these are the ones with the high IQ’s) have bigger brains than Europeans because they evolved to their bigger brains farther north than Europeans
      Its scientificaly proven truth that Europeans &Asians do have bigger brains than there darker human family members who evolved below the equator. Their brains & eyeballs are bigger & this is why the brain grew in size. In order to process the added visual stimuli as my science daily link states:

      “Scientists have found that people living in countries with dull, grey, cloudy skies and long winters have evolved bigger eyes and brains so they can visually process what they see, reports the journal Biology Letters.” So im not just claiming the bigger brains accommodate bigger eyeballs & tge extra brain matter is dedicated to the extra visual processing. ”

      Again I never stated “its not the whole brain that matters”
      I pointed out areas where the brain was bigger in Asians & Europeans like visual cortices
      I also pointed out that the lateral ventricles which are filled with cerebrospinal fluid. A larger brain would naturally have more of this fluid that cushions the brain-these arent the only areas with extra brain matter but also its no overstatement to say this extra brain matter is not the causation for higher IQ – they are empirical truths. Im not quite sure why you say I accept Rushtons basic premise. If you mean his valid statement Asians &Europeans do indeed have bigger brains well I dont argue against facts. However Rushtons basic premise is that these brain size differences are the causation for higher/lower IQ’s.

      Correlation does not equal causation.

      As for your mentioning if measurement bias I never mentioned this or cultural bias in iq test.
      You are addressing an argument I never made
      I did allude to negative cultural factors & culture being a part of the environment effects your cognitive functioning.

      Im also arguing a psychologists should naturally study the psychological environment & the effects they have on all groups that exist in them & not dismiss the feild he not only specialized in but is thee study of cognitive functioning which IQ is an aspect of.
      I feel he intentionally ignored or relegated the possible psychological effects on all three populations because it makes it easier to point to the brain size iq correlation & not have to point to other correlation like most Blacks live in poor pyschological environments & White & Asian on the averge live in enviroments that are more condusive to education, abstract mental stimulation & the expression of the knowlege they’ve aquired. If he honestly studied these things he would have to concede Blacks live in a larger societal, local, culture & personal environment that are in a large part negative or suffers from negative aspects still. Black culture evolved in 300 plus years of slavery, 100 plus years of American apartheid & the current 46 of systemic racism of today. This would negatively impact Black culture negatively -not an excuse but a recognization of the problems causation. Now we know Blacks can take steps & develope a urgency to mitigate these issues
      Ok now I see why I took so long to respond to your reply. Typing all of this on a cell phone is tiring. I think I addressed all of your issues with my blog & if I haven’t I will do so soon

      • Not to sure who your reply is for…IKaramazov presented a decent counter argument but I do feel my response sufficiently addressed the points he made. Most Whites and non-Blacks attempt to throw out the effects of racism on IQ and societal position and when ever I see this I mentally ball their argument up and trash it because its not acknowledging the hugest factor at play -environment. If its for me I thank you if not I understand-shalom

  2. “there were no statistically significant differences in total gray matter, total white matter, or ventricular CSF volumes”

    That’s what you get when you don’t understand stats. The p-value is high because sample size is ridiculously small. Apparently, none of their tables give you the effect size. That’s what is the most needed. And it was absent. They also selected their sample in order to have more or less equal educational level. If the said variable was related with brain structures, I would not be surprised by the low association among races. They would, in that case, commit what Jensen termed the sociologist fallacy. That is, the belief that enviroments are not correlated with genetic factors. In most cases, they are (see Rowe, 1994, “The Limits of Family Influences: Genes, Experience, and Behavior”). Importantly, every study needs replication. You cite a single study. Your conclusion, thus, is based on weak inferences.

    By the way, your avatar seems to say that you believe ancient egyptians were blacks, is that it ?

    • The quote you’ve reposted is simply my giving another set of results from another study besides Rushton’s. Was that not clear to you?
      The point of the post is to bring to light the fact that yes Asians and Europeans have bigger brains but also have bigger eye balls and that extra brain matter is dedicated to analyzing the extra visual data those bigger eye balls take in(probably like Neanderthals bigger brain and eye balls worked in unison)
      The argument is that these larger cranial sizes have nil effect on intelligence rather are larger to make space for extra brain matter to analyze the added visual data needed for Euasians (meaning Mongoloids & Caucasoids in this usage) to see in the dimly lit ice age skies they evolved in. Also today due to light refraction it is still more difficult to see in the northern hemisphere. The higher Noth a population is native to the bigger the eye balls the bigger the brain. This is displayed through out homogeneous populations as well ie: North Brittons have larger crania than Southern Brittons. Germans have bigger crania than Greeks & Mongols have bigger crania than Koreans but Greeks were building Pantheons when German were living as tribal barbarians & the Mongols although having created the largest land empire like ever, never created what would be termed a classical civilization where as Korea has one of the earliest high civilisations in east Asia.
      Your penchant for charts, data matrices & statistics may have caused you to argue a point I actually wasn’t making. Again I simply included that study to display the fact there are other studies that offer differing conclusions than the studies sited by Rushton. Especially the results Indicating African pre frontal orbital cortex(part of the area of the brain that deals with cognitive functioning) are larger than their European counterparts
      Again just to be clear I believe epi-genetics plays a huge role in gene expression and thus intelligence so you might conclude that I lean towards environment has an indicator of intelligence on a say 60 to 40% ratio. By your name you appear to be Asian. The high Asian IQ only is evident in Chinese, Koreans and Japanese peoples. All from Han Chinese stock but also all inheritors of Confusion philosophy. Hard work and study ethic. If it was simply the fact your bigger brains gave you more smarts all those extra study hours, Chinese school after regular school and study groups in college would not be needed. Again the things I just mentioned are environmental factors. Not biologically inherited factors.

      As for the whole Black Egypt thing… I “know” Egypt began as a Black African civilization that amalgamated Eurasian elements over the centuries of its existence. if your not up on the latest DNA research here’s a link for you to chew on

      also you might get a kick out of the Black Shang Theory Blog ive posted. Id think youd be more incensed by that. Again I apologize for my tardy response to your comment. I am an uber busy dude and I like to be thorough as possible when I respond to an argument

    • Ok this did not paste the way i wanted but this is my responce to the Occidentalist.

      I also responded to you afterwards

      I do not toatally disagree with the Occidentalist assessment of IQ score variations amongst Blacks & Whites however id like to point out this “hypothesis” assumes it understands the effects of racism or precived racism on the Black psyche. It assumes so called “institutional discrimination for them (Blacks)” is significant enough to offset the systemic discrimination against them. By systemic discrimination for them I assume the Occidentalist is referring to college afirmative action enterance quotas. How does this offset the previous decade plus of unequal educational access & what usually is a cultural neglect of academia? Numerical data that results from a study indicates the result of an effect not the effect it self. When all possible stimuli are not considered or assumed rendered moot by the numerical out comes themselves we have begun steering the numbers into a diriction that mereley seems to validate our own theories. When highly variable effects of psycho social factors are assumed answered by numericalev data from studies incapable of testing for them we have committed an academic error. The psychological effects of house hold life, the family environment a child is reared in, the immediate social environment a child is reared in, the effects of historical & systemic racism, etc on individuals cannot be easily tested for. The Occidentalist assumes these are non factors or are negated by socioeconomic position alone or are somehow otherwise accounted for. The statement “Blacks underperform despite extensive institutional discrimination for them” is indicative of this flawed pattern of thinking. It displays a disregard for the psycho social effects of racism & poor cultural values developed over centuries of slavery, Jim Crow (which only ended 46 yrs ago) & low economic status. Just as the Occidentalist feels the data from other studies indicate information other than what the creators of the studies state it does one can state they feel otherwise. The Occidentalist has arrived at his conclusion without punching in other variables involved with this dynamic. He simply assumes those variables are accounted for in his math already.

      I would call this the “Staticians fallacy”

      If unknown these variables need to be accurately tested for & or studied.

      I wish to state overall the Occidentalist approach is novel & it does raise very important questions & identifies possible errors in previous studies approaches

      But before I do so id like to state/question this..wouldn’t one wish to sample from a population with equal or near the same educational background & level to obtain fair & accurate data dealing with brain size? If I test Harvard grads with high school drop outs & find that Harvard grads have bigger brains one might expect that. Only if im searching for anomalies or un expected results would I test divergent backgrounds. Actually when ever your testing Black vs White vs Asian vs (whatever) your testing diverse groups but equal educational & socioeconomic levels are a type of control & in them selves help answer questions or raise other important ones. In studies of Black children adopted by White & Black families with equal income the children raised in the White home had higher IQ scores. This would indicate there is another factor affecting this IQ dynamic beyond economic level & I feel it strongly points to culture, both family & community wide.
      Just a few points. I still need to chew on the numbers from the Varitability study before I can give a proper response to that.

    • It is possible to detect stereotype threat effect. See here :

      But when you look at black-white IQ difference outside this kind of experiments, you don’t see measurement bias affecting the scores. That means your assumption about “racism” is wrong.

      “wouldn’t one wish to sample from a population with equal or near the same educational background & level to obtain fair & accurate data dealing with brain size?”

      You seem not to understand my message and the blog post either. If you control for SES background, and assuming genetics has a causal impact on SES, you remove genetic effects, and by the same token, the racial IQ gaps.

      “In studies of Black children adopted by White & Black famili”es with equal income the children raised in the White home had higher IQ scores”

      It’s not as simple as you think.

      P.S. I have posted another comment (but did not appear, check your spam box)

      • No the racism im speaking of is not measurement bias. Its the long & short term effects of systemic racism on academic access & achievement which in turn would be reflected in any test or studies done.
        I really dont see why one would argue that racism has no effect on IQ any way unless we’re dealing with a mind set that minimizes & dismisses racism.
        Why argue cultural environment doesn’t affect IQ? I would think this is obvious. I would think the only argument would be how much does it affect IQ?

      • “No the racism im speaking of is not measurement bias.”

        Yes it is. Because stereotype threat conditions evidently reveal the consequences of belief concerning stereotyping. Under this condition, there is bias, and yet, under no condition of threat, there is no bias. That means if “racism” affects attitude in test taking, it will necessarily be revealed in the modern methods of test bias such as IRT or MGCFA.

        In any case, if such hypothesis cannot be tested, it has no scientific value. Because if it cannot be tested, there is no way to prove it’s wrong or right. It seems to me this is how the fans of these hypotheses want to see them. They even say such thing like “IQ can’t be measured it’s subjective”. By saying this, they make their claim impossible to scientific scrutiny. That’s why it makes no sense.

        Culture has no impact on IQ in itself, it’s not your attitude or your lifestyle that is conducive of better IQ, but it’s education that can boost IQ. However, I explained already that education has no long term effect.

      • Of course attitudes & lifestyle affects IQ. The hypothesis can be tested by identifing subjects who suffer from the conditions caused by systemic racism ie: the poor & disenfranchised & testing individuals who precieve racism in their everyday lives. This can be deduced by proper psychological testing.
        Youve proposed that education has no long term effect but if this is factual is argumentative. Im not arguing intelligence is subjective or that its not subjective. Im arguing racism be it precived or actual racism effects IQ. Im arguing systemic racism that keeps a class, cultural & racial group pigeon toed in a lower social economic bracket also has an negative effect on IQ
        On an epigenetic level if a population has lived in negative environmental conditions this will effect IQ. Your testing a population that has lived in a negative environment for centuries. Dismissing the effects of this negative environment is a form of victim blaming & actually scientifically absurd. To suggest ones environment has no effect on ones cognitive fuctions is a bit crazy. I can understand arguing it has a smaller or greater effect but to argue no effect? To argue psychological phenomena have no effect on cognitive functioning is dismissive & prejudiced in favor of biological & numerical stats & this is simply wrong.

      • Mind you I am not agreeing that the effects of racism cannot be tested for but I am arguing that stating so in no where invalidates its scientific value. The Higgs Boson could not be properly tested for for decades. Gravity, the wave & photon aspects of light, psychiatric techniques, & a myriad of what are today equate to throughly validated standard concepts in scientific thought.
        Also racism is a form of discrimination & I doubt you are arguing discrimination does effect iq so im left assuming your believe racism does not exist. For me to think the latter I simply regard your intelligence to high to make that type of intellectual faux paux even how throughly its intangledin your self & world & yes cultural view
        Also just to restate sterotype threat/bias are aspects of the over all racist system we all live in & just like the Higgs Field it affects are different on some than others. This is one aspect to our differing pointst of view on racism, I have what I feel are life experience as proof where you a person from a group not targeted as my group regards my out look on racism as bonkers. My understanding this dynamics quells any anger or malcontent towards those who think as you do. It rather helps me understand my “environment” better & helps educate me on the strength staticians place on studies & numbers & causes me to realized if I truly wish to educate all conservative students & educators on this dynamics of IQ disparity I must developed a statistically robust argument

      • Stereotype, threat is a phenomenon within its self. Im alluding to the general effects of living in a lower social economic bracket & negative cultural influences (those of the victimized & those of the dominant opressive culture) on IQ. Stereotype threat would be a small aspect of the overall effect of systemic racism on a cultural group

      • “Im arguing systemic racism that keeps a class, cultural & racial group pigeon toed in a lower social economic bracket also has an negative effect on IQ”

        In that case, why black-white difference is not diminishing when you move upward the social background levels ? Look here.

        What is crazy is those people who want to argue culture has an impact on IQ without even a bit of evidence about that. I don’t remember any of them. You have not even addressed my question on the effect of “racism” : how can we detect statistically the effect of “racism” ? Do you have a statistical method for doing it ?

      • Testing for these factors may be difficult but I believe common sence would cause you to infer that culture has an effect on all aspects of ones mentality. Why ask for empirical evidence resulting from test when the empirical evidence of how racism has effected a group is evident in statistics from medical, judicial & economic studies? As for testing for the affects of racism on a population I believe these test can be created & applied. The question is will others holding opposing views judge these test valid. The facts are that Blacks largely come from lower socioeconomic brackets & even Blacks who have risen to higher socioeconomic brackets still carry aspects of a culture that evolved in slavery, aparthied & racism. Also for the larger part Blacks in higher socioeconomic brackets have only done so within the last generation. Culture fully evolves over the course of several generations. I will provide links to the sentencing practices of the judicial system, the punishment practices within the educational system & the employment-based racist practices to show statistical evidence of racism in the country alone. As for its affect on the target group you can easily extrapolate this or if you chose assume these stimuli some how do not affect a group psychologically & or that something that negatively affects a person psychologically does not effect ones cognitive abilities

      • Thinking of this. This Link touhches on the effects of environment on iq. As for the statements you proport I feel they more expound on test results from flawed/bias imput rather than results from the actual test results indicate on there own .#ijs

      • Again there is tremendous circumstantial evidence supportting my view what I find crazy is digging for statistical validation for cultural & enviromental phenomena differences that span several toataly differnt lifestyles & cultural outlooks. This would tell me to look towards the factors closest to the root of the causation we are searching for. Not numerical data available that can be applied to a myriad of causation.-is it economics, is it genetic, is it epigenetic, is it cultural (& ruling out cultural is just an close minded & obstinate stance)

      • Here are two links to studies corrolating Conservatism to racist ideaologies

        Low IQs, Conservatism Linked To Prejudice:

        Here are effects of racism on tatrgeted populationsc:

        These were but a few & I only could assume you came accross this same studies & haven’t refered to them because of your confirmation bias

      • The first link talks about Hodson & Busseri (2012). I already responded here.

        The 3rd and 4th link refer to the effect of (apparently) perceived racism on psychological equilibrium. Like i said above, you cannot extrapolate to IQ. This is fallacious. I asked several times that you can give me proof that “racism” (or whatever it means) can cause IQ. You don’t have any, it seems.

      • Well ive posted several strong hypotheses pointing to this fact. I can only think your habit of precluding torwards numbers that measures an out come rather than indicate the origin of said outcome is an error on your part,…..perhaps my future post will be more clear to you

      • I remember this paper, now:

        Why Has Black-White Skill Convergence Stopped (Derek Neal [2006; -> my pdf version])

        “Such results present a challenge for models that explain low black skill levels as a rational response to the presence of statistical discrimination by employers. The Coate and Loury model is a one period model, but it seems natural to interpret it in the following way. Firms acquire signals about workers’ talents through interviews, observing their performance in entry level jobs, and checking their work records with other employers. Based on these signals, employers make assignment decisions. Because employers statistically discriminate against black workers, blacks who invest in skills will see a smaller increase in their probability of promotion to good jobs than whites who invest. This implies that the gradient between wages and productive skills, that are not directly observed by the employer, should be greater among whites than blacks. Figures 4(a)–5(b) provide no evidence that this prediction is true, and they provide considerable suggestive evidence that this prediction is false.”

      • I never stated stereotype was an impossibility. I in fact include as a dynamic of the psyci social trauma of the history & systemic racism through out the western world.
        Also As ive stated brain size is different betwixt Mongoloid, Caucasians & Anfricans. This is a genetic by product of 10ks of year of evolutionary effect on biology & just as neaderthals increased ocular nass & mussel mass this extra brain matter corrosponds to the northern hominids need to see better & father in his ice age climatic conditions & todays diffilculty seeming in the refractive sun light in northern latitudes.
        Again these measurements do nit fall alling raciacl lines. The fall allling geographic do:

        There is nothing that escapes enviromental effectis on our biological/pysho cognitive functions-from Jeremy Lin slamdunking a basket ball to Ben Carson person brian surgery.

        Also for the dynamic of stereotype threat there would exist a causation. What other causation could be rather a from of racist biast-you cant be sugesting this bias is inherent? If it is so ive never envountrred it

        As for Black kids addopted by White families, Asian kids adopted by Native American Families (both natives Ameri Indians & Asians have those bigger brians. The hypothesis would be that the Ameri Indians/Asiatic adoption would yeld hugher ig score. You can read he graph below & see this is not.

        Children’s background
        Number of ChildrenAge 7 Corrected IQAge 17 Correct.

        IQNon adopted, with two white biological parents 101- 110.5 105.1
        Adopted, with two white biological parents161 11.5 101.

        5Adopted, with one white and one black biological parent 55 105.4 -93.

        2Adopted, Asian or indigenous American parents12-96.1-91.

        2Adopted, with two black biological parents: 21-91.4-83.7

        This clearly points to a cultural non biological factor
        Of course I have no doubt proper reaseacrh will confirm my hypothesis

        “To futher quote from
        Black and White in America IV: IQ Myths and Realities”

        Dan Agin 01/25/09

        Myth: Intelligence tests are not culturally biased against American blacks or other native-born English-speaking people in the United States. Culture bias in IQ tests does not explain the difference in black-white IQ scores, a difference of approximately 15 points between the means of group distributions.

        Reality: The idea that all “native-born English-speaking people in the United States” develop and live in the same culture is anthropological nonsense. Cognitive performance is never independent of culture any more than the way language is used is independent of culture. Linguistic structure, in fact, controls the way people think and learn, so that if linguistic structure is culture dependent, so also is thinking and learning. As for cultural bias in IQ tests not explaining the difference in black-white IQ scores, there is no hard scientific evidence to support any such idea — and considerable evidence against it. The notorious black-white IQ gap of one standard deviation (about 15 points), touted by genetic determinists to be independent of culture, was in fact substantially reduced between 1972 and 2002 — and it continues to shrink.

        Myth: Heritability is the squared correlation of phenotype with genotype. Heritability estimates for IQ range from 0.4 to 0.8, most estimates thereby indicating that genetics plays a bigger role than does environment in creating IQ differences among individuals.

        Reality: If heritability is the squared correlation of phenotype with genotype, the assumption is that the phenotype and genotype under discussion can be measured. The human individual genotype is not yet even defined, let alone measurable, so with or without a measurable phenotype, “heritability” cannot be calculated without restrictive assumptions. As for the range of 0.4 to 0.8 for the heritability of IQ, it’s a fallacy based on an assumption of independent genetic and environmental variables in a linear relationship with heritability, which means no gene-environment interactions. The deep fallacy is that any contributions to variance due to factors acting before birth (such as prenatal impacts) are assumed to be genetic. As far as genes playing “a bigger role” than environment in creating individual differences in IQ is concerned, that’s a total misreading of the meaning of a correlation coefficient.

        Myth: Although the environment is important in creating IQ differences, we do not know yet how to manipulate it to raise IQ permanently.

        Reality: Most evidence suggests the opposite. For example, concerning prenatal impacts, the known effects on fetal brain development and later IQ of factors such as environmental pollution, maternal stress during gestation, and poor health care for pregnant women imply that removing these stressors would ultimately mean an improvement in postnatal IQ.

        Myth: To the extent that genes play a role in intelligence, IQ will vary by racial admixture.

        Reality: This simplistic statement is not true. Given the complexity of gene expression prenatally and postnatally, variation by racial or ethnic admixture may or may not occur. There is certainly no scientific evidence to support the myth, and racial admixture blood group analysis does not predict IQ. Human intelligence, whatever it is, is certainly not a Mendelian trait.

        Myth: IQ subtests based on abstract designs have little or no cultural content.

        Reality: The fallacy here is the assumption that cultural bias means only culture-dependent content. Methods of problem solution can also be culture dependent. If the method that must be used to solve an abstract problem is common to one culture but not to another culture, the problem is culturally biased.

        Myth: the Spearman g-factor (also called “global intelligence” or “general intelligence”) represents a biologically grounded and highly heritable cognitive resource, which gives one reason to think that not much about black-white IQ differences will change in the years to come.

        Reality: The so-called biological grounding consists of correlations with various physiological parameters such as brain evoked potentials, brain pH levels, brain glucose metabolism, peripheral nerve conduction velocity, and psychological reaction time. All of these are also correlated with nearly everything that goes on in the brain, and none of these parameters has ever been established as a determinant of cognitive performance. The g correlations are merely evidence that the brain is a part of the body involved in taking an IQ test. The correlations tell us nothing about any “biological grounding” or any causal relation between any physiological variable and IQ scores. As expected, neuroscientists are not at all excited about Spearman’s g-factor. It tells them nothing about the neurological substrate of cognitive performance. Concerning the “high heritability” of g, as I have pointed out, the numerical value assumes a fallacious linear statistical model and a fallacious biological model that lumps all prenatal environmental impacts with the genotype variance. As for the idea that not much about black-white differences in IQ scores will change in the years to come, there is no scientific evidence to confirm that idea, and there are hundreds of studies that suggest otherwise. The black-white IQ score distributions are now less than one standard deviation apart, and “the years to come” may demonstrate that elimination of prenatal impacts that are damaging to the brain and often transgenerational may also eliminate black-white group differences in IQ scores. There is certainly no evidence to suggest the idea that differences are intractable. A high calculated “heritability” says nothing about the possibility of future change. It’s an old reality that a trait can have a current heritability of 1.0 (which means 100 percent of total variance is due to genetic variance) in a population and be completely altered in the future by a new environment that introduces environmental contributions to variance.

        Myth: Genetic cluster analysis of DNA supports the common notion of individual “races” among modern peoples.

        Reality: Genetic cluster analysis of DNA supports the idea of DNA clusters — and that’s all. Relating these clusters to so-called races is problematic. For example, DNA analysis reports a non-black Hispanic-American cluster different from a “white” cluster, but Hispanic-Americans are not commonly viewed as a “race” by most Americans. In addition, there is no evidence from any cluster analysis that the DNA components related to clustering are involved with intelligence or behavior. It’s possible the DNA components that produce clustering are all related to superficial phenotype traits such as skin color, eye color, and so on.

        Myth: The correlation between brain size and intelligence within either race, and the average difference in brain size and intelligence between blacks and whites, are well established in the scientific literature.

        Reality: This canard is a common argument of white supremacists, but the scientific literature does not support the idea. What the scientific literature does suggest is a relation between cognitive performance and the thickness (or thinness) of certain regions of the cerebral cortex, but there are no reliable data measuring cortical thickness differences between ethnic groups.

        Myth: Because prenatal effects are more or less random, they are difficult to remedy or control, and their occurrence has probably been reduced in recent decades by improved maternal nutrition, advances in obstetrical techniques, and improved health in general.

        Reality: First, prenatal effects are not “more or less random” but usually nonrandom effects due to environmental pollution or cultural impacts on maternal psychology or physiology. Second, the variety of prenatal effects is so broad there is no basis for the statement that they are “difficult to remedy or control” –indeed, some prenatal impacts (for example, tobacco smoking and alcohol use during pregnancy, nutrition and infection, etc.) are relatively easy to control. Third, there is no evidence at all that prenatal impacts have been reduced in recent decades to make them now of little or no importance.

        So much for some myths and realities. It’s unfortunate that too many people who ought to know better are so eager to promote the idea of intellectual differences between blacks and whites in America. Their eagerness continues to appear as a psychiatric puzzle, the old tribal hoax covered by transparent veils.

        Humans are a complex species with plastic brains that allow rapid behavioral changes from one generation to the next through cultural evolution. Brain plasticity means our brains can be wired and rewired by experience. No other species has any comparable biological capability — not to the degree present in humans. As for black and white in America, it would certainly help us all to focus more on our similarities than on our differences. Meanwhile, until White America stops standing on the face of Black America, let’s not delude ourselves that we’re free of the tribal hoax.


        Here are a few books (one to be published soon) that expand on some of the ideas presented in this series of columns:

        Agin, D. Changing Destiny: How the Fetal Environment Shapes IQ and Behavior. Oxford University Press, 2009 (in press).

        Gould, S. The Mismeasure of Man. W. W. Norton, 1996.

        Graves, J. The Emperor’s New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the Millennium. Rutgers University Press, 2002.

        Jencks, C. and Phillips, M. (Eds.) The Black-White Test Score Gap. Brookings Institution Press, 1998.

        Kevles, D. In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity. Harvard University Press, 1995.

        Lewontin, R., Rose, S., and Kamin, L. Not In Our Genes: Biology, Ideology, and Human Nature. Pantheon, 1984.

        Tucker, W. The Science and Politics of Racial Research. University of Illinois Press, 1994.

        I also will search my spam for your missing quote & answer your other queries soon

      • You never said stereotype threat (ST) can’t be tested, but each time I said that such effect immediately show up in statistical testing such as with MGCFA, you reject it on the grounds that ST is so insidious and deep inside the mind that it’s impossible to be detected. So, no matter how hard I try, you will always end up with “I don’t think you can test ST like that”. Thus, it’s as if you’re making ST as impossible to test.

        As for adoption studies, again, you’re talking fallacies. I already pointed out my article on this topic, remember ? These studies are missing a lot of information on parents, especially biological parents. Concerning what you say about the Asian/indigenous American families, it proves you’re totally unable to distinguish between amerindians and east asians. (For example, I’m on the latter category, not the former.)

        Concerning “Black and White in America IV: IQ Myths and Realities”

        I have already answered it before, so it’s get really boring. Tests of measurement bias (IRT, MGCFA…) don’t show the cultural bias you’re talking about. If difference in interpretation of words or knowledge about words (think in terms of rarity) then a so-called DIF would show up. But they usually don’t, except in exceptional cases. Another data that does not speak highly of this hypothesis is the fact that the black-white IQ/achievement gap for 3rd generation vs 1st generation blacks relative to whites in the USA are almost of equal size. If you believe cultural bias (largely suspected to be language bias, and this is most operative among 1st generation immigrants) to affect score gaps, then you’re totally unable to explain this pattern. Go there.

        Concerning the non-linearity, i.e., non-additivity of IQ genetics, I talked about that here already. Most genetic variation is certainly additive.

        Concerning the possibility to raise IQ, refer to the links in my earlier comments. Concerning g as highly heritability, I think g is more or less irrelevant here. What we need to know is whether blacks have lower IQ heritability. Apparently, they don’t. Go there. It’s also a truism to say that when environmental variations are removed, 100% of variation becomes genetics. Of course they will, and hereditarians also knew this. Like I said, above, read my article on the impact of preschool programs on IQ.

        By “random” I assume hereditarians want to say that prenatal effect would show up as essentially a between family effect, and yet you can get within-family variation very large. In fact, it is commonly assumed that IQ variation is owing essentially within family, within class, and not between families, or between classes.

        I don’t need your list of books. I want you to show me you read them. And read them all, please. Because I know lot of people citing references without bothering to read them or understand them. They just throw out references over references in order to intimidate other people. But I’m not intimidated.

        I’ve only read Gould (partially) and Jencks/Phillips (not full, but a good portion). The first one says that when you perform rotation on factor analysis, the g factor disappears, but well, Jensen (1980) in Bias in Mental Testing already said that when you that, you can’t have a g factor, and it’s the wrong procedure. In any case, even after rotating the axes, you still get the g factor, in the form of second-order latent factor. Jencks/Phillips is an excellent book, but they do not necessarily argue for a cultural thesis here, although they are skeptical about genetic hypotheses. But they do show that when prior, early characteristics (family, school quality, prior test score) are controlled, black people gain less scores than whites. In other words, those environmental factors (family+school) is not an explanation. Several authors in the book also acknowledge that educational programs are generally not beneficial in the long run.

      • Thought I seen you comment on weakneas of the Flynn effect 2days ago
        Ok 1st I disagree with your opinion that the Flyn effect is weak for all that is your opinion. An opinion supported by seemingly correlating graphs charts & stats. As I previously wrote the so called Sociologist fallacy, that those who expound a primarily genetic causation for low/high iq seem to avoid other causations like toxic psychological in environments as you allude in your post other possible stimuli that effect iq scores are

        poor nutrition.

        Schooling and other societal changes.

        Social multipliers and other G-E correlational models.[to name afew]

        2nd positive enviroments that support creative architectural achievements

        Just to clarify I pointed out the higher achievements of southern civilisations over northern civilizations because this is what history & the archeological show.

        Intelligence was the same in 2000 bc than it is now. If it wasn’t northwest europeans would never have gripped the concepts of tge new technology the were exposed to by Rome & travelers from Asia. The reason Europeans lagged behind was the harsh inhospitable regions they lived in. In fact Europeans could not properly benifit from agraculture until the heavy plow was developed & perfected between 900ad to 1300ad.
        This is 5 k to 4900 yrs after Egyt which was able to feed it self & its colonies. In 720 bc China had thier agricultural revolution. Now this has nothing to do with iQ because if you tried to plow english high lands with an Egyptian plow it would be in splinters before you howed your 1st row.
        The simple fact is that rough inhospitable environments stagnates advancement on most levels especially or modern concept of intelligence
        As for the achievements of far northern civilizations & those to the ferile south are well documented by any historians. You see the 3 areas that developed agriculture 1st were all to the south & the 1st to rise to high civilisations. The 1st European countries to develope high civilization were Minoa, Crete than later Greece. All close to North Africa & the Levant were ideas flow easier between groups these 3 groups. In fact the Western alphabet was created in Egypt & semetic peoples under Egyptian rule, later modified by Phonecia & introduced to Greece who handed it off to Rome after bending the knee.

        Environmental variations are the same or similar & regardless the north western European rose from primitive barbarian to begin to dominate the world in the 1500’s. If they had superior iq in 600ad then they would have made their move in 600ad but no they had to be introduced to new technologies in order to do so.

        The fact the average IQ has jumped 30 points in america since around 1916 is enough to support the Flyn Effects validity

        Only answer to this is that the world is more modern & one Thing iq test for is the test taker adaptation to modernity.

        This is one Reason urban folk score higher on iq test than rural/Agricultural folk
        (Notice how the rural low scores are attributed to poor schooling & exposure to adequate educational materials but this possibility is dismissed by the like of Rushton)

        Good of you to quote a small piece of my 1st responce to the Occidentalist post on the sociologist fallacy.
        No I didn’t agree with “all” he posted but simply reading all of my reply you’d see I disagreed with most & his basic line of thinking. Im not sure Rushton was an intentional racist but he definitely carried preconceived racist notions & in stead of envistgating environmental psychology (like a psychologist should), studies on nutrition or conducting a study that looks at the effects of systemic discrimination on Afro Americans. This would an excellent way to fact vheck his conclusions. For Rushton not to do this I easily recognize Rushton’s study as incomplete & much of the reason is the bias he has.
        As for you If you regard your self as a reseacher & all your going to do is ask for proff of oppossing evidence from other people with out looking into these over looked factors your self ,well I would lump you into Rushton’s camp,. To many academics & scientists become short sighted while chasing the answer the can easily accept & thats easier to arrive at. Statistics can correlate with assumed phenomena but as Nesbitt states:

        “And sometimes environment is everything, but when natural experiments like adoption can’t control for it, its effects may disappear from view. The rearing environment of adoptive families tends to be very similar to that of the biological family, Nisbett noted. Most identical twins raised apart are still raised in the same town, go to the same school, or are raised by relatives. “Adoptive families are like Tolstoy’s happy families,” he said — “they’re all alike. They tend to be upper middle class or middle class. … There’s not that much difference between Doctor Jones’ family and Lawyer Smith’s family.” Such families, he said, “provideextremely promotive conditions for IQ.” What’s more, even when adoptive families are working class, those families tend to have home environments more like their upper-class counterparts in that they promote intellectual attainment. The similarity among adoptive parents is so great, Nisbett said, that it puts a strict limit on how high the correlations between IQ and environment can be, and thus makes IQ look like it’s all a matter of genetics when it’s really not.”

        Ive done counter research against Rushtons thoery & for the most part have shown his resoning to be false. As for commentators who have thrown old arguments in defense of Euro/Asian inherent IQ ive addressed these in many comments. I point out many central asian & middle eastern countries (Turkey, Afghanistan, Jordon, etc have high IQ alleles in the same frequencies as northwest Europeans but score low on iq test
        This is another rub in such theories of EurofAsian iq supperioty & is lead to the possibility the alleles correlation represent something else

        those who think like Rushton constantly are disregarding the effects of culture on IQ & ask for proff as if it not out there on the net because not only do the populations that score high on iq test come from the same geographic region running west to far east along a northern axis but they also happen to be todays dominate societies & the societies they are cimpared to have been colonized, enslaved or both – not an even playing field
        “The main message of the paper is that intelligence cannot fully or even meaningfully be understood outside its cultural context. Behaviour that is considered intelligent in one culture may be considered unintelligent in another culture, and vice versa. Moreover, people in different cultures have different implicit (folk) theories of intelligence, so may not even mean the same thing by the word. The relationships between different aspects of intelligence can vary across cultures, with correlations that are positive in one setting proving to be negative in another”

        Or the effects of racism/presevied racism on IQ score

        1st on racist Whites

        Hodson and Busseri (2012) found in a correlational study that lower intelligence in childhood is predictive of greater racism in adulthood, with this effect being mediated (partially explained) through conservative ideology. They also found poor abstract reasoning skills were related to homophobic attitudes which was mediated through authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact

        2nd the effects on a targeted group

        “The available evidence consistently supports a relationship between lifetime perceived racism and a variety of manifestations of negative affect (Bennet, Merritt, Edwards, & Sollers, 2004; Bowen–Reid & Harrell, 2002; Broudy et al., 2007; Cassidy, O’Connor, Howe & Warden, 2004;Karlsen & Nazroo, 2002; Karlsen, Nazroo, McKenzie, Bhui, & Weich, 2005; Klonoff & Landrine, 1999; Landrine & Klonoff, 1996; Noh & Kaspar, 2003; Ren, Amick, & Williams, 1999; Swim, Hyers, Cohen, Fitzgerald, & Bylsma, 2003). Studies in the U.S. indicate that, for African Americans, racism is positively associated with symptoms of depression and anxiety, as well as dispositional hostility (Bowen–Reid & Harrell, 2002; Klonoff & Landrine, 1999; Landrine & Klonoff, 1996; Ren, Amick, & Williams, 1999). Other studies have focused on state emotional responses (e.g., anger) and have found a positive relationship of racism to both situation–specific (i.e., laboratory induced) and daily negative affect among minority group members (Bennet, Merritt, Edwards, & Sollers, 2004; Broudy et al., 2007; Swim et al., 2003; Taylor, Kamarck, & Schiffman, 2004).”

        The effects of cross cultural discrimination on IQ has been shown in numerous cross cultural studie-

        I kind of seems your responding to a reply I posted for some on else but nether the less.
        As for you statement “probably iq may not actually test intelligence” I disagree. I kmow it doesn’t test all forms of intelligence & this Is why a SAT score may be higher than the takers corosponding IQ score. One test how you precived things & the other test the depth of knowledge youve accumulated
        Well above ive provided studies that identify the negative effects of discrimination/racism & negative cultural inpacts
        Again for my self these things would just be obvious impacts on the human psyche & any one not using psychological techniques to analyse the effects of a cognitive function ie: IQ is a person simply looking for an answer the perfer…..not an actual true causation of these gaps in IQ

        & p.s. just becuase youve previously answered a question doesn’t mean you answerer it right

      • “what I find crazy is digging for statistical validation for cultural & enviromental phenomena differences that span several toataly differnt lifestyles & cultural outlooks”

        If you don’t want to rely on stats, how can you evaluate the magnitude of the effect of this so-called “racism” ?

      • The facts are there are stats. Disparages in sentencing, the Latino Paradox (which proves culture can act as a shield towards hostile dominant cultures until it breaks down & begin to amalgamate. The health care studies point lower birth rates & miscarage amoungst Blacks in the socio economic level as whites who have healthy child birth. Genitics haa been ruled put so this would leave us with racism. Again I see the evidence have been a victim of systemic racism
        Also we are talking about a deeper level of tribal incirculing. An in -out group dynamic that has mutated into the racism that exist today. Im not sure about Asians but I know White peoples amygdala sparks up in a fight or flight response when it sees a dark persons face.

        Jury Bias towards Unattractive Defendants:

        So in effect you are arguing against established sciences. You are pointing to numbers & correlating them to indirect results where as I am points to the base causation of the stats you allude to. Also to add my goal is to my people & culture tools to understand and combat systemic racism. Any primarily statistical study leaning towards IQ would be only for the sake of tracking academic progress & redefining misconceptions about these stats. My research lays more in studies with in the judical system, health care, housing discrimination, disparages in punishment in education. If a group of people are actively treating a group unfair I see it simply victim blaming when members of privileged or dominant groups search for reasons to explain the effects of the discrimination they dole out.

  3. I add, that in the above mentioned paper that the ratio of GM+WM/CSF displays significant p-value, 0.0004, despite a sample this small. The white and black values are 667.3 and 629.8. I’m not aware that the hereditarian hypothesis (HH) predicts necessarily a difference between blacks and whites in those structures, but if the environmental hypothesis predicts identical structures, then the environmental hypothesis is rejected by these data.

    • oh just to add the three high IQ scoring Asian cultures all speak Logographic languages as well. Im not the 1st to suggest this gives one an “edge” in symbol recognition and memory. I actually believe Rushton theory has far more holes in it than any counter point ive given. you must ask your self why Rushton a psychologist attempted to quantify Intelligence an aspect of the psyche via biology? That’s kinda arse backwards I think. I mean not use use any psychological data and not to base your theory on the discipline your trained in? People seek to justify positions achieved via meritocracy. they seek to find reasons to justify il moral treatment to others. This is all basic psychological science just as valid as an x chromosome is in biology. So why does this man even bother to explain the superiority he obviously feels? A 7ft center doesn’t explain why he’ll wax a 5 ft 8 wimp up and down a b ball court. he just does if Rushton truly felt he was innately superior he would simply be that….just food for thought

  4. I responded to the article “Variability in Frontotemporal Brain Structure: The Importance of Recruitment of African Americans in Neuroscience Research”, especially because it has been mentioned several times, and i think it does not support your conclusion that it disproves the genetic theory. And you haven’t responded to my objection(s). Regardless, the causal path behind the link brain-IQ is not well known, defined yet, but that does not mean there is no proof of it. There is just absence of proof (as now). Besides, even if brain has no causal explanation behind the racial differences in IQ, will it disprove the genetic theory ? I don’t think so. But it may disprove Rushton’s theory if he believes that brain is a crucial factor (apparently). Concerning the asian culture, I have heard of it million times, and some asians can even tell you they can believe of its importance, but opinions worth nothing. It’s not a proof. And given the evidence that education and adoption do not improve the general (“g”) factor of intelligence, I doubt it would make a difference.

    For the theory that Egyptians were blacks, I was only asking the question. I think you are too prompt to draw conclusions, unless it’s me who is not knowledgeable about the matter. I look at the link, and I knew there is large admixture among the egyptians, but I don’t have strong evidence about the role of black people in the Egypt. It’s been a while I gave up. It’s too difficult to disentangle the matter. If you can, you will be truly a genius. My opinion, for what it worths, is that the egyptians were either north africans (but still caucasians) or either mixed races (caucasian-blacks).

    • 1st as the blog title states it is written to show certain fallacies in Rushtons theory & in that case nothing near to all of them. 2nd Adoption into higher income house holds & better educational enviroments do increase IQ. As for studies that isolate g factor elements alone I can site none. 3rd my argument is not that iq is not or does not have a heritable component but that African peoples are not inherently academically inferior & that Rushton’s brain size argument is off base & incorrect.

      As for Asian culture it is wide known Asian students on average study longer than any American student. Most of the Chinese kids went to Chinese school when I was in jr. High & High school so ive witnessed this myself. If you’re studying longer & your culture has a philosopher thats revered like Jesus who pushed the importance of education as a path to not just intellectual but spiritual advancement id think the studies are just a pretext to the obvious conclusion. As for your objections ill have to see what I wrote if I responded yet to whatever other objections you feel you have.

      As for Kemet Nut you either agree with the recent dna test & what ancient eye witnesses like Herodotus or Diodorus wrote or you believe an opinion with less validity but has a larger concensus in agreement. As ive writtenin Egypt was a multicultural civilization that began as a Black African civilization that amalgamated Eurasian elements over it 4k yr history. The oldest artificial mummy in Africa is of a Black 2yr old child found in Lybiya. This not only points to Egypt getting its mummification technology from Black Africans but that as one would think Black Africans populated Northern Africa in far higher numbers than they do today

    • There are several studies that show education improves only domain-specific IQ, which means the gain is not g-loaded.

      Pekkala Kerr, Sari, Pekkarinen, Tuomas, & Uusitalo, Roope (2013). School tracking and development of cognitive skills. Journal of Labor Economics 31 (3): 577-602.
      Ritchie S.J., Bates T.C., Der G., Starr J.M., Deary I.J., (2013). Education Is Associated With Higher Later Life IQ Scores, but Not With Faster Cognitive Processing Speed. Psychology and Aging, Vol 28(2), Jun 2013, 515-521.

      Concerning your second paragraph, I will not repeat it enough. I don’t want opinions. I want studies. I want empirical proofs. You don’t cite any of them. It is not culture (for what it really means) itself that has an impact on IQ, but culture affects IQ because it affects education, the latter is the mediational ingredient here. But education does not have long term impact on IQ. Thus, I don’t see why culture matters. It’s certainly not the case.

      Leak et al. (2010). Is Timing Everything? How Early Childhood Education Program Impacts Vary by Starting Age, Program Duration and Time Since the End of the Program.
      Spitz Herman H. (1992). Does the Carolina Abecedarian Early Intervention Project Prevent Sociocultural Mental Retardation?.
      Brody Nathan (2008). Does Education Influence Intelligence?, Chapter 5, in Extending Intelligence: Enhancement and New Constructs (2008) by Kyllonen Patrick C., Roberts Richard D., Stankov Lazar.

      If there are environmental factors behind IQ, those are biological, not cultural.

      • well timing means alot. i was read to and introduced to reading from my earliest memories. I know doubt know this positively affected my own intellect
        I also know that biology affected my IQ because I am near sighted and studies show that myopic people do have higher IQ’s

        So we see biology and heredity affecting my IQ but its not the type of genetic race specific heredity some are speaking about.
        This is the type of heritability I am arguing against

        I understand your demand for empirical proof of how Asian culture effects IQ. Empirical evidence should be shown for all things but I do believe the circumstantial evidence is valid and I do feel from previous studies it can be extrapolated that culture plays a part(like any other environmental element)with the forming of what we traditional regard as high intelligence.
        Studies such as Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study -

        “Scarr & Weinberg (1976) interpreted the results from age 7 suggesting that racial group differences in IQ are inconclusive because of confounding of the study. They noted, however, that the study indicated that cross-racial adoption had a positive effect on black adopted children. In support of this interpretation, they drew special attention to the finding that the average IQ of “socially classified” black children was greater than that of the U.S. white mean. The follow-up data were collected in 1986 and Weinberg et al. published their findings in 1992; they interpreted their results as still supporting the original conclusions.”
        I propose these results are due to exposure to a culture more condusive to learning which in its self is an aspect of the better environment.

        Admitted the myriad of factors need to be ciphered through before a definite academic conclusion can be made but in the case of Black kids being adopted into White families genetic hereditary appears to be a non factor thus we are left with environmental factors one of which is culture

        As for environmental effects on g factor. I will 1st say it has been argued by biologist Stephen Jay Gould in his 1981 book “The Mismeasure of Man”.That psychometricians have been fallaciously reified 

        Also the enviromental effects on g factor have been observed in other research
        “Behavioral genetic research has also established that the shared (or between-family) environmental effects on g are strong in childhood, but decline thereafter and are negligible in adulthood. This indicates that the environmental effects that are important to the development of g are unique and not shared between members of the same family”
        -Plomin & Spinath 2004

        Other researchers argue there is more to the heritability of IQ than genes.
        “Eva Jablonka and Marion Lamb argue that there is more to heredity than genes. They trace four “dimensions” in evolution — four inheritance systems that play a role in evolution: genetic, epigenetic (or non-DNA cellular transmission of traits), behavioral, and symbolic (transmission through language and other forms of symbolic communication). These systems, they argue, can all provide variations on which natural selection can act”

        This blog makes my argument that culture affects IQ far more eloquently than I can.

        Ashkenazi Jews are a enigma within themselves. They do not speak a logo-graphic language but they in general are far more aware of the numerical value accredited to their alphabet. These are just possible sources but as you say the research must be done. The fact is that if brain size alone was the reason for high iQ we’d be seeing Ice Pyramids and pantheons built in found Descendents of Han Chinese,who happen to follow a confusion philosophy ,who also happen to speak a logo graphic language have the 2nd highest IQ averages only being edged out by Ashkenazim Jews,a unique sub culture that also practices a philosophy of learning leads to enlightenment. Ashkenazi Jews are a enigma within themselves. They do not speak a logo-graphic language but they in general are far more aware of the numerical value accredited to their alphabet. These are just possible sources but as you say the research must be done. The fact is that if brain size alone was the reason for high iQ we’d be seeing Ice Pyramids and pantheons built in the northern tundra by the biggest brained humans,the Inuit peoples. In this example we can easily see why environment would stagnate any complex architectural pursuits however this does not mean the human brain has not found other ways to use its genius. It is the same for tropical tribal people

        The fact is that environment affects genetics and genetics affects how one expresses him or her self in said environment ie: epee-genetics
        Environment dictates what type of culture one develops ie: nomadic Mongols,Tuareg and Gypsie tribesmen or Athenian, Kuizhou and Timbuktu city dwellers. All different cultures all different environments.
        Actually i don’t see any way around the fact that environment effects IQ
        The question can only be argues-how much?
        My response is a bit hodgepodge but my previous response did not upload

      • Concerning Scarr/Weinberg adoption study, you seem to have read the blog post I have linked in the comment above (July 20, 2014 at 1:19 pm), because i talked about that.

        I’m not sure why you linked to Jencks/Phillips book (1998). I have it. But their argument does not necessarily argue in favor of environments. For example, they say explicitly that black-white difference is not increasing over age, i.e., children and adolescents/adults have similar gaps. This is interesting because one would believe “racism” would enlarge black-white difference over time, wouldn’t it ?

        Furthermore, I know of studies showing similar IQ heritabilities for whites and blacks. One meta-analysis is actually in submission at “OpenPsych”. Just look at it if you have time. Also, the black-white IQ difference has not really narrowed over time. See “Secular Changes in the Black-White Cognitive Ability Gap”. Concerning the NAEP, I have blog post in preparation. Just wait for tomorrow or the day after.

        The quote of Plomin & Spinath 2004 merely says that family environment has no long term effect. See my talk on this here.

        For the quote with Eva Jablonka and Marion Lamb, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. I may be OK with that claim, but so what’s next ?

        Concerning the blogpost of B. Kaufman, I have already responded to this even before the study was published. See here. In any case, I already said to the author that I was writing on a reply, I just need to be sure about the inclusion of the studies in my analysis, but it’s no big deal. By the way, the claim was not culture that affects IQ, but culture that is correlated with more g-loaded tests. This means, when g-loadedness increases, the cultural impact on IQ increases, but imagine initially the effect was minimal already ? Just saying that culture increases with g has no big consequences, since current IQ tests are already very highly g-loaded. How can you increases g-loadedness even more than it is actually ?

        “The fact is that if brain size alone was the reason for high iQ we’d be seeing Ice Pyramids and pantheons built in found Descendents of Han Chinese,who happen to follow a confusion philosophy … we’d be seeing Ice Pyramids and pantheons built in the northern tundra by the biggest brained humans,the Inuit peoples”

        I would say it’s because IQ in ancient times did not have big impact on society advancement. Probably because at that time, environments were more important, as their variation is likely to be wider before than today.

        “The fact is that environment affects genetics and genetics affects how one expresses him or her self in said environment ie: epee-genetics.”

        Ok, Ok, i never said I necessarily disagree with this perspective but it does not answer the question of malleability. And my conclusion was that malleability through culture is not plausible. If there is one environmental factor that has lot of relevance, it’s only through biological means. I think you’re also well aware about the massive studies showing big impact of nutritions on low IQ childs, no ? That’s what I’m talking about.

      • I will respond quickly as I ride to work.
        1. Ive was familiar with the Minnesota twin adoption study prior to your posting of it.
        I feel Jencks/Phillips supports my arguments of environmental influence on IQ. Jencks/Phillips not only state in ” The Black-White Test Score Gap”
        that Black/White IQ disparity has shrunken sence 1970 with in they also quote:

        ”    –When black or mixed-race children are raised in white rather than black homes, their preadolescent test scores rise dramatically. Black adoptees’ scores seem to fall in adolescence, but this is what we would expect if, as seems likely, their social and cultural environment comes to resemble that of other black adolescents and becomes less like that of the average white adolescent.


            –Even nonverbal IQ scores are sensitive to environmental change. Scores on nonverbal IQ tests have risen dramatically throughout the world since the 1930s. The average white scored higher on the Stanford-Binet in 1978 than 82 percent of whites who took the test in 1932. Such findings reinforce the implications of adoption studies: large environmental changes can have a large impact on test performance.


            –Black-white differences in academic achievement have also narrowed throughout the twentieth century. The best trend data come from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which has been testing seventeen-year-olds since 1971 and has repeated many of the same items year after year. Figure 1-2 shows that the black-white reading gap narrowed from 1.25 standard deviations in 1971 to 0.69 standard deviations in 1996. The math gap fell from 1.33 to 0.89 standard deviations. When Min-Hsiung Huang and Robert Hauser analyzed vocabulary scores for adults born between 1909 and 1969, the black-white gap also narrowed by half.”

        Also environment has always impacted & still impact humans. Its not as if environment suddenly impacts humans less. The environment has simply changed. Also just to make the point Inuits still haven’t constructed a complex civilization in their native habitat so is the effects of environment has some how decreased youd see this reflected in Inuit culture. The truth is that the tundra is a harsh inhospitable environment that is not conducive to creating a high culture or civilization. New tech can be imported into their culture but the conditions do not support the native creation of it. It was actually the same for early Europeans. Most if not all their technology they innovated upon from imported technology & cultural advancements. This is true for everything from gunpowder to nautical tech to the alphabet Europeans use.
        As for nutritional impact on IQ this again would be an outside non biological enviromental factor impacting IQ. Epigenetics shows that environment empacts biology which intern impacts genetics. Environment also impacts psychology. I will post refrences on the environmental impacts on hunan psychology later

  5. As for Rushton’s extra nuerons you will read in my post & I belive in my responce links that scientists conclude the slightly extra grey & white mater
    Is dedicated to analyzing the extra visual input….not intellectual task

    ” A larger optic nerve and a more sizeable area of the brain dedicated to processing sight are also needed for northern populations to see to the same level of detail as people from further south.”

    This is the whole jist of my argument against Rushton’s hypothesis a hypothesis he created before this new research connecting brain size to eyeball size to those born in northern latitudes & identifing areas identified with light & the lateral ventricles as being notability enlarged

  6. You know what ? You’re really a bother. You’re literally wasting my time, and it’s probably the last time I answer you.

    When I talk about flynn effect, I said we need to know what’s behind the FE gain, i.e., true gain or not. I even provided you a link. You ignore it. And you even say I deny the existence of secular gains. Proof again that you’re foolish. Pay attention to what you read, at least.

    And don’t cite studies I have responded before, such as Hodson & Busseri. But more importantly, you have to learn to read. I ask for studies about causation of racism on IQ. You merely show a correlational analysis on the same person. This again is ridiculous from you. What I ask is not racism in person x causes IQ in person x, but instead, racism of person x against person y causes IQ of person y to be low(er).

    Even the book you cite, Psychology, 5th edition, you probably never read it, as you point to a link to which I can’t access (and that, I’m sure, you don’t have access, which means you’re being very dishonest by citing studies you can’t even read).

    As for your counter research against Rushtons, you’ve done nothing worthy of it. And when you say, “those who think like Rushton constantly are disregarding the effects of culture” the reason is because they know a lot of studies against cultural hypothesis. I cited you some of these studies. Of course, you didn’t bother to comment.

    You don’t need to say things I have never said such as “probably iq may not actually test intelligence”. It always makes me mad when someone does this. As for your claim that IQ doesn’t test all forms of intelligence, you have to prove it.

    I really despise how you ignore what I usually say, and to see that my last response (to which you have responded) have just disappeared. Also, you don’t need to post your replies 3 times, and you should better make an effort of writing, because your text is awfully bad written. Every time. That’s bothersome too.

    • Obviously my several repeated post & your missing post are results of mishaps dealing with my mobile app.(I mean truly the way this app internet connection cycles & you lose your whole comment is frustrating) As for my typos…hey im a terrible texter & will accept I need to improve my typing from my mobile wordpress app. …so I will do so.

      But in response-For one your giving an answer to a query doesnt mean youve gotten the riddle right. Your stats are correlations. The majority of the studies I site are people based meaning an actual living breathing human(s) was questioned, observed & a responce recorded. Not statitical mumbo jumbo I could twist according to my cultural & world view.
      The facts are stating culture has no effect on iq is just idiotic. Its like saying your family environment had no effect on your education-a simply stupid statement that any truly objective thinker would never make.
      As for me posting books ive never read. I only post refrences ive read & as for having not read in their entirety 300 plus page books that ive refrenced that also address other areas im not researching -wtf? im like huh? Why would I read several chapters on gender identity when im formulating an argument about the heritability & malleability of iq? Seriously? We’ll I’ll just say I wouldn’t accusse me of doing something you or most other researchers have done

      Well now lets break down some of my favorite statements from you-
      I mean really your a guy who seemingly is seriously trying to argue culture has nil effect on iq & that in ancient times some how environment had less of an impact on intelligence- to qoute you:

      “I would say it’s because IQ in ancient times did not have big impact on society advancement. Probably because at that time, environments were more important, as their variation is likely to be wider before than today.”

      You not only state you feel environment had less of an effect on iq today but that environmental variation was wider in ancient times
      -laughable illogical statements
      Todays environment is a 1000 fold more varied due inpart to human enviromental engineering & cultural hybridization through out the world

      Then you state:
      “Culture has no impact on IQ in itself, it’s not your attitude or your lifestyle that is conducive of better IQ, but it’s education that can boost IQ.”
      WTF? Im like doesn’t this guy realize your attitude & lifestyle are shaped by & are aspects of your culture be it personal, family or that of the larger society? & your lifestyle & attitude effects study ie: education?…c’mon man smh

      You seriously want to address my reading & writing comprehension when you make statements like those above? Or lets look at these

      ” Ok, Ok, i never said I necessarily disagree with this perspective but it does not answer the question of malleability. And my conclusion was that malleability through culture is not plausible.”

      Agian another WTF? Moment

      im like doesn’t this guy understand that culture is an aspect of environment & that epi genetics is the study of processes which have not been demonstrated to be heritable or to say changes in gene expression not gene sequences with in the lifetime of an orginism & non heritable changes can only be a result of environment. I mean once you scratch “you get it from ya momma” ie: biology your only left with everything else which would be your environment

      Thus for example-if smoking & using drugs(prescription over the counter & or street) is a part of your culture & smoking & using drugs have been proven to effect cognition which intelligence is an aspect of (you still following this Meng?)& that epi genetic studies indicate that depending on your diet, stress levels & other ENVIROMENTAL factors effect the way genes are expressed. So these changes effect a person in his or her lifetime & yes can be passed on to offspring so before you go there I’ve long ago stated my view of genetic heritability is 60/40 in favor of environment. This would be one example of culture effecting intelligence thus demonstrating IQ malleability via culture – pretty obvious to me but why this easily accessible conclusion escapes you amazes me. A simple mental exercise would bring you to this. Why demand a study for what appears to be common sence?
      Or perhaps you rather hear the same questions raised by me raised by the pro’s
      Hopefully this link to Suzuki & Aronson’s 2k5 study works

      I see why studies show conservatives & those who hold other biased ideologies have lower IQ’s. You dont allow your minds to explore the myriad of other possible causations of a phenomenon. Your iq probably some where in the 100’s. Imagine if you really opened that engine up

      Im left to question is this guy using high school & college debate techniques just to argue for sake of “winning” the debate? or is he unaware he is viewing this subject through a biased anthropological lens & has fallen into the need to justify the systemic racism with a “they brought it on their selves” theory of correlating numbers that are propped up as causations? Perhaps a little of both
      I should be bored & bothered by “you” …….but I am not.

      This is intellectual exercise & although you seek to prove my people biologically inferior to you & others I do not as you say “despise” the way you fail to grip the concepts I put forth such as your accidentally or purposely seeming to misunderstand or actively refusing to even serious entertain research that points to the confounding effects of systemic discrimination over a period of several centuries on a population.
      I understand we both are viewing this subject through two different cultural lenses so I expect you to respond the way you do however hope you begin to look at this & other connecting issues & subjects from another perspective.
      And again I point out my blog argues against Rushton’s theory of racial differences in brain size effecting iq quite well. Many of the recent discoveries such as the actual enviromental causations for increased brain size in Mongoloid & Caucasoid peoples toss’s his theories in the trash heap wear they belong. I mean Rushtons ideas are 30 plus years old. Im siting archeological, biological & evolutionary research thats at most ten years old. I mean bigger eye balls optic nerves & a visual cortex are empirical facts.
      All of these other studies & what not are extra tangents you lead the discussion off on

      Also I wouldn’t purposely erase your comment(you should know this by now) then respond to it.
      Perhaps I should have simply asked you to repost instead of replying but your comment some how dissapred while I was trying to comment- as ive said this app loses your comments while your in the middle of writing them alot. Another reason for my posting without properly checking for typos (not an excuse simply an explination of causation that ive taken measure to avoid this time)

      In ending you seem quite upset.
      Again I think I should be the one angered
      If I were you I would really ask myself “why am I sooo rangled by this subject & the guy being put down by it seems so at ease dealing with this issue?”
      Oh sorry you couldn’t get the link to work but im beyond playing tricks simply to out “comment” someone
      So heres a new link addressing the effects of racism on IQ that site studies
      Also you dance around the 30 point jump in IQ since 1920. I dont think all of your heritable allele correlations account for this

  7. Again, you’re boring. And as always, you write like a complete berserker. Incapable to read yourself. This is unrespectful, in a sense.

    When you say the studies I cite are correlational, you prove once more you don’t know what is the difference between correlation and causation. If you tell me this study here, is not about causation, then you’re not to be taken seriously.

    Watkins, M. W., Lei, P.-W., & Canivez, G. L. (2007). Psychometric intelligence and achievement: A cross-lagged panel analysis. Intelligence, 35, 59–68.

    What is idiotic is your claim that culture has no effect on IQ. You started this without giving any proof of that claim, because it was obvious to you, and you didn’t need empirical evidence, while at the same time I provided considerable evidence, that you always ignored. You only started to cite a little bit the studies because I requested it, first. But apparently you are incapable to read them, or understand them.

    Even when you cite the “study” of Suzuki & Aronson (2005) you are lying to me when you say the link works, whereas the access is gated. In fact, I have read it a long time ago. I can tell you it’s not a study. But a brief comment on Rushton & Jensen (2005) review of the research on race and IQ. This a perfect illustration of what I said before. You’re incapable of understanding the studies. You cite whatever you can find through googling “racism cause IQ” or this kind of stuff like a complete berserker, i.e., quick and prompt to react but totally blind to anything you see. When you find something (and anything should be fine), you put that link in front of me, without bothering to understand the article, which is never the paper pdf itself, but just a short article summarizing other studies. You don’t get into the details like me, because of your poor understanding.

    As for environmental variation, you should know that h2 and c2, and e2 are expressed in terms of variation. It’s relative. If one component increases, the other has to decrease. When I said e2 variation was stronger, I said, simply, that the influence of environment on societal advancement was stronger before than today. Or to be more accurate, the factors other than IQ were more important before than today. This is predictable from Spearman hypothesis, because the more complex the society is, and the more it is challenging, and thus, the more it relies on g, and ultimately depend on g.

    Regarding the question of motivation on IQ, I already covered this topic before. Once again you continue to ignore everything I said. The key thing is measurement bias, and the construct of g. Intelligence is the ability to deal with complexity and novelty. Any impact of attitude on IQ has nothing to do with intelligence. It may raise IQ, but not intelligence. Such effect will be certainly visible in current methods of test bias.

    But if attitude has no direct effect on IQ testing, i.e., is not situation-specific, then we can assume it may cause higher scholastic achievement. But as I said already, if education causes IQ, it’s likely that it will do so by giving an advantage in terms of knowledge. In other words, measurement bias will be responsible for the IQ gains. Then, we should not conclude that intelligence has increased.

    Your big talk on epigenetic is worthless. I said it already, but as usual you don’t bother to read what I say. My question, to repeat, is what would you do if you can’t boost IQ ? That’s the only relevant question here. We know that blacks have lower IQ scores than other racial groups. Whether it’s 100% environmental or not is completely irrelevant. If you can’t improve black scores, you lose. That’s all. Then, the question is : by which means can you boost black scores ? Like I said before, most scientists thought it was through equality in opportunity and education. I linked to my blogpost on educational failure, before, but you didn’t bother to comment.

    You second link on “how racism affect IQ” is another proof that your hands are empty. I’m glad to see I was right about you. The article you give me is just about a silly guy who is trying to say something like this : “if the result of this study does not contradict the racism hypothesis, then, the racism hypothesis must be true”. Apparently, Fryer & Levitt didn’t find any BW difference at age 1, but the BW gap in IQ increases over ages. But first, the blogger at Occidentalist has responded to that a long ago. See his post “Problems with Fryer’s environmentalist proof”. The second thing to know is that an hereditarian hypothesis can readily account for an increase in gap over ages. In that case, you have to prove your hypothesis fits better than the hereditarian hypothesis. But the study itself proves nothing. You’re incapable to cite original studies. Not to mention, comment on them.

    I repeat that what I asked is an empirical evidence of such “theory” of racism. A direct proof. Not an imaginary and speculative one. A study of causation, and not correlation. But of course, it’s irrelevant to you because you don’t understand the difference.

    Whatever. I’m done now. Say what you want. I will read your answer, but not reply anymore.

    • Uh huh…. I will agree I guess we are through here still have scientist arguing about climate change so we’re probably doomed to forever collide on this subject….thanks for the work out…& sorry the links didn’t work right…completely unintentional

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s