Britain Should Not Lower Standards For Blacks

[alexa]

re bell curve

When the New Republic devoted almost an entire issue (10/31/94) to a debate with the authors of The Bell Curve, editor Andrew Sullivan justified the decision by writing, "The notion that there might be resilient ethnic differences in intelligence is not, we believe, an inherently racist belief."

In fact, the idea that some races are inherently inferior to others is the definition of racism. What the New Republic was saying--along with other media outlets that prominently and respectfully considered the thesis of Charles Murray and the late Richard Herrnstein's book--is that racism is a respectable intellectual position, and has a legitimate place in the national debate on race.

-snip-

Nearly all the research that Murray and Herrnstein relied on for their central claims about race and IQ was funded by the Pioneer Fund, described by the London Sunday Telegraph (3/12/89) as a "neo-Nazi organization closely integrated with the far right in American politics." The fund's mission is to promote eugenics, a philosophy that maintains that "genetically unfit" individuals or races are a threat to society.

Racism Resurgent

 

[Tank]

I would like to see a study of the IQ of racists measured against the IQ of minorities (blacks, hispanics, gays, females). I would put good money on the outcome showing that racists are at the bottom of the intellectual scale. The anecdotal evidence on this board suggests this outcome.

But, the majority of racists are black and Hispanic.

 

[tigerbob]

i would like to see a study of the iq of racists measured against the iq of minorities (blacks, hispanics, gays, females). I would put good money on the outcome showing that racists are at the bottom of the intellectual scale. The anecdotal evidence on this board suggests this outcome.

but, the majority of racists are black and hispanic.

q.e.d.

 

[Flagwavrusa]

I assumed you were saying they did less well that whites who also attended top schools. All I can say is I do not believe you and am beginning to wonder whether you are a white nationalist.

Burkes work was falsified. IQ is basically a test of learned activity. While we may have slight variations in potential with most people they are negligible. Environment plays an enormous part as well as the different traits people are born with and even those are influenced by nurturing. Indeed I seem to remember that the only thing which can be shown to be totally genetic is temperament. A study done over 20 years found that it was possible to see what the adult temperament of a person was as soon as they were born but even there environment played a large part. People born with difficult temperaments whose parents reasoned with them and understood their difficulties, grew up managing to deal with their fieriness whereas those with parents who responded temper tantrum with temper tantrum found themselves in trouble.

Role models do play a part in people achieving which is where the idea of affirmative action does come in...and then of course there can be prejudice but there is no genetic reason why black people cannot achieve as well as anyone else.... some clearly do...

Alexa, if you wan't to know more about the evidence for heredity and racial IQ don't take my word for it read The Bell Curve. I understand you have your personal beliefs, but at least be willing to challenge yours assumptions and conront the evidence.

It is something I have studied considerably, not just looking at Wiki. I studied both during my Social Science degree and during my teachers training and what you are inferring is simply not true. There is no significant racial genetic component to IQ.



Nevertheless you are supporting a racist view on intelligence. You present some statistics supposed to belong to people in some countries and then believe they have a genetic component without taking the trouble to study properly and discover that a) what is measured in IQ activity is learned experience and b) there are a multitude of things which create the intelligence which an individual has ranging from expectations, interest, opportunities, role models, practice, home environment and so on. A recent study found that in the UK the biggest component on the outcome of a child's education achievements was the Mother's or main caregivers own education.

Your OP is stating that there is no reason for affirmative action for the reason that Black people are genetically of poorer intelligence and you provide Wiki to prove this.

In your previous post you said you believed standards in United Kingdom colleges should be raised not lowered, so I assume you are against affirmative action.

When I was doing my degree my Social Policy head of department was very for affirmative action to get more women into higher positions in University. Her point, she did not care if a few people got in who were not quite as highly qualified, she wanted women to see women in such positions so that they would aspire to them. I don't think affirmative action would be accepted at the present time but in order to achieve children do need psychological role models. Some work will need to be done to make sure black people are not overlooked when their qualifications are the same.

When I did my teachers training, girls fell back in their education at puberty. Girls were still considered to be less capable than boys particularly in maths and sciences......because of a simply thing -teachers expected this. Filming of classes showed that teachers gave far more attention and eye contact with boys than girls, even teachers who were not aware of it. Because they expected boys to achieve better they unconsciously concentrated on them. Changes in teachers training changed the outcome of girls education.

The thing which contributes most to achievement is practice. It is reckoned that 80% of people could achieve a degree. People simply need to learn what is required. A small number who get the highest degrees also have creativity.

So no, this is not just my opinion, it is what I can remember of study within a 4 year period plus what I have learned since, not a wiki article.

If you want to look at why blacks are not achieving in the UK then you need to look at more than a controversial IQ report.

You know what, when I was young people were saying women had a lower IQ because they had smaller brains.

A person's IQ depends on a multitude of things and mainline research is pretty clear that on potential there is nothing to speak of as far as race is concerned.

You need to look at environment. In the UK it would be good to look at the number of blacks brought up in gang neighbourhood. Something which started in the '80's. You need to look at the opportunities given to them, the aspirations given to them, the prejudice still around

That's what a team at the Institute of Education have been researching, and their findings are released on Monday. Looking at African Caribbean families in particular, they have confirmed that there is a black "middle class"; that they work very hard to get the best for their children; but they also discovered that social status and relative wealth do not protect black people. "Racism is a reality in the lives of black middle-class families," states the report, The Educational Strategies of the Black Middle Classes. And research team member Dr Nicola Rollock, says: "Being black and middle class is fundamentally different to being white and middle class."

To be a black professional means every day having to assume you may be judged according to some negative stereotype; how can you prove to the next person you meet that you're not some street thug; or that your background is so broken and scarred that you'll never conform to the workplace culture?

Being black and middle class doesn't mean you face less prejudice | Joseph Harker | Comment is free | The Guardian

Just like when I was young a woman had to perform twice as well as a man to get that good job.

You quite simply cannot produce controversial hypothesis on IQ and claim that blacks have inferior IQ's. I have been listening to such controversial studies and seeing them disproved all my life.

Yes, there are individual differences, genetics plays a part in who people are but to take that and to then try and suggest that because some people living in a third world country score low on a Western IQ test, this is evidence of low IQ among black people shows at least a total lack of understanding of the subject.

I said the UK should not lower it's standards. People from working class backgrounds are also not achieving. Like I said earlier social mobility is all but dead here. So yes, we need to improve our standards by making where you are born does not ruin your chances for life. We need to make sure social mobility starts moving again so that everyone has the opportunity to achieve, regardless of race, religion, gender or social status and that is a problem in the UK today certainly as far as social mobility and hence equality of opportunity is concerned.

In a previous post you stated that the evidence on the hereditary link to IQ was falsified and cited the Cyril Burt affair as proof. This tells me all I need to know about your vast knowledge on the subject. The Minnesota Twin study is the definitive research on the gene-IQ connection, Burt's research is now irrelevant.

 

[Flagwavrusa]

My kids never had their IQ tested either. This is a great point you make. Where do they get the kids for these comparative IQ tests? The only way the test would be valid would be to sample kids that were raised with the same level of parental, community and scholastic involvement.

If you are going to test middle class children raised in the suburbs vs. lower class children raised in the projects, of course their is going to be a huge discrepancy.

They undertake research to establish it. They're not measuring it as a 'middle class vs lower class'.... they have longitudinal studies going on - have done for decades - and, as part of those studies, they measure the IQ of kids across the spectrum of 'class' etc.

The UK recently launched a new study - 'Understanding Society' which is being funded for 20 years - it will probably receive further funding after that.... they do the same types of study in most western countries. Those studies tend to link up with each other to compare results and work together to develop future strategies across a range of social issues.

You aren't answering my question. They measure kids "across the spectrum of class" and yet most black children would fall into the lower class part of the spectrum.

So of course their "peers" will out perform them.

Whites outperform blacks regardless of socioeconomic background. See The Bell Curve pages 286-288.

 

[Flagwavrusa]

I would like to see a study of the IQ of racists measured against the IQ of minorities (blacks, hispanics, gays, females). I would put good money on the outcome showing that racists are at the bottom of the intellectual scale. The anecdotal evidence on this board suggests this outcome.

But, the majority of racists are black and Hispanic.

That's a great point. California Girls's logic offers the coup de grace that proves the OP. Does this mean she is a racist?

 

[Douger]

Brittrash has an average IQ of about 42. These assholes still worship royalty for kryssakes.
All their rights have been taken away.....years ago. They allowed it. Just like you will.
Hell.....they can't even slap a decent meal together. Of course with knives being illegal it could be hard.

 

[tigerbob]

Brittrash has an average IQ of about 42. These assholes still worship royalty for kryssakes.
All their rights have been taken away.....years ago. They allowed it. Just like you will.
Hell.....they can't even slap a decent meal together. Of course with knives being illegal it could be hard.

Henny Youngman is turning in his grave.

If you throw away all your good one-liners in one go, all you're left with is....the stuff you just wrote.

 

[Vindicator]

Black children have stopped trying. Can you blame them. With all the attention the crybaby Mexicans get because they are so helpless, they can't tie their own shoes.

 

[California Girl]

I would like to see a study of the IQ of racists measured against the IQ of minorities (blacks, hispanics, gays, females). I would put good money on the outcome showing that racists are at the bottom of the intellectual scale. The anecdotal evidence on this board suggests this outcome.

But, the majority of racists are black and Hispanic.

That's a great point. California Girls's logic offers the coup de grace that proves the OP. Does this mean she is a racist?

What is a 'great point'? His opinion that there are more black and hispanic racists than white racists? Where's the evidence to support that? Because, in order for it to be a 'great point', it actually has to be accurate.

Damn you are stupid.

 

[California Girl]

Brittrash has an average IQ of about 42. These assholes still worship royalty for kryssakes.
All their rights have been taken away.....years ago. They allowed it. Just like you will.
Hell.....they can't even slap a decent meal together. Of course with knives being illegal it could be hard.

Actually, the British have an average IQ of 100.5.

idiot.

 

[alexa]

Brittrash has an average IQ of about 42. These assholes still worship royalty for kryssakes.
All their rights have been taken away.....years ago. They allowed it. Just like you will.
Hell.....they can't even slap a decent meal together. Of course with knives being illegal it could be hard.

Actually, the British have an average IQ of 100.5.

idiot.

Indeed, then it has gone up since we have got our black and south asian immigrants. It was 100 50 years ago.

 

[alexa]

Alexa, if you wan't to know more about the evidence for heredity and racial IQ don't take my word for it read The Bell Curve. I understand you have your personal beliefs, but at least be willing to challenge yours assumptions and conront the evidence.

It is something I have studied considerably, not just looking at Wiki. I studied both during my Social Science degree and during my teachers training and what you are inferring is simply not true. There is no significant racial genetic component to IQ.



Nevertheless you are supporting a racist view on intelligence. You present some statistics supposed to belong to people in some countries and then believe they have a genetic component without taking the trouble to study properly and discover that a) what is measured in IQ activity is learned experience and b) there are a multitude of things which create the intelligence which an individual has ranging from expectations, interest, opportunities, role models, practice, home environment and so on. A recent study found that in the UK the biggest component on the outcome of a child's education achievements was the Mother's or main caregivers own education.

Your OP is stating that there is no reason for affirmative action for the reason that Black people are genetically of poorer intelligence and you provide Wiki to prove this.



When I was doing my degree my Social Policy head of department was very for affirmative action to get more women into higher positions in University. Her point, she did not care if a few people got in who were not quite as highly qualified, she wanted women to see women in such positions so that they would aspire to them. I don't think affirmative action would be accepted at the present time but in order to achieve children do need psychological role models. Some work will need to be done to make sure black people are not overlooked when their qualifications are the same.

When I did my teachers training, girls fell back in their education at puberty. Girls were still considered to be less capable than boys particularly in maths and sciences......because of a simply thing -teachers expected this. Filming of classes showed that teachers gave far more attention and eye contact with boys than girls, even teachers who were not aware of it. Because they expected boys to achieve better they unconsciously concentrated on them. Changes in teachers training changed the outcome of girls education.

The thing which contributes most to achievement is practice. It is reckoned that 80% of people could achieve a degree. People simply need to learn what is required. A small number who get the highest degrees also have creativity.

So no, this is not just my opinion, it is what I can remember of study within a 4 year period plus what I have learned since, not a wiki article.

If you want to look at why blacks are not achieving in the UK then you need to look at more than a controversial IQ report.

You know what, when I was young people were saying women had a lower IQ because they had smaller brains.

A person's IQ depends on a multitude of things and mainline research is pretty clear that on potential there is nothing to speak of as far as race is concerned.

You need to look at environment. In the UK it would be good to look at the number of blacks brought up in gang neighbourhood. Something which started in the '80's. You need to look at the opportunities given to them, the aspirations given to them, the prejudice still around

That's what a team at the Institute of Education have been researching, and their findings are released on Monday. Looking at African Caribbean families in particular, they have confirmed that there is a black "middle class"; that they work very hard to get the best for their children; but they also discovered that social status and relative wealth do not protect black people. "Racism is a reality in the lives of black middle-class families," states the report, The Educational Strategies of the Black Middle Classes. And research team member Dr Nicola Rollock, says: "Being black and middle class is fundamentally different to being white and middle class."

To be a black professional means every day having to assume you may be judged according to some negative stereotype; how can you prove to the next person you meet that you're not some street thug; or that your background is so broken and scarred that you'll never conform to the workplace culture?

Being black and middle class doesn't mean you face less prejudice | Joseph Harker | Comment is free | The Guardian

Just like when I was young a woman had to perform twice as well as a man to get that good job.

You quite simply cannot produce controversial hypothesis on IQ and claim that blacks have inferior IQ's. I have been listening to such controversial studies and seeing them disproved all my life.

Yes, there are individual differences, genetics plays a part in who people are but to take that and to then try and suggest that because some people living in a third world country score low on a Western IQ test, this is evidence of low IQ among black people shows at least a total lack of understanding of the subject.

I said the UK should not lower it's standards. People from working class backgrounds are also not achieving. Like I said earlier social mobility is all but dead here. So yes, we need to improve our standards by making where you are born does not ruin your chances for life. We need to make sure social mobility starts moving again so that everyone has the opportunity to achieve, regardless of race, religion, gender or social status and that is a problem in the UK today certainly as far as social mobility and hence equality of opportunity is concerned.

In a previous post you stated that the evidence on the hereditary link to IQ was falsified and cited the Cyril Burt affair as proof. This tells me all I need to know about your vast knowledge on the subject. The Minnesota Twin study is the definitive research on the gene-IQ connection, Burt's research is now irrelevant.

Burt's work was proved to have been fabricated decades ago. It was then and it remains so.

You are correct however in that your believes are new to me and go against everything I know.

However a simple search indicates that they are anything but acceptable

Your Bell curve

The science behind The Bell Curve has been denounced by both the American Psychological Association and the Human Genome Project. Its authors were unqualified to speak on either genetics or intelligence, since their expertise lay in other fields. Their project did not rise through the usual system of academic publishing, and in fact the authors ducked the process of peer review. The Bell Curve was ultimately funded by the wealthy, far-right Bradley Foundation, which used its media connections to launch a massive national publicity campaign. And The Bell Curve relies heavily on studies that were financed by the Pioneer Fund, a neo-Nazi organization that promotes eugenicist research.

Argument

"The scientific basis of The Bell Curve is fraudulent." (1)

With those words, the American Psychological Association denounced The Bell Curve, the controversial book that claims that blacks generally have IQs 15 points lower than whites. The authors assert that because IQ is mostly genetic and unchangeable, programs promoting equality (affirmative action, welfare, Head Start, etc.) are a waste of money. For those unfamiliar with the American Psychological Association, it is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States, and includes over 142,000 members.

The story of how a scientifically unsound book like The Bell Curve bypassed the usual checks and balances of the scientific community reveals a great deal about how wealthy conservative businessmen are trying to create their own alternate academia.

and on your Minnesota study

The original Minnesota study ( Scarr & Weinberg, 1976 ) included both the adopted and the biological children of 101 middle-class families (each with two White parents), tested at an average age of about 7 years. The mean IQ of the adopted Black children was 106.3, well below the 111.5 of the adopted White children and the 116.7 of the biological children but a full standard deviation above the expected IQ mean of Blacks in Minnesota. Adoptees with one Black and one White birth parent scored higher than those with two Black birth parents, but even the latter averaged 96.8. These and other findings led Scarr and Weinberg to conclude that "the social environment plays a dominant role in determining the average IQ level of Black children" (p. 739). But follow-up testing when the children were about 17 years of age had quite a different result: The mean IQ of the retested Black adoptees was only 96.8, and those with two Black birth parents averaged 89.4 ( Weinberg, Scarr, & Waldman, 1992 ). That is why Lynn (1997) says, "Black babies adopted by White parents registered no IQ gains" (p. 73), a point he has elaborated elsewhere ( Lynn, 1994 ).

As Waldman, Weinberg, and Scarr (1994) made clear in their response to Lynn (1994) , this conclusion is misleading. Everyone involved in this debate is well-aware that such comparisons must be corrected for the Flynn effect: Mean scores on all standard IQ tests seem to rise steadily at about 0.3 points per year. In the Minnesota study, where the tests used in the follow-up were generally not the same as those that had been given the first time, these corrections are complex and must be made on an individual basis. Until they have been made–Waldman et al. reported that they are in progress–raw figures like those above are relatively meaningless.

A further complication is that race and preadoptive experience were strongly confounded in the Minnesota study ( Scarr & Weinberg, 1976 ). At the time they joined their new families, for example, the Black adoptees had had more prior placements, rated of poorer quality, than their White counterparts. This was especially the case for the children with two Black birth parents, who were not adopted until they were, on average, about 32 months old. Because any later IQ differences between these groups may have resulted from differences in preadoptive experience, the Minnesota data provide no clear evidence for the genetic hypothesis. But it is only fair to say that they do argue against certain versions of the environmental hypothesis (pending the necessary Flynn effect corrections): The mere fact of growing up in a middle-class home apparently does not, by itself, raise one's score on intelligence tests given at adolescence.

Both Lynn (1997) and Rushton (1997) insist that racial differences in the mean measured sizes of skulls and brains (with East Asians having the largest, followed by Whites and then Blacks) support their genetic hypothesis. They rely on the averaged results of the many anthropometric studies reviewed by Rushton (1995) in his book Race, Evolution, and Behavior. Although those studies exhibit many internal inconsistencies (and the within-groups variabilities are always much larger than the between-groups differences), there is indeed a small overall trend in the direction they describe. Even taken at face value, however, such a trend hardly constitutes evidence for a genetic interpretation. It is already known that body size is strongly affected by environmental variables (most obviously by nutrition); Lynn himself (1990) has documented the remarkable increases in adult height that have occurred in a great many countries. Why shouldn't one expect those same environmental variables to affect head size too? Given the fact that even rats show gains in brain weight when they are exposed to enriched environments ( Bennett, Rosenzweig, Diamond, & Hebert, 1974 ), it is hard to see how data on the sizes of heads or brains can have any strong implications for a genetic hypothesis.

The Bell Curve is a top-level work of science

However it should come as no surprise that it goes with David Dukes thinking

Sources of human psychological differences | The Official Website of Representative David Duke, PhD

 

[Flagwavrusa]

But, the majority of racists are black and Hispanic.

That's a great point. California Girls's logic offers the coup de grace that proves the OP. Does this mean she is a racist?

What is a 'great point'? His opinion that there are more black and hispanic racists than white racists? Where's the evidence to support that? Because, in order for it to be a 'great point', it actually has to be accurate.

Damn you are stupid.

Perhaps you should re-read your own post, because according to your own words it IS accurate. You said you believed that "racists are at the bottom of the intellectual scale." You also said "generally blacks (as a race, not as individuals) test lower on IQ tests." Ergo, you believe that there are more black racists.

 

[Colin]

Brittrash has an average IQ of about 42. These assholes still worship royalty for kryssakes.
All their rights have been taken away.....years ago. They allowed it. Just like you will.
Hell.....they can't even slap a decent meal together. Of course with knives being illegal it could be hard.

Henny Youngman is turning in his grave.

If you throw away all your good one-liners in one go, all you're left with is....the stuff you just wrote.

Nah. Douger had a serious anal problem. His arsehole stopped working so doctors had to graft his mouth where his anal cavity was. It's why he talks shit all the time.

 

[Flagwavrusa]

Brittrash has an average IQ of about 42. These assholes still worship royalty for kryssakes.
All their rights have been taken away.....years ago. They allowed it. Just like you will.
Hell.....they can't even slap a decent meal together. Of course with knives being illegal it could be hard.

Actually, the British have an average IQ of 100.5.

idiot.

Indeed, then it has gone up since we have got our black and south asian immigrants. It was 100 50 years ago.

This is a misunderstanding of the way IQ tests are constructed. A representative sample of the entire population, including blacks, whites, and asians are given sample IQ questions and the entire group average is arbitrarily set at about 100. Such a test would have no implications for racial IQ differences.

 

[California Girl]

That's a great point. California Girls's logic offers the coup de grace that proves the OP. Does this mean she is a racist?

What is a 'great point'? His opinion that there are more black and hispanic racists than white racists? Where's the evidence to support that? Because, in order for it to be a 'great point', it actually has to be accurate.

Damn you are stupid.

Perhaps you should re-read your own post, because according to your own words it IS accurate. You said you believed that "racists are at the bottom of the intellectual scale." You also said "generally blacks (as a race, not as individuals) test lower on IQ tests." Ergo, you believe that there are more black racists.

No, my little idiot. I said racists are at the bottom of the intellectual scale.... race is of no consequence... stupid recognizes no racial barriers. All racists are stupid. That includes you.

Do not do intellectual battle with me, you are unarmed. It's like bringing a knife to a gun fight. You will lose.

 

[California Girl]

Brittrash has an average IQ of about 42. These assholes still worship royalty for kryssakes.
All their rights have been taken away.....years ago. They allowed it. Just like you will.
Hell.....they can't even slap a decent meal together. Of course with knives being illegal it could be hard.

Actually, the British have an average IQ of 100.5.

idiot.

Indeed, then it has gone up since we have got our black and south asian immigrants. It was 100 50 years ago.

It is what it is. Race doesn't make it different.

Only stupid people don't get that.

 

[manifold]

So would that mean that the blacks who are mixed with whites are genetically smarter than non-mixed blacks or lighter means smarter?

[youtube]N8QEIaATPis[/youtube]​

 

[Flagwavrusa]

In a previous post you stated that the evidence on the hereditary link to IQ was falsified and cited the Cyril Burt affair as proof. This tells me all I need to know about your vast knowledge on the subject. The Minnesota Twin study is the definitive research on the gene-IQ connection, Burt's research is now irrelevant.

Burt's work was proved to have been fabricated decades ago. It was then and it remains so.

You are correct however in that your believes are new to me and go against everything I know.

However a simple search indicates that they are anything but acceptable

and on your Minnesota study

The original Minnesota study ( Scarr & Weinberg, 1976 ) included both the adopted and the biological children of 101 middle-class families (each with two White parents), tested at an average age of about 7 years. The mean IQ of the adopted Black children was 106.3, well below the 111.5 of the adopted White children and the 116.7 of the biological children but a full standard deviation above the expected IQ mean of Blacks in Minnesota. Adoptees with one Black and one White birth parent scored higher than those with two Black birth parents, but even the latter averaged 96.8. These and other findings led Scarr and Weinberg to conclude that "the social environment plays a dominant role in determining the average IQ level of Black children" (p. 739). But follow-up testing when the children were about 17 years of age had quite a different result: The mean IQ of the retested Black adoptees was only 96.8, and those with two Black birth parents averaged 89.4 ( Weinberg, Scarr, & Waldman, 1992 ). That is why Lynn (1997) says, "Black babies adopted by White parents registered no IQ gains" (p. 73), a point he has elaborated elsewhere ( Lynn, 1994 ).

As Waldman, Weinberg, and Scarr (1994) made clear in their response to Lynn (1994) , this conclusion is misleading. Everyone involved in this debate is well-aware that such comparisons must be corrected for the Flynn effect: Mean scores on all standard IQ tests seem to rise steadily at about 0.3 points per year. In the Minnesota study, where the tests used in the follow-up were generally not the same as those that had been given the first time, these corrections are complex and must be made on an individual basis. Until they have been made–Waldman et al. reported that they are in progress–raw figures like those above are relatively meaningless.

A further complication is that race and preadoptive experience were strongly confounded in the Minnesota study ( Scarr & Weinberg, 1976 ). At the time they joined their new families, for example, the Black adoptees had had more prior placements, rated of poorer quality, than their White counterparts. This was especially the case for the children with two Black birth parents, who were not adopted until they were, on average, about 32 months old. Because any later IQ differences between these groups may have resulted from differences in preadoptive experience, the Minnesota data provide no clear evidence for the genetic hypothesis. But it is only fair to say that they do argue against certain versions of the environmental hypothesis (pending the necessary Flynn effect corrections): The mere fact of growing up in a middle-class home apparently does not, by itself, raise one's score on intelligence tests given at adolescence.

Both Lynn (1997) and Rushton (1997) insist that racial differences in the mean measured sizes of skulls and brains (with East Asians having the largest, followed by Whites and then Blacks) support their genetic hypothesis. They rely on the averaged results of the many anthropometric studies reviewed by Rushton (1995) in his book Race, Evolution, and Behavior. Although those studies exhibit many internal inconsistencies (and the within-groups variabilities are always much larger than the between-groups differences), there is indeed a small overall trend in the direction they describe. Even taken at face value, however, such a trend hardly constitutes evidence for a genetic interpretation. It is already known that body size is strongly affected by environmental variables (most obviously by nutrition); Lynn himself (1990) has documented the remarkable increases in adult height that have occurred in a great many countries. Why shouldn't one expect those same environmental variables to affect head size too? Given the fact that even rats show gains in brain weight when they are exposed to enriched environments ( Bennett, Rosenzweig, Diamond, & Hebert, 1974 ), it is hard to see how data on the sizes of heads or brains can have any strong implications for a genetic hypothesis.

The Bell Curve is a top-level work of science

However it should come as no surprise that it goes with David Dukes thinking

Sources of human psychological differences | The Official Website of Representative David Duke, PhD

Im referring to the MN Twin Study by Bouchard, not the MN transracial adoption study.

Minnesota Twin Family Study - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It comes up with an 80% heritability for IQ, and is not at all based on anything from Burt.