Anyone here NOT believe that the brain is genetically controlled like any other organ

[IanC]

Why don't you tell us, in your own words and opinion, why you think intelligence is a factor of race

The evidence is overwhelming. There's a whole LIBRARY of books establishing this point, all of which are written by scientists and academics in their field, and all of which are available on amazon.com. That's the PAPER evidence... the real-life evidence is all around you. Blacks' possession of an IQ that is 15 points lower, on average, than that of whites is evident everywhere you look.

You just don't want to SEE the evidence.

That's different from it not being there.

Race and intelligence is like "The Emperor's New Clothes", the story about the naked king that the town wants to say has a nice new outfit. Only one little boy says, "but wait... he doesn't have any clothes!" In taking the position that race and intelligence are not linked, you're just like one of the townspeople.

And Asians, on average 15 points higher than Whites like you and me, William. Likwise Jews and Navaho Indians ALSO score higher than Whites o average.

Are you ready to turn over control of you life to Asians, because of that, William?

No?

Well then, so what's your point for this discussion, exactly?

Merely a discussion of the role genetics plays on intelligence?

Yeah, it does. Assuming enviromentals don't screw up our brains, genetics is what determines IQ, without doubt.

Nobody denies that, do they?

So then what IS your point?

Shall we select our leaders based on IQ?

Shall we separate the people based on IQ?

I don't want to do that, and really, I doubt you do either. (I assume your IQ is fairly high, BTW)

I don't want to live in a society where I would mostly be surrounded by Asians and Jews and Navahos just because of my IQ.

I still like my fellow White folks even if they do't (on average) have the same IQ as me.

Intelligence, raw intelligence, really doesn't really count for much.

What really matters is what you do with it.

unbelievable! when I made a restrained statement describing reality I got called out and grilled for links. When this idiot starts pulling 'facts' out of her ass and building weird conspiracy theories about what 'would' happen if we acknowledged that differences in racial intelligence exist, no one bats an eye, no one asks for proof about obviously erroneous statements

 

[SmarterThanHick]

anthropologists can identify the racial identity of a skull by its shape, but you seem to think that the brain that fits inside the skull is the same shape even if the skull shape is different.

and NEUROLOGISTS (ya know, people who study brains) all say brains are the same shape. Now people can in fact identify race by the skull, but that consists of the entire head (cheekbones, jawline, nasal cavity, brow, etc), not just the round part that sits at the very top of the head. If you look in any neuroanatomy textbook, you'll find topographical anatomy of the human brain, not "this is what we guess based on whites".

I don't think you are understanding the studies or my comments about them. I apologize that I haven't been more clear in my thinking.
The studies show that identical twins are extremely alike in many behaviors, regardless of being raised in the same environment or not. Identical twins raised apart are more alike than fraternal twins raised together. Adult adoptees resemble their biological parents more closely than their adoptive parents even though they shared the same environment growing up. Is that more clear to you? We tend to think an individual's behavior is mostly dependant on environmental cues but twin studies show that genetics exert a lot more control than people assume. This is especially true once an individual is old enough to start molding his or her environment to their liking.

Except the study you pointed to showed their differences based on environment. This goes to show that the brain, like EVERY part of human anatomy, is controlled by genes, but that the environment also shapes it. Nature AND nurture. The problem with your claim is that you're taking an extremist stance as one or the other. That's not the case.

 

[IanC]

anthropologists can identify the racial identity of a skull by its shape, but you seem to think that the brain that fits inside the skull is the same shape even if the skull shape is different.

and NEUROLOGISTS (ya know, people who study brains) all say brains are the same shape. Now people can in fact identify race by the skull, but that consists of the entire head (cheekbones, jawline, nasal cavity, brow, etc), not just the round part that sits at the very top of the head. If you look in any neuroanatomy textbook, you'll find topographical anatomy of the human brain, not "this is what we guess based on whites".

I don't think you are understanding the studies or my comments about them. I apologize that I haven't been more clear in my thinking.
The studies show that identical twins are extremely alike in many behaviors, regardless of being raised in the same environment or not. Identical twins raised apart are more alike than fraternal twins raised together. Adult adoptees resemble their biological parents more closely than their adoptive parents even though they shared the same environment growing up. Is that more clear to you? We tend to think an individual's behavior is mostly dependant on environmental cues but twin studies show that genetics exert a lot more control than people assume. This is especially true once an individual is old enough to start molding his or her environment to their liking.

Except the study you pointed to showed their differences based on environment. This goes to show that the brain, like EVERY part of human anatomy, is controlled by genes, but that the environment also shapes it. Nature AND nurture. The problem with your claim is that you're taking an extremist stance as one or the other. That's not the case.

I have never said that environment has no part in differences. Who has? Even identical twins in the womb may have environmental differences caused by uneven placental support. Accidents, toxins, etc can have detrimental effects. You say I am taking an extremist stance but isn't it closer to the truth to say that those who say intelligence is totally environmentally controlled are in fact the extremists? I am saying genetics and heredity are large factors in many areas that are publicly assumed to be only environmentally controlled. And most if not all studies back that up. For instance, severely malnourished North Korean toddlers were adopted when N Korea was having a famine. Why did they grow up to have higher than normal measured intelligence levels when black babies adopted at birth into high SES households grow up to have measured intelligence levels similar to their birth parents?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I have never said that environment has no part in differences. Who has?

those who say intelligence is totally environmentally controlled are in fact the extremists

same question: who has?

 

[IanC]

I didn't know that about Navahos but I'm not surprised.

I wonder if there's a test to determine meanness as well, and to correlate it with intelligence?

So you are willing to take an unsubtantiated and unexplained claim as reasonable?
I don't know how you would define 'meanness', but higher intelligence is correlated to positive social traits and inversely correlated to negative ones.

 

[IanC]

I have never said that environment has no part in differences. Who has?

those who say intelligence is totally environmentally controlled are in fact the extremists

same question: who has?

Think as you wish. I am old enough to have gone through the whole nature/nurture debate since the CRA. Originally it was posited that SES was the reason. Then biased questions. And so on. As actual investigation was done and the excuses disproved, the nurture side continued to take steps backward. It is close to the point now where calling science and scientists 'mean' is about all they have left.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

except you didn't even acknowledge that nurture had any part in the end result. you just spoke about genetics changing brain shape.... somehow, among other things.

glad you are agreeing to the big picture now.

 

[IanC]

anthropologists can identify the racial identity of a skull by its shape, but you seem to think that the brain that fits inside the skull is the same shape even if the skull shape is different.
and NEUROLOGISTS (ya know, people who study brains) all say brains are the same shape. Now people can in fact identify race by the skull, but that consists of the entire head (cheekbones, jawline, nasal cavity, brow, etc), not just the round part that sits at the very top of the head. If you look in any neuroanatomy textbook, you'll find topographical anatomy of the human brain, not "this is what we guess based on whites".

We seem to have very different styles of debating. I said skull and brain shapes are different between races. Then you agreed that the shapes were different but said I was wrong because neurology textbooks use generalized diagrams. HUH?
My posts have accentuated the genetic effects on many human traits and behaviors. I have not discussed the environment side because that is not my emphasis. You accuse me of not believing there are any environmental factors involved and when I say of course there are other factors involved, no study has claimed 100% genetic influence, you act as if you schooled me. you have not refuted anything of what I have said and yet you act as if you are winning an argument. perhaps you should be a politician.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

We seem to have very different styles of debating. I said skull and brain shapes are different between races. Then you agreed that the shapes were different but said I was wrong because neurology textbooks use generalized diagrams. HUH?

False. I said skull shapes, comprising of all bones of the head, have differences, but brain shapes are the same, and comprised of the same valleys and grooves for all normal humans, as proven by every neuroanatomy book in the country.

Somehow you misread that.

You basically came here with a strong stance on one specific topic, with incorrect supporting evidence, looking for people to question you, but refusing to provide a single scrap of the "thousands of studies" you cited to support anything you say. Now you're surprised when I point out how your argument falls short because you didn't claim environment plays a part? Really? If you want to make a claim as strong as that without acknowledging the other influencing factors, you should EXPECT to be called on it, not be surprised when you are.

 

[AllieBaba]

I didn't know that about Navahos but I'm not surprised.

I wonder if there's a test to determine meanness as well, and to correlate it with intelligence?

So you are willing to take an unsubtantiated and unexplained claim as reasonable?
I don't know how you would define 'meanness', but higher intelligence is correlated to positive social traits and inversely correlated to negative ones.

Back it up with something besides your own fantasies.

 

[IanC]

I didn't know that about Navahos but I'm not surprised.

I wonder if there's a test to determine meanness as well, and to correlate it with intelligence?

So you are willing to take an unsubtantiated and unexplained claim as reasonable?
I don't know how you would define 'meanness', but higher intelligence is correlated to positive social traits and inversely correlated to negative ones.

Back it up with something besides your own fantasies.

OK I will. But explain your position on Navahos and meaness/intelligence correlations first

 

[William Joyce]

Why don't you tell us, in your own words and opinion, why you think intelligence is a factor of race

The evidence is overwhelming. There's a whole LIBRARY of books establishing this point, all of which are written by scientists and academics in their field, and all of which are available on amazon.com. That's the PAPER evidence... the real-life evidence is all around you. Blacks' possession of an IQ that is 15 points lower, on average, than that of whites is evident everywhere you look.

You just don't want to SEE the evidence.

That's different from it not being there.

Race and intelligence is like "The Emperor's New Clothes", the story about the naked king that the town wants to say has a nice new outfit. Only one little boy says, "but wait... he doesn't have any clothes!" In taking the position that race and intelligence are not linked, you're just like one of the townspeople.

And Asians, on average 15 points higher than Whites like you and me, William. Likwise Jews and Navaho Indians ALSO score higher than Whites o average.

Are you ready to turn over control of you life to Asians, because of that, William?

No?

Well then, so what's your point for this discussion, exactly?

Merely a discussion of the role genetics plays on intelligence?

Yeah, it does. Assuming enviromentals don't screw up our brains, genetics is what determines IQ, without doubt.

Nobody denies that, do they?

So then what IS your point?

Shall we select our leaders based on IQ?

Shall we separate the people based on IQ?

I don't want to do that, and really, I doubt you do either. (I assume your IQ is fairly high, BTW)

I don't want to live in a society where I would mostly be surrounded by Asians and Jews and Navahos just because of my IQ.

I still like my fellow White folks even if they do't (on average) have the same IQ as me.

Intelligence, raw intelligence, really doesn't really count for much.

What really matters is what you do with it.

You're right that intelligence is just one factor in my larger critique of the modern multiracial society. As Jared Taylor likes to say, "I wouldn't want my country run by Asians, either, and I get that they're smarter."

The IQ business is relevant to me because it demonstrates that racially, we aren't all cut out for life in the same society. As it stands, black failure is blamed on whites, and whites pay ungodly sums as "punishment" for this difference. Affirmative action is just one example, crime is another, it goes on and on. What has come to be the "ultimate premise" of America -- that we are all equal, all blank slates and all set for equal achievement -- is deeply wrong.

At the other end of the scale, I've got a "black complaint", if you will --- I would prefer my daughter NOT have to compete with Asians to get into Berkeley.

In other words, I want to live in a society in which whites are the bulk of the people, run the show, and have a sense of self enough to keep a healthy arms' length from other groups. This is no different from what any other group on Earth wants. Yet for whatever reason, it's only controversial when whites seek it.

 

[IanC]

We seem to have very different styles of debating. I said skull and brain shapes are different between races. Then you agreed that the shapes were different but said I was wrong because neurology textbooks use generalized diagrams. HUH?

False. I said skull shapes, comprising of all bones of the head, have differences, but brain shapes are the same, and comprised of the same valleys and grooves for all normal humans, as proven by every neuroanatomy book in the country.

Somehow you misread that.

You basically came here with a strong stance on one specific topic, with incorrect supporting evidence, looking for people to question you, but refusing to provide a single scrap of the "thousands of studies" you cited to support anything you say. Now you're surprised when I point out how your argument falls short because you didn't claim environment plays a part? Really? If you want to make a claim as strong as that without acknowledging the other influencing factors, you should EXPECT to be called on it, not be surprised when you are.

So the brains in these different skulls are somehow the same shape? I don't think so. Do you mean they have the same basic structure, overall simularities? I could agree with that.

 

[AllieBaba]

So you are willing to take an unsubtantiated and unexplained claim as reasonable?
I don't know how you would define 'meanness', but higher intelligence is correlated to positive social traits and inversely correlated to negative ones.

Back it up with something besides your own fantasies.

OK I will. But explain your position on Navahos and meaness/intelligence correlations first

I think we're misspelling Navahos..isn't it Navajo????? Something about seeing "Nava hos" makes me want to giggle.

I was just wondering if there's a correlation between high-iq genetic groups and meanness. I don't know how else to put it. Perhaps lack of compassion? The Navajo are recognized amongst tribal law enforcement as being pretty cold blooded.

Likewise, I think everyone would agree that Germans have produced a lot of high-iq people...but they saw the rise of Hitler and the Holocaust, and still harbor a large population of white supremecists.

So I was just wondering....

 

[SmarterThanHick]

So the brains in these different skulls are somehow the same shape? I don't think so. Do you mean they have the same basic structure, overall simularities? I could agree with that.

wow. you're kinda dense. ok, lets do this picture book style

Above are skulls from from different SPECIES (let alone different races within humans). Note how there are remarkable differences between the skulls in the frontal view, but that the actual bones that surround the brain, as seen in the side view, are all relatively the same.

Alright, let's look at just a human skull now:

Note again how the bones that actually encase the brain have the same rounded shape. When your "thousands of articles" (which you STILL haven't presented) claim that someone can tell a person's race based on their skull, they're not talking about the bones that encase the brain. They're talking about the bones at the front of the skull which form facial features such as cheekbones, jawline, eye sockets, etc. These things do not affect the shape of the brain. Once again, every neuroanatomy textbook will show the same thing in brain shape. Even the individual grooves on the brain are the same between people.

So again I will ask: either present these thousands of articles that say otherwise, or please stop making things up.

 

[goshinj]

who gives a shit. what a very boooooooooring topic

 

[William Joyce]

Note again how the bones that actually encase the brain have the same rounded shape. When your "thousands of articles" (which you STILL haven't presented) claim that someone can tell a person's race based on their skull, they're not talking about the bones that encase the brain. They're talking about the bones at the front of the skull which form facial features such as cheekbones, jawline, eye sockets, etc. These things do not affect the shape of the brain. Once again, every neuroanatomy textbook will show the same thing in brain shape. Even the individual grooves on the brain are the same between people.

So again I will ask: either present these thousands of articles that say otherwise, or please stop making things up.

Rushton goes over brain size in his book, "Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective."

But again, the issue isn't what facts are out there. The facts as they exist are highly inconvenient for the racial difference deniers. The plainest fact is that race and intelligence are tightly correlated. The refusal to believe this comes from a political, and not a scientific, place.

In other words, to answer the thread title:

In order NOT to believe that brains are genetically determined, you'd essentially have to believe that NOTHING is genetically determined, because how can one part of the body be genetically determined and others not? "Yes, your height is the result of your parents, as is your skin color. But your brain is a totally separate thing. That's implanted in your body by a secret little god."

Sorry, that just doesn't work.

On my discussion lists these people are called "left-wing creationists".

 

[Ravi]

My kids are both shorter than me and my husband.

You fail, Billy boy.

And IanC...the study you quoted found bigger brain volume in a pair of twins, but it didn't prove that was caused by nature and not nurture. For instance, it didn't find that genetics made for a bigger piece of the brain, it only found that a pair of intelligent twins had a bigger brain volume. It's quite plausible that LEARNING makes your brain bigger.

You also fail.

 

[William Joyce]

My kids are both shorter than me and my husband.

You fail, Billy boy.

That's not genetics at work. That's because you did heavy drugs while they were in utero.

And in any event, why have children? Don't you know they hurt the environment?

One great thing about liberals: they don't reproduce.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Note again how the bones that actually encase the brain have the same rounded shape. When your "thousands of articles" (which you STILL haven't presented) claim that someone can tell a person's race based on their skull, they're not talking about the bones that encase the brain. They're talking about the bones at the front of the skull which form facial features such as cheekbones, jawline, eye sockets, etc. These things do not affect the shape of the brain. Once again, every neuroanatomy textbook will show the same thing in brain shape. Even the individual grooves on the brain are the same between people.

So again I will ask: either present these thousands of articles that say otherwise, or please stop making things up.

Rushton goes over brain size in his book, "Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective."

But again, the issue isn't what facts are out there. The facts as they exist are highly inconvenient for the racial difference deniers. The plainest fact is that race and intelligence are tightly correlated. The refusal to believe this comes from a political, and not a scientific, place.

In other words, to answer the thread title:

In order NOT to believe that brains are genetically determined, you'd essentially have to believe that NOTHING is genetically determined, because how can one part of the body be genetically determined and others not? "Yes, your height is the result of your parents, as is your skin color. But your brain is a totally separate thing. That's implanted in your body by a secret little god."

Sorry, that just doesn't work.

On my discussion lists these people are called "left-wing creationists".

I can't quite figure out why you quoted me. Ian and I were arguing brain shape based on race, and you responded with race and intelligence as they relate to genetics. It's not really arguing either side of what was being discussed in that quote. Care to elaborate?