Scientists Identify Gene Linking Brain Structure to Intelligence

King's College London, February 11, 2014

For the first time, scientists at King’s College London have identified a gene linking the thickness of the grey matter in the brain to intelligence. The study is published today in Molecular Psychiatry and may help scientists understand biological mechanisms behind some forms of intellectual impairment.

The researchers looked at the cerebral cortex, the outermost layer of the human brain. It is known as ‘grey matter’ and plays a key role in memory, attention, perceptual awareness, thought, language and consciousness. Previous studies have shown that the thickness of the cerebral cortex, or ‘cortical thickness’, closely correlates with intellectual ability, however no genes had yet been identified.

An international team of scientists, led by King’s, analysed DNA samples and MRI scans from 1,583 healthy 14 year old teenagers, part of the IMAGEN cohort. The teenagers also underwent a series of tests to determine their verbal and non-verbal intelligence.

Dr Sylvane Desrivières, from the MRC Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre at King’s College London’s Institute of Psychiatry and lead author of the study, said: “We wanted to find out how structural differences in the brain relate to differences in intellectual ability. The genetic variation we identified is linked to synaptic plasticity–how neurons communicate. This may help us understand what happens at a neuronal level in certain forms of intellectual impairments, where the ability of the neurons to communicate effectively is somehow compromised.”

She adds: “It’s important to point out that intelligence is influenced by many genetic and environmental factors. The gene we identified only explains a tiny proportion of the differences in intellectual ability, so it’s by no means a ‘gene for intelligence’.”

The researchers looked at over 54,000 genetic variants possibly involved in brain development. They found that, on average, teenagers carrying a particular gene variant had a thinner cortex in the left cerebral hemisphere, particularly in the frontal and temporal lobes, and performed less well on tests for intellectual ability. The genetic variation affects the expression of the NPTN gene, which encodes a protein acting at neuronal synapses and therefore affects how brain cells communicate.

To confirm their findings, the researchers studied the NPTN gene in mouse and human brain cells. The researchers found that the NPTN gene had a different activity in the left and right hemispheres of the brain, which may cause the left hemisphere to be more sensitive to the effects of NPTN mutations. Their findings suggest that some differences in intellectual abilities can result from the decreased function of the NPTN gene in particular regions of the left brain hemisphere.

The genetic variation identified in this study only accounts for an estimated 0.5% of the total variation in intelligence. However, the findings may have important implications for the understanding of biological mechanisms underlying several psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia, autism, where impaired cognitive ability is a key feature of the disorder.

Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • NeanderthalDNA

    For the first time, scientists at King’s College London have identified a gene linking the thickness of the grey matter in the brain to intelligence. The study is published today in Molecular Psychiatry and may help scientists understand biological mechanisms behind some forms of intellectual impairment.
    ————————-
    Now, take and examine samples of significant numbers of people of all races and…

    Flee for your lives and kiss your careers goodbye you racist scientists!!!!!

    It’s still coming out. This is the beginning of the end of the great obamanation lie…

    • Puggg

      I predict this research will be perfected and finished in China.

      • NeanderthalDNA

        The “we’re all just alike” thing reminds me of any other pseudo-scientific fraud.

        The adherents of it cannot tolerate rigorous scientific methodology. Why not? Same reason believers in ESP cannot.

        They know deep down they will be proven wrong and this enfuriates/terrifies them.

      • Spartacus

        Who’ll then sit on it until we get rid of our enemies and figure out how to make something useful of it .

      • sshadow

        I doubt that they have the creativity and super intellect to explore all the implications.

        • Puggg

          Try this:

          Done and finished in China, but by mostly sane white people. China provides the geographical protection from the PC iron boot, while white people provide the brainpower and creativity.

    • John_HD

      I figure scientists in the West will attempt to hide genetic intelligence differences in races. Chinese will gladly tout them. But yeah, the genetic basis for differences in intelligence should be well established within 15 years. The sooner the better.

      • Edruezzi

        That’s if the Chinese can discover even that.

    • Einsatzgrenadier

      Science will never convince the liberals. As far as they’re concerned, all empirical knowledge is subjective. Liberals will even resort to solipsism and the problem of induction to avoid the harsh realities of human existence. The only way to stop liberalism is through the establishment of a kinship-based racialism that will sweep away the old institutions. This can only be achieved through Machtkampf and Kulturkampf against the hardliners. Only when race becomes the center of white existence will liberalism be effectively stamped out.

      • Edruezzi

        To hard core liberals all empirical knowledge is subjective. To conservatives any knowledge they don’t like is part of an evil liberal plot. I don’t know which side is more obstreperous.

    • Garrett Brown

      This information will not be supported in obamanation.

      • NeanderthalDNA

        No, but can it really be suppressed in the long run?

        • Garrett Brown

          Yes, because if you think Obama was a horrible candidate wait until Hillary is elected and even worse after that. Nothing close to a realist will ever be elected nationally.

  • LovelyNordicHeidi

    It’s important to point out that intelligence is influenced by many genetic and environmental factors. The gene we identified only explains a tiny proportion of the differences in intellectual ability, so it’s by no means a ‘gene for intelligence’.
    ————————————————-

    The person who said this spreads misinformation, because she argues that the genetic and environmental factors are equal in amount. We know already that intelligence is more genetic than environmental, so the environmental factors cannot be THAT many. If she wanted to be honest, she should have said “It is important to point out that intelligence is influenced by many genetic and some environmental factors.”

    • Daniel Schmuhl

      IQ is about 85% heritable in adults according to most of the research I’ve read. Lots of the environmental contribution is pretty much unknown too.

      It’s interesting how academia is so specialized to the point where where some politically incorrect information rarely reaches the brains of other supposed *intellectuals*. Some really politically incorrect research is actually not known to many outside of the specialty.. A researcher can study the genetics of intelligence but remain totally unaware of the racial research. Another researcher might be aware of racial differences in IQ, but not well versed in the social,political, and economic effects of it.

    • antiquesunlight

      Makes sense to me. I don’t know the science on the subject, but common sense says that genetics would determine what your “ceiling” is and environmental factors would largely determine how close you get to that ceiling. I mean, that’s how everything else evidently is. Athletic ability, for example. You are only so athletic, and no amount of training will make you more or less athletic, it will just make you more fit and skillful. I would be surprised if science contradicted that view much regarding intelligence.

    • silviosilver

      Not quite. It could be the case that are (much) larger numbers of environmental than genetic factors but that the sum of their effects is not as potent as that of genetic factors. Of course, it might not be the case at all that there is a greater number of environmental factors, but the inherently (heh) arbitrary nature of delineations between environmental factors means they could be spliced up into infinitely small strips if one were so inclined – and race-deniers, if we know anything about them, are so inclined.

  • bigone4u

    I already see massive public skepticism in Internet comments about diversity. When gene studies prove racial and ethnic differences in intelligence and character, and show that blacks and browns are deficient in both, the Cult of Multiculturalism will be seen as a temporary insanity that overtook the West. That’s the moment to separate, to create a White ethnostate based on intelligence and character traits of Whites. I hope I live to see it.

    • NeanderthalDNA

      How many moderators are in the employ of MSM internet outlets engaging in keeping this under wraps?

      • BillMillerTime

        I have noticed a trend among the MSM sites. They are shutting down the comments section.

        • NeanderthalDNA

          Yep. They can’t silence the rising tide any other way.

          • BillMillerTime

            It has the effect of making their sites even less interesting, thus reducing their traffic, and reducing their revenue.

            I just hope I live long enough to see The New York Times crash and burn.

          • NeanderthalDNA

            The effort to squelch dissent must be monumental and getting difficult to maintain.

            My theory is that here is a great and growing swell of discomfort with our brave new world. The great silent majority wants nothing more than to have a “talk about race” but are only allowed to talk if they agree with Mr. Holder. And they are getting furious with being shut up.

    • Einsatzgrenadier

      Even if we understood the neurophysiological mechanism underlying the g-factor of intelligence, it would never be enough to convince liberals. Instead, they would probably use race differences in the neurophysiology of g as justification for why we need more affirmative action and welfare payments to minorities.

      There’s more than enough evidence proving the scientific validity of IQ, such as the uniform positive intercorrelations among tests of intelligence. This means that if you perform well on one test, you will perform equally well on all tests of general mental ability. Every time this matrix of intercorrelations is factor analyzed, it always leads to the consistent emergence of a single highly heritable g-factor. This is measured to some degree by all tests of general mental ability.

      If the empirical reality of the positive manifold will not convince multiculturalists, than why would the genetic evidence? Liberals would sooner deny the existence of an objective reality than admit that the g-men and the hereditarians were right all along. There are liberals who claim that if we believe something is true, it becomes true as if by magic. They argue that the structure of reality can be altered by simply imagining an alternative reality where the laws of nature do not apply.

      Because liberals are so delusional, the path to the white ethnostate will not be through science and reason. It must be through WN seizure of the institutions of political power, leading to a revolution in white racial consciousness and a return to the blood and soil nationalism of yesteryear.

      • Edruezzi

        You mean like a coup d’etat, right?

  • JohnEngelman

    I hope Charles Murray lives long enough to be vindicated.

    • MBlanc46

      And E.O. Wilson.

      • Bantu_Education

        Lets not forget the greatest self-sacrificing hero of all – Jared Taylor..!

        • MBlanc46

          Indeed.

        • Bantu_Education

          I wonder who down-ticked that comment, and why?

        • JohnEngelman

          And professors J. Phillipe Rushton and Arthur Jensen.

    • Aaron997

      and Watson

    • Einsatzgrenadier

      And Richard Lynn.

    • silviosilver

      I know what you mean, but it’s important to remember that daily reality has vindicated him (and before him Arthur Jensen, and William Shockley, and Audrey Shuey, and Hans Eysenck, and Lewis Terman, and many others both earlier and later) for decades now. So any evidence even more compelling than that already marshaled won’t come as some huge surprise to anybody. It will not be a case of “Ohmygod, who’d have ever thought?!”

      People in the naïve but reasonable “middle” already have a some sense of racial reality and will display more than mild disappointment, since they have invested so much of themselves in hoping against hope that racial realism is “pseudo-science,” but such findings will not come as a complete surprise. The anti-white left, invested in mendacity rather than hope, will be the least surprised of all. While I believe the best revenge is living well, I would not be disheartened to live to see the leaders of the anti-white left getting their just deserts.

  • MBlanc46

    The chinks are really starting to appear in the nurturist armor. It can’t be too much longer before the tipping point in the empirical evidence comes. Then look for an epic battle over freedom of speech and academic freedom.

    • JohnEngelman

      Nurturists suppress a debate they know they cannot win. Ever since the black ghetto riots started they have been living a lie. They do not want to be told the truth. They do not want us to.

      • Fak_Zakaix

        Tell me again how a (implicit or explicit) social Darwinist like you explains the transition from the traditional society to modern society, modernization/industrialisation for short, that happened in the span of 150-200 years in Western Europe between, let’s say, the late 18th century until the first oil shock.

        How can such a HUGE societal change in such a SHORT time relative to the scale of human history, a change not only in social behaviour but also in ideology, mentality, etc. happen from a biological point of view.

        Something equivalent in the animal world would be for example the ancient lion to evolve into a different animal in our lifetime!

        Various early SOCIOLOGISTS had a crack at an explanation: Giambattista Vico, Auguste Comte, Karl Mark & Friedrich Engels, Max Weber, Émile Durkheim, Ferdinand Tönnies, Georg Simmel, etc, etc.

        To imply that they were part of a left-wing liberal anti-racist philo-African conspiracy is anachronistic if not outright insane.

        There were many early race-realist biological determinist thinkers who had a crack too: Arthur de Gobineau, Georges Vacher de Lapouge, Herbert Spencer, Ernst Haeckel, Francis Galton, Charles Davenport, etc, etc.
        However the latter are today only of arcane historical significance while the former are still intensively studied in universities THROUGHOUT the world!

        • JohnEngelman

          The West achieved its dominance over other civilizations during the Italian Renaissance. It was then that the scientific method was developed fully. Before the Renaissance extraterrestrial explorers from another planet would have agreed that civilization in the West was behind that of the Orient (especially China) and the Muslim countries, especially the Ottoman Empire.

          Because scientific knowledge has military uses, and because Europe was divided into different nation states, competition between European countries contributed to the further development of science.

          This further development made the industrial revolution possible.

          • Bantu_Education

            If competition between nation states is what led to the European scientific surge, then there is no hope for China to match us unless it splits up into many competing countries?

          • Karolina

            “there is no hope for China to match us unless it splits up into many competing countries?”

            Well, unless they copy us, this is the only other way. Competition breeds results, which is why capitalism will always win over communism.

          • Edruezzi

            Have a conversation with a Chinese person from mainland China with little or no contact with the West and you’ll understand why China will never match the West.

          • JohnEngelman

            When the Chinese had that attitude they fell behind the West. They no longer have that attitude. They are moving ahead fast.

          • JohnEngelman

            China is competing with the rest of the world. It is competing well.

          • Edruezzi

            The great rise of China has resulted from Western companies exploiting the cheap labor of hundreds of millions of Chinese. Western companies began to drool when they realized they could pay ten Chinese what they did not dare pay one American or European worker and so they headed there.
            If it’s being the sweatshop of the world, China is competing well. On the other hand, only Europe could have people spending $15 billion to build and operate a machine that carries out the abstruse task of determining if the Higgs boson exists. Maybe China has a better trade balance, but who cares?

          • Edruezzi

            China is a very large developing country. 75% of the Chinese are rural peasants. More than 50% of them have never met a Western style doctor. If Richard Nixon had ignored China during the era of detente nobody would have noticed.

          • Edruezzi

            I’d say something a lot of people ignore led to the European scientific surge. It’s so obvious and maybe that’s why people don’t notice. However, can it be entirely coincidental that the scientific revolution began after the invention of printing by Gutenberg? From what we know about Galileo or Kepler or Newton, the balance of power international politics of Europe didn’t intrude on their studies.

          • Fak_Zakaix

            Your explanation is not good at all.

            Firstly, the scientific revolution happened during the Baroque era, the 17th century. Of course that Renaissance helped. Scholasticism helped too, be it as a negative example. But what helped mostly was the Greco-Roman heritage that the German tribes finally accepted as their own, a thing that the Arabs/Muslims and Jews did not and rightly so.

            Secondly, I expected an entirely different sort of explanation from you. Not a culturalist but a biological one.

            I expected something of this sort: the Jews had been expelled from Spain and they immigrated to Northern Europe which was a more tolerant place and there they initiated with their superior brains the scientific revolution, blah, blah. That Galileo, Kepler, Decartes, Newton etc. were in fact Marranos, etc.

            Or on a Nordicist line a la Madison Grant and Hitler: that during the European wars of religion the Protestant Nordic race eliminated a great chunk of the inferior swarthy Catholic Europeans:

            “The Latin malus [Bad] (beside which I set melas [Greek: black, dark]) may designate the common man as the dark-colored, above all as the black-haired man (“hic niger est—” [From Horace's Satires]), as the pre-Aryan occupant of the soil of Italy who was distinguished most obviously from the blond, that is Aryan, conqueror race by his color; Gaelic, at any rate, offers us a precisely similar case—fin (for example in the name Fin-Gal), the distinguishing word for nobility, finally for the good, noble, pure, originally meant the blond-headed, in contradistinction to the dark, black-haired aboriginal inhabitants.”
            - Nietzsche (this philo-Semite Nordicist), On the Genealogy of Morals
            and as a consequence, blah, blah.

            Because, you see, according to biological determinists not only “old dogs cannot learn new tricks” but entire breeds of dogs. And in order to improve the dog species one has to sterilise dogs with an IQ below a certain threshold – eugenics the hard way, for short. And what is true for dogs is true for Homo Sapiens as well, of course.

            Conservative intellectuals in Europe during the 18th and 19th centuries held pessimist views about human potential and endorsed the status quo, that is, static caste-based societies, because they considered the upper classes and especially the aristocracy as inherently superior to the lower classes.

            Examples: Arthur de Gobineau, Nietzsche, and many others.

            Furthermore, they also believed that women generally and Jews and non-White races are inherently inferior to White men.
            Forget Black slavery. Look how White people treated White people.
            I also know that you hold pessimist views not only about Blacks but also about low-class White Americans, like the eugenicists of the past.

            In contrast progressist intellectuals were optimist about human possibilities and believed that the welfare of the lower classes and of women can be raised through social reform and education.
            One such intellectual was the writer Victor Hugo. In his novel Les Miserables he imagined the possibility that human condition can be improved through education, a different attitude and social reforms.
            If the characters of Fantine, Cossette, Marius, Gavroche, etc. were Black, probably you would consider them as false.
            However, the French society changed HUGELY for the better on the lines envisioned by people like Victor Hugo while the pessimist vision of de Gobineau, Galton, Lombroso, etc. proved wrong.
            Thirdly, during the transition to modernity Europeans had to LEARN how to live in a city-based modern society. How to follow a daily work program, how to attend factory work daily, to learn that “time is money”, to learn to use banks and bank services, to acquire the necessary education, to use medically trained medics instead of quacks, to read books, newspapers, etc, etc.
            Things that you consider that Blacks have a difficulty in learning.
            So how the “inherently inferior” White peasants, proletarians, lumpen or not, and women managed in such a relatively short time to LEARN all those things? Because I hope that you will not say that some eugenics experiment happen in the meantime, a thing that was not recorded by history to the chagrin of the conservative people who died embittered.

          • silviosilver

            You’re engaging in theatrics. Biological elements must be factored into any account of human progress, but human progress cannot be accounted for in terms of biological elements alone. Biology is necessary, but not sufficient.

          • Fak_Zakaix

            Why am I given the silent treatment? ;-)
            My point was also to defend social science.
            Because, you see, those race realist scientists have an agenda of their own. They want to promote their subject and to encroach on the territory of other social sciences.
            The most basic science is not biology but physics. Now, try to explain human behaviour with physics… Difficult, impossible.
            The most holistic social science is geopolitics, imo. There the actors are entire countries: sea powers VS heartland powers.
            As in the quote from Richard Lynn in my other post, these race realists try to explain world history too. Hitler too in his Mein Kampf offered his vision of the world history in terms of the struggle between races. So a biological explanation. However, he also used geopolitical arguments. Of course, one argument does not exclude the other. But they are two different approaches that may contradict each other.
            Kevin Macdonald in his CoC criticised cultural anthropologist Franz Boas as being motivated by Jewish interests. very cogent criticism. However, Kevin is defending physical anthropology/evolutionary psychology (his field) to the detriment of social sciences.
            That Boas promoted cultural anthropology because he was Jewish is very plausible. However, physical anthropology was overcome by cultural anthropology not because of some sort of conspiracy but because it proved sterile in comparison with the culturalist approach.
            Moreover, Kevin is criticising psychoanalysis because he considers that it brought debauchery to the White Christian people while the Jews were immune to it. That Freud was a chauvinist Jew it is no question about.
            However, the unconsciousness, the irrational behaviour, the Freudian slips, the paramount importance of sexuality in our lives, etc. are objective realities and Freud was one of the earliest person to bring attention to them. He said/discovered many interesting and pertinent things.
            What Kevin wants in fact is that White Americans live like the Amish people…
            What puzzles me is why White Nationalists in America are concerned with the demise of the White race. There are the Amish…
            Or maybe Kevin wants the whole USA to become a huge Amish community and the non-White people expelled, killed or interned in reservations (no problem with that, I am White though not of Nordic extraction) and the USA to become an autarchic country like Cuba or North Korea so to prevent the miscegenation with non-Whites?
            Because, this is what I keep asking: what is the practical application of the race realism? What is the relevance for our life?
            OK, they discovered the gene that makes Blacks stupid. And?
            Would this be an invitation for the White people to topple the government and to impose a White fascist regime. Or what?

          • silviosilver

            If by “silent treatment” you mean specifically my failure to reply, the reason is I have been off the internet for a few days.

            Racial realism is necessary because the prevailing culture insists – loudly, menacingly – that racial differences do not exist to any meaningful degree, and bases even the most important public policies on that assumption. If results fail to conform to racial expectations then scapegoats are quickly sought, and those scapegoats are typically white people, both individuals and the race as a whole. Racial realism helps correct this morally grotesque state of affairs, which is why many people favor it, but racial realism is one part of a broader biological realism which treats heritable differences seriously.

            Fascism is not the only way a basic right to racial life can be achieved. The insistence that it is is one of the anti-white left’s standard go-to tactics, because they understand the abhorrence most people have for both the totalitarian social system implied and the violence that is considered inherent to it. In reality, the superior way of life possible in a racially “homogeneous” (or “mixed” but to a sensible, related degree) society is reason enough to prefer it to the alternative of madcap mass diversity.

          • silviosilver

            I reread your comment, and while I still believe you are engaging in theatrics, and while I also think you are attacking straw men, there is also a note of genuine concern in your voice and it is worth addressing.

            Quite simply, my reply to you is this: imitation is easier than innovation. It is easier to learn calculus than to invent it. It is easier to build an internal combustion engine after someone has shown you how to do it than to come up with the idea yourself. It is eminently reasonable to believe that some populations are endowed with a greater proportion of innovators than other populations.

            Secondly, some people learn better than others. IQ data can be immensely helpful in predicting what proportion of a population can be expected to learn a certain subject to a certain degree. Much more than mere conjecture, this hypothesis has been tested, studied, tested again and studied again for decades now. Surely it’s telling that with all the effort put into improving social outcomes that has occurred over the past fifty years results are no better (in some ways worse) than the social outcomes which obtained before WWII, a time when, equalitarians are keen to assure us, society cared little for blacks and other minorities.

            With respect to the 19th and early 20th century conservatives who died embittered, while I would agree that everything they said was necessarily suspect (since it defended and justified their privileges) it doesn’t mean everything they said was necessarily false. That some individuals are naturally better at certain things than other individuals, and that some groups are naturally better on average at some things than other groups, is one of the things they said which does not seem false at all.

            And it is highly naïve to assume that the reason names such as Galton, Davenport, Spencer and de Gobineau are mainly of arcane interest today is the falsity of their beliefs; rather, it is in large part also because of the truth of those beliefs (the truth of some of them, anyway). Very few sociologists today would agree with everything that an Emile Durkheim said, but they are not at all embarrassed to explain the inspiration he provided to subsequent sociologists; I too do not agree with everything a Herbert Spencer or other pejoratively termed “social Darwinists” believed but neither am I ashamed to say their views inspired me to understand the world in a certain way.

          • Fak_Zakaix

            1. It is not theatrics. It is called style. And “the style is the man himself”. My post was also part of a longer discussion that I had with Engelman. But you are right that I use him as a “straw man”.
            When I write, I basically write to myself.
            He also has the nice habit of replying to almost every post… So you can be sure that somebody reads you. But he has his limitations. He already has reached the point when is just repeating himself.

            2. “It is eminently reasonable to believe that some populations are endowed with a greater proportion of innovators than other populations.”

            Yes, of course. But which are they? How can you test this because populations do not stay racially pure throughout history?

            Lynn similarly says:
            “More controversially, Professor Lynn claims the IQ differences between France and Germany can be linked to the results of military confrontations, describing it as “a hitherto unrecognised law of history” that “the side with the higher IQ normally wins, unless they are hugely outnumbered, as Germany was after 1942″.”

            But how does he know because he doesn’t have the IQ of ancient Macedonians, Persians, Romans, Phoenicians, Gauls, Germans, Huns, etc. What was the IQ of the Byzantines, of the Normans, of the Franks, of the Crusaders, etc.? It’s just rubbish.

            2. “Surely it’s telling that with all the effort put into improving social outcomes that has occurred over the past fifty years results are no better (in some ways worse) than the social outcomes which obtained before WWII, a time when, equalitarians are keen to assure us, society cared little for blacks and other minorities.”

            Forget for a moment about Blacks. Think about the European societies. Why are they much more equalitarian now than they were in the 19th century let alone in the centuries before?

            And I am not taking of generosity from above. Lower-class people converged to the middle-class status in a process called “embourgeoisement”. A thing that annoyed Karl Marx greatly because it contradicted his thesis of increasing immiseration.

            There is also the phenomenon of upward and downward social mobility. If biological determinism is simple or strict how can this happen? In school many pupils with working-class parents were smarter and more ambitious than me with graduate parents.

            3. “That some individuals are naturally better at certain things than other individuals, and that some groups are naturally better on average at some things than other groups, is one of the things they said which does not seem false at all.”

            Again, of course. But to state it in general terms is a banality with which everyone agrees. The controversy comes when you pinpoint the groups.

            Robert Malthus argued that absolute poverty is a fixture of humanity. Many people at that time considered the thought banal. Jesus said after all that “the poor will always be with you”.

            Progressist thinkers were horrified with the argument. Thomas Carlyle called political economy “the dismal science”.

            Malthus proved to be wrong.

            4. “I too do not agree with everything a Herbert Spencer or other pejoratively termed “social Darwinists” believed but neither am I ashamed to say their views inspired me to understand the world in a certain way.”

            Hmm.

            Here my reply will be a bit longer and maybe less coherent.

            I read AmRen and generally the press for two things: gossip and facts and theories about reality. They seem to be two entirely different things, one pure entertainment and the other serious and useful stuff.

            Or not?

            Nietzsche said that the relevant question is not “what” but “who”.

            Not “what Plato said?” but “who Plato really was?”.

            Gossip is used in the political arena to damage the reputation of people. The true gossip about the plagiarism of Martin Luther King reduced his standing. The gossip that David Duke used donation money for his gambling addiction was meant to destroy him. He still asks for donations on his site… Would you give?

            Paul Johnson in the book “The Intellectuals” showed that Karl Marx was not the dispassionate social thinker that he pretended to be. He was quarrelsome, rabid, intellectually dishonest, a political animal.

            Lenin claimed that he fought for the Revolution because he wanted to end the exploitation of the proletarians. However, some claimed that he just wanted to take revenge on the killing of his brother by the Tsar.

            Are these gossips important? Of course they are. Because, you see, people not only have the habit of lying but also that of lying to themselves.

            And if the stakes are so high as to gamble your life on some doctrine, teaching, theory, thesis, ideology, religion, discourse, text, book than it is wiser to ask not “what” but “who”.

            Because you will run the risk of instead fighting for “Mine Kampf” to fight for “Their Kampf” and to end up shouting like Uncle Vanya :”You have wrecked my life. I have never lived. My best years have gone for nothing, have been ruined, thanks to you. You are my most bitter enemy!”

            “The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.”

            I believe in the eternal Tao, in Truth, in an objective Reality, in a psychological Reality but this (what I read on AmRen, the authors mentioned, Jared Taylor et al.) is not the eternal Tao.
            I am still not too old. I have to keep looking for My Truth and Mine Kampf.

          • LHathaway

            nice bit of sarcams but who knows what Engleman believes? It would seem all Engleman has picked up is the worst part of AmRen, the ‘biological’ argument that is sometimes made here. Or what little he would need to appear to ‘fit in’ here? Never-the-less Engleman appears to be right quite often in his posts.

            by the way, if women and the white poor and all these other oppressed groups have progressed so much (do to your benevolent guidance and care, no doubt), as you seem to imply they have progressed, how do you explain what I see every day outside my window? Better yet, how do you explain the Jerry Springer show?

            Your right, conservative ideologies have died out and their proponents are likely embittered, forgotten or even lampooned. How is the world a better place by any measurable standard?

          • Fak_Zakaix

            1. “by the way, if women and the white poor and all these other oppressed groups have progressed so much (do to your benevolent guidance and care, no doubt), as you seem to imply they have progressed”

            Not because of benevolence but because of the social force of modernity. Marx&Engels described that force most eloquently in the “Communist Manifesto” written in 1848! They called it Capitalism or industrialisation.

            More and more women join the labour force and achieve equal status with men in countries where there is no feminist political force: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bhutan, Lagos, etc.

            It must be because of the process of modernisation, of industrialisation, of urbanisation, of capitalism and not because of feminism.

            2. “how do you explain what I see every day outside my window? Better yet, how do you explain the Jerry Springer show?”

            Here you have a point. But maybe you see the half empty part of the glass.

            I said that France changed hugely for the better since the time of Victor Hugo. But one can still find (White) street children in Paris.
            One can still find Dickensian characters in Britain.
            So in a sense nothing changed.

            Many people in America believe that debauchery started in the
            Annus Mirabilis nineteen sixty-three but read Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales.

            We are drawn from the same stationary unconditional statistical distribution called Homo Sapiens.

            3. “How is the world a better place by any measurable standard?”

            But why do you expect it to be different?

            We have three enemies in life: Nature, ourselves, and the other people.

            Because the character is largely genetically determined we can consider “ourselves” as part of Nature. So there are only two enemies.

            Humanity is united like in Star Trek in the fight against Nature. We conquered together poverty, hunger, many crippling diseases, protected ourselves from natural disasters, live more and more comfortable, etc.

            “Life has improved, comrades. Life has become more joyous” to quote Uncle Joe.

            However, when it comes to compete for desirable women, degrees, jobs, social positions, Nobel prizes, Oscars, territory, resources, lebensraum, personal space, breathing space than we are more like in Star Wars, bellum omnium contra omnes.

            Homo Sapiens is an animal notorious for its excessive, outright malicious, gratuitous, for sheer fun intraspecific violence.
            So why do you expect any different? At least we can console ourselves with the thought that in the distant future we will play with lightsabers…

          • Einsatzgrenadier

            Then those extraterrestrials were obviously indoctrinated in PC multiculturalism.

            The Chinese were less advanced than westerners, even during the pre-Renaissance period. For example, the Chinese significantly lagged behind Europeans when it came to civil engineering and architecture. Most of their buildings were made of wood and mud, which is why very little ancient Chinese architecture has managed to survive to the present. The Chinese lacked knowledge of structural concrete and their glass-making abilities were sub-par. They lagged behind the west in geometry and logic; their philosophy and literature were considerably inferior to anything produced in pre-Renaissance Europe. The Chinese also relied on scrolls for a much longer period of time than the west. They continued to believe the earth was flat until introduced to modern European astronomy by the Jesuits of the seventeenth century.

            The same goes for the Muslims, who simply inherited the knowledge of the ancient Greeks and Romans. They contributed little of scientific or philosophical value. The Islamic Caliphate was heavily dependent on the impressive achievements of its Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian population. Muslims persecuted their most famous intellectuals and scholars; the writings of these scholars were totally ignored by subsequent generations of Muslims. When the Muslims conquered Vandal Spain in the 8th century, they destroyed a thriving Greco-Roman civilization and replaced it with an Arab-created Dark Age.

          • Karolina

            “They continued to believe the earth was flat”

            No one really believed the Earth was flat to any significant degree. I doubt the rest of your statement, except the Muslim part; I wholly agree with that.

          • Anna Tree

            John, the West achieved its dominance long before the Italian Renaissance.

            You should research earlier, read more about the Middle Age that what we were told (and then of course before that there was the Roman Empire and the Ancient Greeks, you must know how ahead they were already, you just forgot it seems):

            There weren’t really dark ages, it is just the
            people living the Renaissance looked at the previous generations with a
            better-than-thee attitude. Consequently we now call this period the
            Middle Ages.

            From Michael Crichton: “We owe much to the Middle Age. Our present
            Western world is more the result of the Middle Ages than the
            Renaissance. The Renaissance gave us art and and freedoms but those were
            already won in the Middle Ages. The Middle Ages gave us the
            nation-states, the central government and urban life, the universities
            and the codes of law and ideas of justice, well also the government
            bureaucracies, and dozens of other institutions.

            They weren’t gloomy and stagnant, it was much an exciting time. A
            period of change, movement and travel. The English longbow ended the
            knights status in a few decades. New, more efficient methods of plowing,
            fertilizing and crop rotation revolutionalized the agricultural
            methods. The medieval social order was not fixed and many new enriched
            families found their way into the nobility. Women had no legal rights
            but they were prime players in what was happening and had the right to
            take care of the businesses and other family affairs like the defense of
            the castle against besieging armies. It was a time of terrible disease,
            but also of joy in life and appreciation of its preciousness maybe more
            than
            today.”

          • Edruezzi

            Aside from a period when Muslim invaders established a foothold on the Iberian Peninsula and the Balkans the West has been militarily dominant since the Classical Greek period. The handful of Non-European armies to win battles on European soil aside from these Muslim armies have either been American or Russian,
            So, if John’s Renaissance aliens had known what to look for it would have been clear to them that in the end the West would still emerge dominant. Maybe Late Medieval China and Late Medieval Islamic culture glittered more but that would have been concentrated in the lives and the palaces of the rulers. The West has historically always had more individual freedom and a greater emphasis on consensual rule. If I’d been one of those alien surveyors I’d have cast my vote with the region that produced Magna Carta. Freedom is the deadliest weapon.

          • silviosilver

            The middle ages were “dark” in the sense of being a step backwards in terms of intellectual insight and social organization, but there many important economic developments which occurred in the latter part (roughly 1000-1400), so it’s certainly wrong to see the period as totally stagnant and mired in backwardness. Nevertheless, there are important differences that distinguish the late middle ages from the early modern period (after 1500); if you had to live in the past in either of the two time periods, the more you learned the more likely you’d be to choose the latter. (Knights and longbows co-existed for at least a couple hundred years. I think gunpowder was more of a factor in reducing the power of a mounted knight than the longbow. That’s my guess.)

          • antiquesunlight

            Good post. Medieval time was a very interesting time.
            Medieval philosophy, though it is dismissed by the anti-Christian crowd, was in fact quite sophisticated. Interesting program to watch in a spare hour is “Anthony Kenny on Medieval Philosophy” on YouTube. It’s an interview of Kenny by Bryan Magee.

            “Terry Jones’ Medieval Lives” is a fun little show, too. He goes into all kinds of things, like how the peasants often had pretty decent lives and a good bit of freedom, and how education for common folks was much better than we might assume. I’ve only watched the first couple, but they’re good.

          • silviosilver

            Science was not the only institution that differentiated Europe from the rest of the world. The early stages of the industrial revolution had little to do with science per se. Useful contraptions were made by tinkerers who realized the economic potential of their inventions. Over time, scientific thinking began to be most profitably applied to production, but it is not in science that we must look for the origins of either the industrial revolution or European dominance more broadly.

        • Edruezzi

          Man, you write like a hard-core autodidact. Even a geek like me can’t make any sense of this.

          • silviosilver

            He is shaken up and reacting to the most forcefully deterministic views that have, one must acknowledge, in the past been advanced. Although it’s easier said than done, a touch of compassion goes a long way, I have found through experience, in cases like these, because what seems like a dispute about facts is in fact a fight about feelings – feelings other guy doesn’t want to feel and which he thinks you are urging upon him.

      • MBlanc46

        They certainly don’t want to hear the truth and they will fight mightily against it. It’s by no means certain that they will lose. Nor is it certain that they will win. I just hope that I’m around to see it settled (for awhile, anyway).

    • Bantu_Education

      I fully expected Engelman to berate you for using the word “chinks”..! lol…

    • Karolina

      Really? If anything, it’s the Chinese who have been pushing this science ahead to prove the nature argument.

      They are not a PC people.

      • MBlanc46

        Chinks, small gaps, in the armor. Nothing to do with the Chinese.

        • Karolina

          Well I’m an idiot!

          Thanks for the correction; My English is not the best.

          • MBlanc46

            Not an idiot, just not fluent enough in English to recognize an uncommon word.

          • Karolina

            Thank you.

            :)

    • Edruezzi

      Yup. All we need is patience. That there tippin point can’t be too far off. The rapture can’t be that far off too.

      • MBlanc46

        What an intelligent and insightful reply.

    • silviosilver

      The chinks are really starting to appear in the nurturist armor.

      Yes, the awkward Asians have always been problematic for environmentalist explanations. The vicious white racists who absolutely hate all non-whites somehow keep being fooled into giving Asians the best environments – ‘cos remember, the only possible explanation for why Asians do better than whites is environment.

    • Edruezzi

      Let me make a bold prediction (and I hope this isn’t deleted). 50 years from now, when the dust settles, the nurturists (whatever that means) will be proven right.

      • JohnEngelman

        The nurturists had their chance during the post World War II era. They were proven wrong.

        Women’s libbers used to have a slogan, “Biology is not a woman’s destiny.” Biology is everyone’s destiny.

        • Edruezzi

          “Biology is everyone’s destiny.”

          That too is a slogan. Being a slogan it is too imprecise to be of operational value.

          “Genes determine what we want to do, and what we are able to do.”

          They may, but they don’t show the regional or ancestry distributions you attribute to them.

  • dd121

    They found a gene? That isn’t news, it’s just common sense that intelligence or lack thereof is associated with genetic differences.

  • OhWow

    It’s amazing that we can all admit that different breeds of animal have different strengths and weaknesses among other differences. We can also all admit that different genders have different strengths and weaknesses among other differences (unless you are a feminist). But we can’t take it one step further and admit that races are distinct and have differences. I really think when the gene(s) comes out that correlates most with intelligence and blacks are proven to be biologically at a disadvantage, there will be a civil war. Initially the studies and evidence will attempt to be covered up, but it the truth always has a way of coming out. There will be a war between liberals and realists.

    • Chasmania

      “… and blacks are proven to be biologically at a disadvantage, there will be a civil war. ”
      Or, they will demand, in the name of equality, that all whites are bred out of existence and all males to be neutered, and females sent to stocking camps for insemination by an appropriately hued male.

    • Who Me?

      “Race is just a social construct” and so is breed which is the same thing. That’s why all these people can teach their Chihuahua’s to herd sheep just like border collies. (/sarc)

  • Brian

    When all else fails, the loony left will claim that intelligence itself doesn’t exist. It’s already a sentiment that has gained a foothold in mainstream discourse amongst pseudo-intellectuals.

    I made an innocuous seeming comment on a left leaning message board a few months ago to the effect that not all highly intelligent people will become brilliant scientists, but all great scientists are highly intelligent.

    As well acquainted as I am with the lengths these types will go to in defending egalitarianism, I was still surprised by how vehemently I got shot down for saying that.

    How long before “intelligence-ism” becomes a new thing and we all have to remember not to use words like “smart” or “dumb” because they are prejudicial? Because we all know that within every 12th grader reading at a 3rd grade level and every college bakketball player who can’t divide 10 by 2 lurks a would-be Einstein, but for oppression and white privilege.

    • Who Me?

      It’s already PC frowned upon to refer to someone who suffers from mental retardation (a clinical diagnosis) as retarded. The last I heard was they had to be referred to as “differently abled” which is close to the silliest term yet, not to mention that it is so vague as to be meaningless.

    • silviosilver

      I’m sure there are some egalitarian types who sincerely believe that to acknowledge that innate talent makes a differences is to condemn people lacking such talents to absolute misery. “It takes brains to be a scientist and I don’t have brains? Oh man, that is it, my life is absolutely over! Lord take me now!”

      I hate to give equalitarians any ground at all, but their view here isn’t completely without merit. Jealousy is an ugly feeling, both in how we feel inside and how we act towards others when feeling it, yet humans are very much inclined towards feeling it. A society that makes “too much” of certain beneficial traits – physical beauty, intelligence, athletic ability or military valor – almost guarantees that feelings of jealousy in that society will be exaggerated far above their “natural” level. So it’s not totally insane to attempt to alleviate the anguish of the masses in this way.

      Equalitarians, however, have a tendency to believe their way is the only way. They’re manifestly uninterested in teaching people to overcome their feelings of inadequacy. (Whether this is because they have never successfully surmounted their own I do not know.) Yet their unwillingness to venture down this avenue doesn’t mean the rest of us should neglect it. If a person can be taught this kind of resilience those feelings all but vanish, or only occur when “appropriate.”

      Furthermore, equalitarians remain resolutely blind to the disastrous unintended (so we hope) effects of their policies. Scientific evidence is ignored or excoriated; false explanations are substituted for real ones; economic achievement is sniggered at or considered to create or exacerbate social problems; greatness is torn down with the cheery countenance of equality; and all about us our world burns.

  • NeanderthalDNA

    They have to get that tenure first though, an increasingly difficult task.

    Hope your studies are going well. No matter what I say here understand I have a great deal of respect for you, personally.

  • LovelyNordicHeidi

    Google “PDF Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability”

  • Who Me?

    Puts a new spin on the old question, “Are you thick in the head?”

  • Edruezzi

    Yawn. It’s one thing to find such a relationship. It’s another to find variation in it corresponding to “race”. There could be a connection. It’s not stated anywhere that there is a connection. Going further, to believe right off the bat that this will favor one group over others is jumping to conclusions. Furthermore, to believe that in fifteen years race differences will be scientifically verified is what the name says it is: belief. And belief is not science.
    Yeah, the liberals could bury it. The infrastructure of such a vast global plot, in the midst of the scientific community, people who got where they did by virtue of what we could describe as a propensity for rebellion, must be amazing. Their offices must have amazingly impenetrable window blinds.

  • Bantu_Education

    I’ve noticed that at both the Telegraph and the Mail and even, more improbably, at the Guardian. Although it was to a lesser degree and all comments more than mildly race-realist were obviously binned – you could tell from the number of downticks given to the rabid loony multiculturalists what people were really thinking. Needless to say the Guardian has now done away with “thumbs down” and aped Facebook so that you can no longer show your disapproval – you can now only “like” or “recommend” a comment. Go figure as they say..!

    • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

      No bother. When the kook multicultis get no likes on their comments and our kind of comments have 865 likes, people will get the message.

    • Karolina

      Never seen it at the Guardian or even the Mail…. that would DEFINITELY surprise me!

  • William Allingham

    Im not a genius but I can surely say that im more intelligent than my siblings (sorry brothers) anyway, because of the circumstances of my early life i have living proof that environment accounts so much less than genetics.

    the proof relies in two important facts (that i will explain why they are relevant):
    1) I was a very prompt to sickness child
    2) I have a twin sister

    my mother is so liberal but i want to share an argument i gave her that she wasn’t able to refute and in solemn mood she had to agree with me:

    mother i am living proof that intelligence depends more on genes than environment, you know that i was born at the same time as my sister and she was weighting more than me at birth. Soon after becoming 5 years old while she was getting good grades on school i was on the hospital for an strange anemia, nevertheless all psychological tests showed that i was more intelligent than anyone in our home.
    i lost years of schooling at the time when children most absorb education, I had attention deficits, also had a problem in my ears which impeded me to listen to teachers and after solving that, i got appendicitis and had to lose more classes (all of this before becoming 9 years old).
    if intelligence had to do more with environment you would expect my sister to be more intelligent or even the same (how much more similar environment can you have?) than a deprived children like me that even in school was capricious and lazy….

    well, not the case! how do you explain that? (i repeat im really not very smart i just happen to be more than my immediate family).

    stupid liberal nonsense, when i first noticed people was falling into “enviromental intelligence” i couldnt believe it, whats next? perhaps they will begin to say that if you plant a cactus seed and put mozart to it, it will grow into a red rose.

  • Edruezzi

    I’m afraid that the old saw, “We are all the same” is not accurate enough. If we were all the same we’d literally be 7 billion identical twins. No scientist ever said that. Since the stakes of this debate are high, a little more precision would go a long way.
    What do you think?

  • Edruezzi

    If NTPN shows up in mice and humans an elementary knowledge of evolution makes it clear that it can’t very too much among humans. I’m sorry, but that’s just how it works.

  • M&S

    So I can send a couple hundred bucks to a genomics lab and find out my region of origin and vulnerabilities to specific diseases but because we’re only allowed to look for intelligence by analyzing the effects of congenital diseases which decrease it, we’re stuck at the ’0.5%’ level of understanding how to truly improve our condition in a hypercompetitive society where having the brains to be successful is the difference between a 20 dollar an hour job and a patented process that makes you a millionaire.
    How sad.
    Not least because:
    1. In the mad rush to prove that dinosaurs became birds (never happened) we rather quickly discovered that the chromatic locations for ‘look here for feet and over there for hands and down here for tails.’ were readily identifiable and even common, across species. Almost as though they were designed to be that way as modular building-blocks of standardized DNA encoding.
    2. We know that the staged epigenetics (multi-phase reactivations of allele sequences in our rather pathetic 20,000 datapoint genome to generate specialist tissues) cannot be -too- big an element in this because of a normalizing factor: Namely, a child will almost always have an intelligence that is an expression of the mean between their parent’s and their racial group average.
    The regularity of which would not be nearly as common if it was not, again, FIXED to a given location in the genome, across races.
    And the Chinese, who recently bought 4,000 Gene Hoods, half churning away in secret labs in China and half in public use facilities in the commercial city of Hong Kong, are plugging away at this with _absolutely_ no fear of reviving Hitler or the KKK and will leave our sorry, superstitious, and PC obsessive butts behind in the race to generate normed 125 IQs with rightward scatter into the 160s if not 180s by as much as 20% of the population.
    And THEY will be the ones who use genomic science to go Homo Evolutis as we look on and ‘wonder why’.
    Idiots and their civilizations…