Who Will Stop The Balkanization?

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

Some sites I have begun to frequent recently.

http://www.gnxp.com/

http://www.vdare.com/

I'll be reading this classic soon:

http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf

“(An) incendiary thesis....that separate races of human beings evolved different reproductive strategies to cope with
different environments and that these strategies led to physical differences in brain size and hence in intelligence.
Human beings who evolved in the warm but highly unpredictable environment of Africa adopted a strategy of high
reproduction, while human beings who migrated to the hostile cold of Europe and northern Asia took to producing
fewer children but nurturing them more carefully.”
---Malcolm W. Browne, New York Times Book Review


“Rushton is a serious scholar who has assembled serious data. Consider just one example: brain size. The empirical
reality, verified by numerous modern studies, including several based on magnetic resonance imaging, is that a
significant and substantial relationship does exist between brain size and measured intelligence after body size is
taken into account and that the races do have different distributions of brain size.”
---Charles Murray, Afterword to The Bell Curve

“Describes hundreds of studies worldwide that show a consistent pattern of human racial differences in such
characteristics as intelligence, brain size, genital size, strength of sex drive, reproductive potency, industriousness,
sociability, and rule following. On each of these variables, the groups are aligned in the order: Orientals, Caucasians,
Blacks.”
---Mark Snyderman, National Review


“Rushton’s Race, Evolution, and Behavior...is an attempt to understand [race] differences in terms of life-history
evolution....Perhaps there ultimately will be some serious contribution from the traditional smoke-and-mirrors social
science treatment of IQ, but for now Rushton’s framework is essentially the only game in town.”
---Henry Harpending, Evolutionary Anthropology

The only acceptable explanation of race differences in behavior allowed in public discourse is an entirely
environmental one...Professor Rushton deserves our gratitude for having the courage to declare that ‘this emperor
has no clothes,’ and that a more satisfactory explanation must be sought.”
---Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr., University of Minnesota

[SDML]

Hahahaha!!!!!!!!!!

Interesting for a history lesson, but brain size is not a factor in intelligence. Whoever thinks that is wrong...or has to convince not only all of science but even laymen that whales and elephants are smarter than humans.

The ratio between body size and brain size is a much better indicator (but still doesn't speak to density or complexity of connections).

The linguist Benjamin Worf, if memory serves, was also looking into the language spoken as an indicator of excellence because of the fact that Germans have a disproportionate number of folks who have excelled in a variety of areas (more Nobel prizes, for example, and Olympic medals).

These sources also ignore multiple intel and use incorrect and clumsy terms like "more intelligent" and "less intelligent" when, in fact, no such thing exists as such.

Read the classic because they are classic, but read 21st century research & discoveries when forming opinions.

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

Hahahaha!!!!!!!!!!

Interesting for a history lesson, but brain size is not a factor in intelligence. Whoever thinks that is wrong...or has to convince not only all of science but even laymen that whales and elephants are smarter than humans.

The ratio between body size and brain size is a much better indicator (but still doesn't speak to density or complexity of connections).

The linguist Benjamin Worf, if memory serves, was also looking into the language spoken as an indicator of excellence because of the fact that Germans have a disproportionate number of folks who have excelled in a variety of areas (more Nobel prizes, for example, and Olympic medals).

These sources also ignore multiple intel and use incorrect and clumsy terms like "more intelligent" and "less intelligent" when, in fact, no such thing exists as such.

Read the classic because they are classic, but read 21st century research & discoveries when forming opinions.

Were you going top make an argument, SDML?

Studies reach conflicting conclusions regarding the controversial idea that brain size correlates positively with IQ. Jensen and Reed claim no direct correlation exists in nonpathological subjects.[44] A more recent meta-analysis suggests otherwise.[45]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#IQ_and_the_brain

The relationship between brain volume and intelligence has been a topic of a scientific debate since at least the
1830s. To address the debate, a meta-analysis of the relationship between in vivo brain volume and intelligence
was conducted. Based on 37 samples across 1530 people, the population correlation was estimated at 0.33. The
correlation is higher for females than males. It is also higher for adults than children. For all age and sex groups, it
is clear that brain volume is positively correlated with intelligence

http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mamcdani/Big-Brained%20article.pdf

Furthermore, this 21st century stuff is becoming tiresome as you are so fond of saying. Did I take research from the mid 1990s or the 1920s? A history lesson? Dumbass, I'd like to measure your cranium! 

Frankly, I'm insulted.

[SDML]

Why are you insulted?

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

Hahaha!

is a slap in the face and so was your ridiculous comment about whales.

[SDML]

Given the text following the "hahaha" was bitch-slapping the notion of brain size (note the quote from the first reviewer), you needn't take it personally unless you actually believe that tripe. The mention of whales was FAR from ridiculous. It was the same reference made by the author of the study I read years ago when discussing this topic, and demonstrates clearly that brain SIZE is not a proper indicator.

Now, if the reviewer (Browne, from the NYT) is mistaken and the book didn't actually say brain size, then it renders this portion of the discussion frivolous.

Either way, I hardly see the need to be insulted.

[conleys ghost]

i dont have a dog in the fight but...

i would assume if one were making the argument for brain size being an indicator it would obviously be within species...i dont think any of the people who hold that position would propose whales, dinosaurs, elephants, etc are smarter than people and to suggest that is a bit of a straw man. no?

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

Given the text following the "hahaha" was bitch-slapping the notion of brain size (note the quote from the first reviewer), you needn't take it personally unless you actually believe that tripe. The mention of whales was FAR from ridiculous. It was the same reference made by the author of the study I read years ago when discussing this topic, and demonstrates clearly that brain SIZE is not a proper indicator.

Now, if the reviewer (Browne, from the NYT) is mistaken and the book didn't actually say brain size, then it renders this portion of the discussion frivolous.

Either way, I hardly see the need to be insulted.

When comparing different species the ratio of brain weight to body weight does present a correlation with intelligence, though the actual brain weight has little or no effect. For example, the ratio of brain weight to body weight for fish is 1:5000; for reptiles it is about 1:1500; for birds, 1:220; for most mammals, 1:180, and for humans, 1:50. However within the human species modern studies using MRI have shown that brain size shows substantial and consistent correlation ( r = .35 to .43 in various studies) with IQ among adults of the same sex [1] Some scientists prefer to look at more qualitative variables such to relate the size of measurable regions of known function. For example relating the size of the primary visual cortex to its corresponding functions, that of visual performance.[1][2].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_intelligence

I was insulted because of unreasonably dismissive attitude. Forget it though. I calmed down.  

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

i dont have a dog in the fight but...

i would assume if one were making the argument for brain size being an indicator it would obviously be within species...i dont think any of the people who hold that position would propose whales, dinosaurs, elephants, etc are smarter than people and to suggest that is a bit of a straw man. no?

Of course! Then he wonders why I was angry!

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

Now if SDML presents evidence/sources suggesting no relationship then thats fine. I just don't appreciate someone saying that I am defending an absurd position. Clearly it is not absurd and I believe it to be the truth. Yes, I do believe this tripe . 

[SDML]

Kon-Lee - One could reasonably make that assumption. It wouldn't help them, however, as brain size is not, in fact, a proper indicator of intelligence.

Further, IQ - since it has been used in several threads to justify what smacks to me as racially biased opinion - mostly only measures (and unreliably at that) one type of intelligence (the word "intelligence" itself is a blanket term, and IQ tests attempt to measure, in the Gardner model, "logical intelligence" and, to a much lesser degree, "linguistic intelligence"; in the Sternberg model, it only measures "analytical intelligence").

ANY discussion, whether it be a book or a paper or a chat on an internet forum, that ignores that while harping about IQs or racial inequalities with regard to intelligence is relying on much out-dated material and is a step away from silly.

Mr. D - "Size" is not synonymous with "volume" or "mass" or "body to brain ratio" or "density/complexity of connections" and the like. However, if you are still stuck on "size" I will be happy to read the current data you've provided...even though everything I've read states size alone is not a factor at all. At all.

[conleys ghost]

Kon-Lee - One could reasonably make that assumption. It wouldn't help them, however, as brain size is not, in fact, a proper indicator of intelligence.

Further, IQ - since it has been used in several threads to justify what smacks to me as racially biased opinion - mostly only measures (and unreliably at that) one type of intelligence (the word "intelligence" itself is a blanket term, and IQ tests attempt to measure, in the Gardner model, "logical intelligence" and, to a much lesser degree, "linguistic intelligence"; in the Sternberg model, it only measures "analytical intelligence").

i'm sure there's not a perfect correlation b/w brain size and and intelligence...i am unsure if there is any relation at all. as you say even measuring intelligence is tricky, and as i understand the IQ test is outdated culturally biased and not the end-all be-all. the science alone on both sides is very tricky, and then when you add the powderkeg component to it and scientists on both sides with agendas the waters get even more murkey.

having said that i do enjoy reading both of your opinions on the matter.....

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzZZzz
riveting.  regarding com lee's "dog in this fight" comment.  the first time i heard that phrase was some years back, i was working the door in a night club and a particularly huge individual became incensed with one of our employees.  i remember standing in front of this mountain of a man and wondering how many pieces of me he would tear off and would all of it be found within the same zip code.  he looked down from the clouds and said "boy you gotta dog in this fight?"  without hesitation i responded that i lived in an apartment and was not even allowed to have a dog!  it seemed to amuse him and i lived to run another day. 

[conleys ghost]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzZZzz
riveting.  regarding com lee's "dog in this fight" comment.  the first time i heard that phrase was some years back, i was working the door in a night club and a particularly huge individual became incensed with one of our employees.  i remember standing in front of this mountain of a man and wondering how many pieces of me he would tear off and would all of it be found within the same zip code.  he looked down from the clouds and said "boy you gotta dog in this fight?"  without hesitation i responded that i lived in an apartment and was not even allowed to have a dog!  it seemed to amuse him and i lived to run another day. 

  ... i guess i should stop using that phrase, i never thought about where it originated from

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

Look, we are not scientists. I am trying to familiarize myself with some of this work but I am not going to pretend that I am even close to as knowledgeable in this area as I am in world history and culture. I wanted to show that there is ongoing debate about brain "size" and it's relatioship to IQ. Moreover, I did use the term loosely and would include "volume" in my argument. I shall take you at your word (i.e. that you didn't know what I meant specifically) and be more precise in the future. I doubt very much, however, that you would find one of these statements more palatable than the other:

1) Some groups have lower intelligence than others because of smaller brain size.

2) Some groups have lower intelligence than others because of lower brain volume.

 

Anyway, I know where I stand and I know that my positions are defensible. There are biologically distinct human races and these races differ in their cognitive capacity amng many other traits. I don't mind you questioning my assertions since all assertions should be questioned and I claim no expertise in this area. I just found it offensive when you treated them as outlandish bunk when it is clear that at least part of the scientfic community would agree with me. You may not agree with the above and may present evidence/arguments in support. Fine. Moreover, I understand the history of the ideas I'm espousing and understand the initial reaction they will get.

Fair enough?