Race IQ—Game Over: It Was Always All About Wealth

Living Anthropologically, August 9, 2012

At The American Conservative in July 2012, Ron Unz published Race, IQ, and Wealth, and after some responses put up Unz on Race/IQ: Response to Lynn and Nyborg on his blog. Unz’s position, which came from analyzing the very data most cited to support the racialist position on Race IQ linkages:

Essentially, I am proposing that the enormously large differences in population IQ . . . are primarily due to factors of social environment—poverty, education, rural deprivation.

If Unz sticks to his guns—and every indication is that racialist rebuttals are only hardening his position—this is game over for Race IQ. Finally.


So why does Ron Unz on Race IQ matter? First, Unz has money, and he uses it to publish and promote. Unz apparently gave out at least $500,000 to Gregory Cochran, co-author with Harpending on The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution and with John Hawks on Recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution. {snip}

Second, Ron Unz matters on Race IQ because he is using the numbers from people who had been elaborating the Bell Curve argument that IQ is causal to social and class differences rather than a related consequence of those differences. Of course most of anthropology and mainstream academics probably did not even know this work was proceeding. However, it should be noted—as I did in Jared Diamond won’t beat Mitt Romney—that for the people who wanted to see Race IQ connections, Jared Diamond and Stephen Jay Gould were extremely weak rebuttals. One could even say that those who cited Diamond or Gould would be dismissed, in a kind of “that’s all you have?” sort of way. But this is obviously different.


As I said at the beginning, I’m not sure whether Unz will stick to his guns on this one—there are a number of rebuttals circulating. But the rebuttals seem mostly to be on the more extreme racialist blogs, and Unz doesn’t seem to be buying them. Without Unz’s support, these writings can only become the most marginalized of the already marginal.

Now this doesn’t mean Unz is going to pop over here and give me a fellowship. In his writings, he praises the racialists for being the only ones who are combing through the data and providing a serious response. He also has to take a few whacks at Gould and his ilk. But let’s get real—the only reason the racialists are combing the quantitative data is to try and poke holes and mount a rebuttal. For the rest of us—who already knew that what we measure as IQ is in large part due to “factors of social environment—poverty, education, rural deprivation,” we can declare game over on Race IQ—see Unz 2012.

Of course, this also doesn’t mean it’s over for inequality and racism. Ending the hardline race IQ argument doesn’t at all change the facts-on-the-ground where things are as unequal as ever. One of the racialist lines has always been to observe how the average white/black IQ differential has hardly budged in 50 years. With Unz’s article safely in hand, this is obviously and easily explained: the average white/black wealth differential has also hardly budged in 50 years. {snip}


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.
  • Ron Unz isn’t the only human with a 200 IQ. Let’s ask James Woods and Durk Pearson what they think. They are about equally qualified to perform a sociological analysis as Ron Unz, a software developer whose bogus product helped create the great mortgage meltdown of 2008.

    • J

      Having a high IQ doesn’t mean his word is the gospel. A person with high IQ can lie to himself and others, just like Ron Unz is doing.

  • Eagle_Eyed

    “One of the racialist lines has always been to observe how the average
    white/black IQ differential has hardly budged in 50 years. With Unz’s
    article safely in hand, this is obviously and easily explained: the
    average white/black wealth differential has also hardly budged in 50

    Where the hell does the author think “wealth” comes from, leprechauns?  His point, if true, only pushes the question further back, namely, why do whites have more wealth than blacks?  Racism isn’t going to cut it for two reasons.  One, the poorest of African areas are the ones that have never been colonized.  Two, “model minorities” (Asians/Jews) in Western areas, despite noted times of “discrimination,” have done quite well economically.  They also tend to have high IQs.


    •  All I know is that Whites can set up communities and economies in the middle of the desert, on top of a mountain, in the middle of a forest, on tiny islands in the pacific, and even on Antarctica.  Blacks can’t even manage to run a functioning gold or diamond mine or farm on some of the world’s most fertile soil.

      • John_D01

         “Blacks can’t even manage to run a functioning gold or diamond mine or farm on some of the world’s most fertile soil.”

        Yes, as you say, not even when said mines are already created and fully functional.  When Whites leave, the ability to keep these things functional leaves.  You’ll end up with these fabulous remnants of a once great society, with people living right beside them and utterly without the ability to use and maintain them.

        Fwiw, Unz’s sophistry has been thoroughly exposed and discredited on a number of sites.  Probably most thoroughly on HBDChick’s site.

    • WhiteGuyInJapan

       “Where the hell does the author think “wealth” comes from, leprechauns?”

      Exactly.  Japan, South Korea and Singapore are not exactly resource-rich, yet they managed to grow powerful economies and provide a high quality of life  for their citizens.  Forget hard work and intelligence, those factories and universities just magically appeared one day in a puff of smoke.

  • potato78

    We don’t have to take a look at 10,000 years of human evolution and civilization.  Let us just look at human evolution and civilization for  the past 50 years.  In africa, black people fought each other after the end of vietnam war to now for nothing and they still fight.  In north america, white people fought science and technology war after the end of vietnam war for things like internet and Iphone.   The fundmental factor is IQ. 

  • KevinPhillipsBong

    “But the rebuttals seem mostly to be on the more extreme racialist blogs, and Unz doesn’t seem to be buying them.”

    I see this line of “reasoning” again and again – I don’t agree with your conclusions therefore your arguments must be flawed. In other words, if anti-racists were making pro-racialist arguments then they’d be worth listening to. But if they were making pro-racialist arguments then they’d no longer be anti-racists, so then we’d no longer have to consider their arguments. Round and round.

  • JohnEngelman

    To say that Ron Unz has decisively disproved a connection between race and IQ is as silly as saying that Stephen Jay Gould has. 
    In either case it is an example of the appeal to authority fallacy. 
    There is too much evidence on the other side of the argument for any environmentalist to claim that the game is over.
    The failure of No Child Left Behind indicates that the game is ending for those to claim that genes are unimportant.

    • GravitonX


    • GravitonX

       I don’t think that biology is not a factor in IQ, only that it is a statistically negligible factor, and that it’s connection is by no means traceable.  Siblings often show different IQs, often widely different IQs, between themselves and their parents, and this is absent clear biological deformity.

      From my observation, it’s clear that the driving force behind the study of a “hard” connection between genetics/biology and IQ is not so much from innocent curiosity but agenda seeking a “scientific” rationalization to enshrine and preserve a certain social advantage. 

      • Rocky Bass,

        Have you never read the twin studies? As I recall they placed IQ’s hereditary component something on the order of .6-.8(60%-80% or more), hardly undetectable or trivial.
        Environmental effects on IQ, from the studies I am aware of, do suggest that in cases of extreme deprivation, IQ can be suppressed to some extent. In modern studies, with all test subjects having been well fed for generations, deprivation can be factored out.

        • KevinPhillipsBong

          Rocky is correct. Monozygotic (identical) twins raised separately have IQ scores closer to one another than dizygotic (fraternal) twins raised together. 

          • GravitonX

             The problem with the most prominent study of monozygotic twins raised apart that you are referring to is that it was funded by an organization founded by a well-known eugenicist.

          • Oil Can Harry

            GravitonX, the Minnesota Twins Study may have been funded by the Pioneer Fund but:

            1. The fund “took no part in research design or interpretation of data” (See this site’s recent “Science Vs Ideology” piece)

            2. An earlier Danish study found similar results

            So why haven’t the liberal establishment funded their own twins study in order to debunk the Minnesota one? Probably because they’re afraid of what they’ll find.  

        • GravitonX

           You do know what an IQ test is, right?  Typically, it’s derived from standardized tests.  And, standardized tests scores are heavily correlated with quality of education.  Students who go to excellent school systems tend to score higher on standardized tests than students who go to poorer (especially economically challenged) schools.  This is so obvious that perhaps it’s taken for granted.

          As for twin studies, there is really only one I’ve seen that did a reasonable longitudinal studies.  It was one involving over 200 twins in a Scandinavian country.  There were two immediate problems with the study, however.  All of the twins had some for of contact with each other, even if living in separate household.  Secondly, it could not remove the social fact that twins tend to hyper-imitate and hyper-integrate with each others personality and thought-pattern.  Of course, since these are human beings and one cannot simply force the twins apart without no contact for the duration of the study, the inherent limitations within the study lend to the limited usefulness of twin studies.

          • Rocky Bass,

            The IQ tests that are being used, test problem solving, and spatial relations among other things. To say picking what shape should come next is racist is looney. IQ tests, test for what HUMANS NEED TO SURVIVE NOW, and are a wonderful measure of how one will do in “civilization” or are we to argue that one too?
            Take a look at the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart. Pay particular attention to the MZT’s. There are several other studies, unless your cherry picking of course.

            Edit add; Sorry about the tone, I did come off way too snippy.

          • GravitonX

             I mentioned nothing about race.  In fact, my statements apply as much within an ethnic group as between ethnic groups.

            The problem with the study is that merely compared how similar the twins were who were raised apart.  The study assumed that simply placing the twins in separate places constituted removing the similar environmental influence.  Unfortunately, since the twins were raised in the rather homogenous communities of Minnesota, I’m not sure that assumption is completely warranted.

          • Rocky Bass,

             To just say the MZT’s were raised in similar environments merely because they were in the same state is to gloss over huge differences in there upbringings. By your logic then Blacks in any given state should score the same as whites living in that same state, unless there is some other reason for their differences…hmmm what could that possibly be? MZT’s raised apart (in as different of settings as one little state can contain) are more similar than DZT’s raised together and, more so as the twins age.

          • Oil Can Harry

            GravitonX,  here’s a study showing that poor whites who go to crappy  schools still get (slightly) better grades than blacks from wealthy families.   


          • GravitonX

             Perhaps the schools are not as crappy.  However, you do make my point that socioeconomics rather than genetics is huge factor.

      • The__Bobster

        So did your college professor teach you that garbage based on how he “feels”? He certainly has no hard evidence to support his “feelings”.

        • GravitonX

           Believe me, I’ve seen more feelings displayed here than in all of my years of study.  Many here are wedded to certain conclusions despite having limited education and despite the proof otherwise.  There is an unmitigated and total commitment and righteous attachment to a set of theories not only fraught with holes but ideologically rigid.  This makes sense when one is on a mission but not so much when one is open to new information and progress.

          • Rocky Bass,

             Progress? I thought that was what we HAD BEEN trying for all of my lifetime. Perhaps Ocamm’s Razor should be dragged from storage a little more often. Could it just be that the simplest explanation, that fits ALL AVAILABLE DATA AND OBSERVANCES, is in fact the correct one? I know it’s a radical thought, instead of throwing another untold trillions at the problem, why not consider the simple answer?  Just look at Africa, hell Mr. Taylor’s excellent video at the top of the page on Race differences in intelligence, just flat out nails it down.

          • GravitonX

             In every IQ test, you’ll find the questions easily answered using “Occam’s Razor.”  This will get you an average IQ ranking.  Then, there are the questions that if you use OR, you will certainly miss.

            Africa is complicated.  It’s history and state of it’s peoples have been influenced by many factors.  OR tends to ignore certain factors.

          • godzillabloggs

            ” Believe me, I’ve seen more feelings displayed here than in all of my years of study”‘

            If Ron Unz had come to the ‘wrong’ conclusion, a tsunami of feeling would have swept over him of a force that would have left you truly amazed.

          • Rocky Bass,

             Why is it that the nations in Africa that have been the least “influenced” are always heading up the dead last of human development? I think Occam’s Razor is still SHARP.

  • WhiteGuyInJapan

    Yes, it is game over for his type.  He made a decision and so everyone else is wrong. Sheesh!  Harpending  commented elsewhere that he and Antrosio seem to be lving in different worlds, both named Anthrpology. 

     The “race is a social construct” crowd really seems to view the HBD crowd as the equivalent of Flat Earthers.  On the other hand, the HBD crowd sees the Social Science Model as the emperor’s new clothes. 

  • The game is over for the “Environment is all” apologists for those who are genetically inferior in intelligence.

     The evidence is so plain that Ray Charles could see it. The IQ-gene link is strong and consistent: Ashkenazic Jews, smartest; East Asians, a close second; Europeans and European-Americans, just behind them; and so on down the genetic line until you reach the sub-Saharan Africans, at the very bottom.

     I couldn’t care less what Ron Unz’s IQ is; he’s just wrong, and is trying to explain away the link between race and IQ because he finds it abhorrent.

    • GravitonX

      I believe he finds it simplistic and tribal and therefore abhorrent.  The only link between race and IQ is that one can average the IQ test scores of a particular race.  Any meaning derived from that average is temporary in nature and subject to the fortunes and misfortunes of history.

      • Rocky Bass,

         If this were true and we were only making a big deal out of certain groups average intelligence, and that average really didn’t matter, then each group should sport equal numbers of Einsteins and Beethovens and and and… This is CLEARLY not the case. How much evidence of differing intellect by race can you gloss over? All of history seems to run parallel to what IQ tests say today. People differ in IQ and temperament and even criminality, different races all have differing levels of each.  Mental exercise, were you 5,000 years in the past, do you think you would rather be in the Congo or China?

        • GravitonX

          “If this were true and we were only making a big deal out of certain
          groups average intelligence, and that average really didn’t matter, then
          each group should sport equal numbers of Einsteins and Beethovens…”

          Quite clearly at any given time you could make that assertion.  At one point Egyptians and black Africans were the “most intelligent.”  Then Middle East, Chinese, Southern Europeans (Rennaissance), Northern Europeans, Americans, Japanese.  This “crown” of group intelligence shifts in time between various groups, typically based on their fortunes and misfortune.  I have no doubt that this “crown” will continue to be pass around.

    • WhiteGuyInJapan

       European Jews are great example of the inaccuracy and illogical nature of the “wealth” argument.  The mean IQ of European Jews hit 112 because…they’re rich?  Ashkenazi Jews represent about 50% of the chess grandmasters and 20% of the Nobel Prize laureates (in science) because…they’re rich?

      Cart and horse, horse and cart-you figure it out!

  • bubo

    Nations become wealthy due to the forward thinking and ambition of their people.    Other nations remain poor because of the lack of it.  

  • potato78

    Let’s see that 
    In Europe, Europeans invented Capitalism and Marxism, Semitism and Nazism, etc.

    In North America, white people invented Racism, Sexism, Anti-semitism and Christianism, etc.

    In East Asia, invented Daoism and Confucianism with East Culture Beautyism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNfjem7W3wc&feature=related

    In Africa, Africans invented povertyism.

  • I didn’t know Mr. Unz was the beginning and end of IQ theory.

    The writer is thankful that the debate is “finally” over and the ‘racists’ have lost because their rebuttals are, in his/her mine, weak.

    The writer simply seems grateful that he/she now has one study by one person that he/she can point to to discredit ‘racists’.

    Despite what Mr. Unz believes, the facts are overwhelming. Race is a genetic reality and IQ varies widely between races.  

    The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart: The heritability of g and other mental ability factors


    • UPDATE:

      I reposted my comments on the original link. I saw them posted.

      I went back to check for comments to mine but my comments are no longer posted. Also, after 46 comments, the comment section has been closed.

      Apparently it’s easy to win a debate when you delete your opponents comments.

      This people don’t want a debate. They want to be declared the winner.

    • GravitonX

      The Minnesota Twins study was performed once under somewhat suspect funding.  Assuming there was no fudging of data, because we all know that never occurs, the study assumed that placing the twins in separate household removed mutual imitation, even though the twins were raised in the rather homogenous communities of Minnesota in school systems that would have likely tracked them similarly.  This, of course, belies the fact that the concept g itself has been attacked as an oversimplification of multiple abstract methods of problem solving; the simplest concrete example is counting with fingers, toes, or by audio habituation.

      I need not confuse you with other problems with concept of genetic IQ, but I think you get the point.

      • You make some cryptic claims and I’m not interested in reading between the lines.

        ”The Minnesota Twins study was performed once under somewhat suspect funding.”

        Please explain this ‘suspect funding’.

        ”Assuming there was no fudging of data, because we all know that never occurs”

        Do you have information on the fudging of data?

        ”…the concept g itself has been attacked as an oversimplification of multiple abstract methods of problem solving”

        Is this a reference to the theory of multiple intelligences?

        • godzillabloggs

          If you have studied Lynn’s and Vanhanen’s work and found serious flaws in it, you should send them a copy of your critique.  Criticism, if well-founded, helps in the advancement of knowledge.

      • godzillabloggs

        If you have studied Lynn’s and Vanhanen’s work and found serious flaws in it, you should send them a copy of your critique.  Criticism, if well-founded, helps in the advancement of knowledge.

  • ABM

    Move along folks, nothing to see here. Time for Jared Taylor to close down this site, Unz has solved everything. How could we be so wrong for so long?

  • IKantunderstand

    Frankly, one of the  problems with a high I.Q., is you believe your own bullshit. For the rest of us living in America and having to deal with blacks on a daily basis: We put up with bad service, incompetent service, insolent service, and my personal favorite (encompassing many of the aforementioned) “you don’t like it, go someplace else”. (Said primarily by black gov. workers). I have been paid to train my black replacement (3 times).  Let me tell you something, Ron Unz, my experience might only be “anecdotal” but everybody I know, has had a similar experience: blacks are stupid. I frankly don’t care what you say. Duh, all you really have to do is look around . You know, the empirical evidence of the Congo, Zimbabwe, Somalia,Haiti, everywhere blacks “rule”. A complete and total failure.

    • Rocky Bass,

       Oh another Occam’s Razorist, you just don’t get it! If you glue 57 canards onto the premiss at varying angles (mindful of lunar phases), it all becomes clear and whites are on the hook for, uuhmm what comes after a trillion?

      • haroldcrews

        Quadrillion comes after a trillion.

        • Rocky Bass,

           Twas a rhetorical Q.

  • GravitonX

     In science, the very basis of your conclusion relies on your methodology.  If you have a flawed methodology, your conclusion will be flawed.  However, I’m not debating methodology; I’m debating motives and assumptions.

    • KevinPhillipsBong

      Questioning motives is such a cop out. Lysenko didn’t prove Mendelian genetics wrong, instead he attacked the motives and assumptions behind it, calling it “reactionary and decadent.” Impugning motives is a game anyone can play and requires far less brainpower than considering the point-by-point merits of an argument. Hell, let’s just make something up to prove how easy it is.

      For instance, what was wrong with Galileo? He spouts this stuff about a heliocentric solar system when really he just has a problem with church authority.

      It’s known that he fathered three children out of wedlock with Marina Gamba. The cognitive dissonance between his outward devotion to the Catholic church and his inward depravity, forced this spiritual crisis down into his subconscious. Instead of coming to terms with his own illicit behavior, he sought unconsciously to make Christianity look bad.

      Why? If he could assert that he knew more than the church about celestial matters (ie Heaven) then his Superego could place itself in a morally superior position to the church. And if the Catholic church was wrong then they (the established spiritual authority) had no grounds to judge his behavior as being wrong. Thus he could free himself from paralyzing guilt.

      So put down that telescope, there’s no need to consider whether what Galileo asserted about heliocentricity is true or not. All we need to do is call his motivation into question and we win.

      • GravitonX

         Actually, questioning the motives of the study is fair play and, in fact, involves a higher order of critical analysis than simply accepting a study on face value.  Unfortunately, researchers often assume the conclusion, and thus tend to focus on those things in their study that prove their conclusion and ignore evidence otherwise.  Typically, we try to minimize this bias by independent observation, e.g. peer review, but even then, sometimes group pressure and orthodoxy can “force” a certain focus on a particular conclusion.  By the way, independent observation has virtually unanimously corroborated Galileo’s observations.

        This leads us to IQ, the figure of merit.  Quite fraught with agendas, the jury has by no means settled on IQ.  There is even question as to the relevance of IQ, given the inconsistencies in findings.  Nonetheless, this debate has been raging for over a century, ever since the concept of IQ was created, and I doubt we’ll settle it here.

    • Oil Can Harry

      GravitonX, the study actually doesn’t show that socioeconomics trumps genetics; it shows the opposite.

      To repeat, white children mired in poverty still get better grades than rich black children going to top schools and having private tutors.

  • GravitonX

    Your statements illustrate the reactionary motivation to cling to genetic/intelligence line.

    Incidentally, I’ve observed this blog for about a week.  Whenever the genetic/intelligence or nature/superiority argument seem to not turn out as those here like there is a strong tendency to either dismiss the argument or spin the argument for validation.  I’m not judging any of you, simply pointing out your tendencies.

    • I’m confused, where is the evidence against a genetic basis for intelligence? Poor Chinese score higher than poor Whites who score higher than poor blacks. Blacks adopted by Whites score the same as blacks raised by blacks. Even after culture and wealth are taken into account, the IQ differences between races persist. 

      • GravitonX

         The problem is that you assume there is evidence.   Secondly, most of your statements are simply patently false.

    • godzillabloggs

      On certain occasions when  the genetic/intelligence or nature/superiority argument did not turn out  as required,   the heretics, usually academics and journalists,  have lost their jobs.

  • They closed the comment section on the original article before I could give my 2 cents. Typical leftist, sticks his fingers in his ears and says “I can’t hear you”.

  • frozenpie77

    How about we just get Mr. Taylor to debate this guy? 

  • Oil Can Harry

    Ding ding ding! We have a winner.

    Poor white children going to crummy schools still get better test scores than rich black kids with private tutors and all the other amenities.


    • Rocky Bass,

      You totally overlooking the effects of “spooky racial oppression at a distance”.  Racial oppression conducted via some yet to be understood quantum mechanism, we whites are just so evil we can’t stop inflicting. If my theory holds true, you could rocket a sample of Africans to Alpha Centauri, conduct IQ tests on them and they would still score sub white standard, thereby proving the power of this “white ju ju” to oppress at great distance.
      Realistically there could be no other explanation, right?

      • I’ve got a theory. Genetic PTSD. 

        During  slavery and Jim Crow blacks were so very traumatized by Whites, the trauma made it into their DNA. Now, generations later, blacks still suffer a form of PTSD that impairs their ability to function in White society.

        • potato78

           Funny and Right.

        • Oil Can Harry

          Lucas, your theory is no more ridiculous than “sterotype threat”, the latest excuse for the achievement gap. 

  • Oh, Please!  What the ethnicity of Unz?  That’s the germaine question.

    No amount of evidence is enough for the Prejudiced Socialist Scientists!

    They start from the Conclusion of environment and look for support even if it means inventing data or falsifying reports – anything to obfuscate the issue.

    The blacks are mostly retards.  End of Story.

    Nobody believes the Egalitarian Lie Anymore!  STFU!  YKWs!

  • SarahConnor

    Apparently we wore poor Jason out and he just tossed in the towel and called us raaaascccist! 

     So I figure if there is “some genetic difference” as he states and that I was also as he states “lucky’ that my ancestors thousands of years ago walked and decided to live by a river than whatever!

     I still want to live and associate with my own tribe and have my children and grandchildren look like me as well as have them be self sufficient, hard working individuals that grow up with values and a sense of tradition. Whatever I was “given” or passed along with, I wish to do the same for my future generations so they are not washed into a muddle of beige mediocracy. Whatever has occurred over the last 20,000 or so years has occurred and I feel absolutely zero guilt and there is nothing wrong with that! 

    • Rocky Bass,

       Very cogent statements. Watch out for the anti-racist “terminators” 😛

  • godzillabloggs

     “Unz sticks to his guns—and every indication is that racialist rebuttals are only hardening his position—this is game over for Race IQ. Finally”.
    What?  Again?   

    • Rocky Bass,

      I do seem to recall hearing of the death of racial IQ differences a number of times as well. Samuel Clemens once said,  “The reports of my demise have been greatly over exaggerated”, after learning of a paper running an article about his having died. Little to nothing leads me to believe race/IQ differences have truly or finally been laid to rest, they’ve left one heck of a ghost or a poltergeist if so.

      • godzillabloggs

        These repeated deaths remind of the serial  final farewell tours of  some pop groups.

  • “For the rest of us—who already knew that what we measure as IQ is in large part due to “factors of social environment—poverty, education, rural deprivation,” we can declare game over on Race IQ—see Unz 2012.” 
    They obviously haven’t read Steven Pinker’s rebuttal. All Ron Unz is saying is part of gap is environmental. That makes sense. Say one group Have IQ of 90 and another 95. Well the group  with  iq of 95 creates nice environment for their children and iq goes up 100. The other group creates a less nice environment for their children and iq goes up to say 93, now environment has extended  the gap.  Ron Unz is saying something that many already knew.

  • To Everyone Here:
    You individuals have a strong fixation on these bizarre “Iq” theories, so forth. Alright, you believe you’ll are superior to others. Well, can you explain this behavior if you’re so superior? http://thegrio.com/2012/08/14/white-man-rejects-grocery-bagging-by-negroidal/. Quite ridiculous isn’t ot!?!

    • Nobody said “superior”

      White people don’t rape the elderly, only black people do. I can’t imagine a more disgusting and horrific deed than raping your own grandmother while she begs you not to and even starts praying.

      Its a black thing, I wouldn’t understand

    • godzillabloggs

      Complain to your government. They make extensive use of IQ tests.  They must be fixated on them.

  • GravitonX

     Why do I have to have a problem?  This should not be personal.  How can I be anti-white when I am white.  Your personal attack makes little sense.

    As for bias,  I find it interesting that you do not read your own comments.  Just about any normal person would construe your tenor as being quite biased possibly worse.  Perhaps you’ve build up a resistance to this kind of criticism.  My fear is that it has made you deaf and stubborn.

    Also, I am not attempting to sound like anything.  I have a strong background in genetics and have a BS in electrical engineer.  So, if I sound like a scientist, which is a vague term typically used by layperson to describe people in the “sciences,” perhaps, it’s because I am a scientist.

    Nonetheless, racial IQ is merely a point-in-time average measurement of groups test scores used to calculate IQ.  If this sound a bit pedantic, it is deliberate, because so much of the discussions of IQ are filled with assumptions and grand leaps of logic that in the face of what influences calculation of IQ score, are not warranted.

  • GravitonX

     Sure.  I will do.  I hope you do the same.

  • GravitonX

     I am not in struggle with egalitarian principles.  I also have no interest in community service.  However, I have yet to see a study that shows a significant genetic influence on intelligence in anything other than obvious mental disease or brain deformity.

    The mind and the brain is quite plastic.  Intelligence is based on the construction and structure of neural networks and those structures are largely based on outside stimuli.

  • Formerly_Known_as_Whiteplight

     I think it is simple; the race game is still highly political.  It is no surprise to me that even a guy with a 200 IQ who has other examples to recall with his sharp memory will shrink away from “truth telling” to save his own skin.  Remember, a high IQ does equal high courage, nor does high IQ remain constant; emotions cancel out IQ points like Pac Man on a rampage.  Fear cancels them out, as does both extremes of love and hate – in fact, any extremes of reactivity.