Some comments about "race" and "intelligence"

The only thing that surprises me on this thread, is that someone still sanctions Trun... at this late date, with all that he's said, with all of the clear objections that have been posted, and the degree to which his true roots have been exposed, and his arguments picked to pieces.

Oh, well, it never pays to forget that "Rational Animal" does NOT mean "Always Reasons Correctly." Having said that, I'll toot that horn one more time: IQ is NOT intelligence, and potential intelligence is NOT actual intelligence. Otherwise you wouldn't have those people with fairly high IQ's and considerable potential intelligence still adhering to some strange bias or emotional quirk such that they can think Trun's position is worth a sanction.

Post 141

Sunday, June 3, 2012 - 3:30pm

Charles Murray expects the black/white IQ gap to stay about the same or widen slightly in the decades ahead due to higher rates of dysgenic reproduction among blacks. The reason why he's not optimistic about socioeconomic improvements narrowing the gaps is because:

1) We observe that the gaps don't go away when controlling for socioeconomic status (blacks underperform when compared to other races across all income levels. 2) Part of the reason why blacks are disproportionately in poverty is because of their innately smaller brains and lower IQs, which translate into poorer job skills and greater tendencies toward destructive behavior, so their socioeconomic status is unlikely to improve markedly.

To raise blacks' socioeconomic status to that of whites' would require a massive socialist program of racial wealth redistribution. To raise blacks' socioeconomic status to that of Asians' would require race-leveling economic policies of an even more draconian nature. Even supposing that it could be done, the gaps would only narrow slightly, since the black average of 85 already includes a substantial percentage of blacks with average or above average earnings -- and, ultimately, because existing IQ differences among all individuals are about 75% explainable by genetics. Rushton and Jensen favor an 80% genetic model for the racial IQ gaps.

An IQ gap narrowing of 20% or perhaps 25% is all I'd expect to see in a totally controlled egalitarian environment. In the real world, the gap will stay about where it is in perpetuity, perhaps even widen slighly. In a free society, the gaps would probably widen more significantly due to blacks' incomes no longer being artificially boosted by government jobs, welfare handouts, and Affirmative Action spoils. With whites and Asians no longer being discriminated against in education or employment and no longer burdened by taxes to support the largely black underclass, the IQs of the children of whites and Asians could rise.

Blacks would ultimately benefit from living in a free and unequal society that generates a lot of wealth and trickle-down opportunities. They just wouldn't benefit as much as whites. So blacks (about 95% of them, anyway) and the politicians who exploit them actively oppose freedom. In pursuing outcome-based equality, all they can succeed at doing is bringing the whole society's standards down toward theirs.

Advocates of freedom shouldn't delude themselves into believing that they can get people to accept the unequal outcomes that freedom naturally yields, while at the same time granting egalitarians their core, false assumption of innate racial equality. Unequal outcomes aren't the market's fault. They don't need fixing. They can't be fixed in a free society. Racial inequalities will always exist because races are unequal. That's the only argument that works, because it's the one that corresponds with reality.
(Edited by Brad Trun on 6/03, 3:37pm)

Post 142

Sunday, June 3, 2012 - 3:55pm

If the purpose of this argument is to convince anyone of anything, I don't see it happening. Everyone has their own explanation as to why their opponent's points are invalid, no amount citations or otherwise will persuade anyone at this point.

If the point of this argument is to clarify one another's positions, I think that has been done sufficiently.

If the purpose of this argument is to carpet bomb the opposing side with the "truth" (truth being in quotation marks because not everyone is going to possess the truth in this argument), well that is occurring, but it doesn't seem to make much difference.

So, what is the point of this debate?

Post 143

Sunday, June 3, 2012 - 4:13pm

What's wrong with this picture?

The origination of the 60-point (+/- 2 standard deviations from the mean) variance-in-outcome in IQ scores -- the range that captures 95% of us -- is:

a) 75-85% due to differences in genetics (heritability)
b) 20-30% due to differences in socio-economic status (1)
c) >10% due to differences in lead exposure (2)
d) >10% due to differences in manganese exposure (3)
e) >10% due to differences in duration of maternal breastfeeding / long-chain omega-3 fatty acids (4-12)
f) >5% due to differences in blood sugar control (13-26)
g) >5% due to differences in the remainder of environmental factors

Total > 135% ???

Ed

Reference
(1) Intelligence: new findings and theoretical developments.

(2) The Protean Toxicities of Lead: New Chapters in a Familiar Story.

(3) Intellectual impairment in school-age children exposed to manganese from drinking water.

(4) Effect of exclusive breastfeeding on the development of children's cognitive function in the Krakow prospective birth cohort study.

(5) n-3 Fatty acids, hypertension and risk of cognitive decline among older adults in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study.

(6) Effect of a 12-mo micronutrient intervention on learning and memory in well-nourished and marginally nourished school-aged children: 2 parallel, randomized, placebo-controlled studies in Australia and Indonesia.

(7) Moderation of breastfeeding effects on the IQ by genetic variation in fatty acid metabolism.

(8) n-3 Fatty acid erythrocyte membrane content, APOE varepsilon4, and cognitive variation: an observational follow-up study in late adulthood.

(9) Evidence of inadequate docosahexaenoic acid status in Brazilian pregnant and lactating women.

(10) Considerations regarding neuropsychiatric nutritional requirements for intakes of omega-3 highly unsaturated fatty acids.

(11) Breastfeeding, the use of docosahexaenoic acid-fortified formulas in infancy and neuropsychological function in childhood.

(12) 10-year cognition in preterms after random assignment to fatty acid supplementation in infancy.

(13) Exposure to gestational diabetes mellitus and low socioeconomic status: effects on neurocognitive development and risk of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in offspring.

(14) Age-related loss of brain volume and T2 relaxation time in youth with type 1 diabetes.

(15) The effect of recurrent severe hypoglycemia on cognitive performance in children with type 1 diabetes: a meta-analysis.

(16) Cognitive function in adult offspring of women with Type 1 diabetes.

(17) Accelerated cognitive decline in patients with type 2 diabetes: MRI correlates and risk factors.

(18) Microvascular determinants of cognitive decline and brain volume change in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes.

(19) Maternal blood glucose in diabetic pregnancies and cognitive performance in offspring in young adulthood: a Danish cohort study.

(20) Progression of cerebral atrophy and white matter hyperintensities in patients with type 2 diabetes.

(21) Risk of developing dementia in people with diabetes and mild cognitive impairment.

(22) Cranial volume, mild cognitive deficits, and functional limitations associated with diabetes in a community sample.

(23) The metabolic syndrome and development of cognitive impairment among older women.

(24) [Prevalence of metabolic syndrome in adolescents: a systematic review].

(25) An update on the prevalence of the metabolic syndrome in children and adolescents.

(26) Gender differences in prevalence of the metabolic syndrome in Gulf Cooperation Council Countries: a systematic review.

Post 144

Sunday, June 3, 2012 - 4:22pm

The above cross-posted with Kyle's post -- an unfortunate combination of events.

:-)

Even still, there is some benefit to knowing not only the truth of the matter -- but how that truth was arrived at (how it is that one could get into possession of that truth). While Kyle's criticism might be applicable to my efforts, I am not in a position to regret what I've done. According to Brad, you can explain over 135% of the noted IQ differences among humans. That should make you step back from the table and ask if he's thinking straight or not.

:-)

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 6/03, 4:23pm)

Post 145

Sunday, June 3, 2012 - 4:31pm

Regret it, Ed! I command you to regret it!

Joking aside, my post wasn't intended to make anyone regret anything. I just thought it would help some people to re-evaluate why they are participating in the argument.

Ed, why do you care how Brad came into possession of that truth?

Post 146

Sunday, June 3, 2012 - 7:36pm

Kyle,

Ed, why do you care how Brad came into possession of that truth?

It's because I'm a truth-enthusiast or, in more medical terms, a truth-o-philiac. Aristotle once said he loves his friends, but the truth moreso. Now that's something I can relate to (and please forgive the double entendre).

:-)

Imagine, for instance, that I was a coke-head (a cocaine addict) and someone comes along and announces that he has acquired 3 kilos of 'blow.' One of the first things on my mind in such a situation would be:

How did he come into possession of that cocaine? Is it real cocaine, or did he get duped by a dealer who may have cut the cocaine (with vitamin B-12 powder, or whatever)?

The same is true of truth. I want to know if Brad is getting duped, and if so, how he is getting duped. I'm a believer that truth is good for everyone. Keeping with the analogy, imagine if cocaine was good for everyone. Wouldn't we all be in a frenzy about where you can get 100% pure cocaine? I contend we would. We may even lose sleep over it.

The same is true of truth. Truth is my "drug of choice", that's all (as is hinted at by the extensive research I routinely perform).

:-)

Now, there's plenty of room in there for someone to chime-in and 'psychologize' me: "The reason you appear to love truth is because you are trying to cover up for a deficiency of ... [insert your favorite character deficiency here] ...". That criticism might be unavoidable. I once witnessed a "professional" doing this to Ayn Rand. It was ugly and brutal. She chalked-up Ayn Rand's tenacity for truth as an unavoidable (i.e., genetically-determined) character flaw/deficiency. Because of my behavior, I'm susceptible to the same type of criticism. I'll take my lumps.

:-)

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 6/03, 8:10pm)

Post 147

Sunday, June 3, 2012 - 7:51pm

Hmm...upgrades..I mean..good answer.

Post 148

Sunday, June 3, 2012 - 8:35pm

William,

You never answered whether your personal/esthetic evaluation of any and all racial demographic trends is fixed at neutral. You just attempted a diversion to the issue of rights, which is a red herring. People have the right to subscribe to barbaric religions. But that's irrelevant to the question of whether you want Muslims to succeed in converting most the world to Islam.

Would you rather the Muslim population not double in the U.S. and Europe over the next 20 years, as it's projected to do?
http://www.pewforum.org/The-Future-of-the-Global-Muslim-Population.aspx

As for how I apply my views on interracial marriage, a Nordic-type white guy I value highly as a person has been dating a half-African woman and told me he wants to marry her and have kids. I suggested to him that his parents might be disappointed that their future grandkids won�t turn out blond. He agreed that they probably would, but that it wasn�t a big deal to them. I asked him if he was sure that this is the woman he wants to be with, and he said yes. I didn�t try to change his mind at that point. I just suggested that he donate to a sperm bank to give his Nordic traits a chance to express themselves in someone else�s children.

I still think he�s a quality person and wouldn�t expect him to give much thought to negative externalities when he�s trying to make the best choice for himself. But his type of intermixing, on a large enough scale, will eventually eliminate blondes from the gene pool. So it would be contradictory to value the continued existence of blondes and at the same time be neutral on the threat that race mixing poses to that value.

(Edited by Brad Trun on 6/03, 8:37pm)

Post 149

Sunday, June 3, 2012 - 11:51pm

But his type of intermixing [blonde guy marrying a colored woman], on a large enough scale, will eventually eliminate blondes from the gene pool. So it would be contradictory to value the continued existence of blondes and at the same time be neutral on the threat that race mixing poses to that value.

Did anyone notice that Trun only sees 'race mixing' as 'losing' the 'valued traits' from one side of the equation and at the same time says nothing about any new traits that come into being?
---------------

Kyle, there are people that don't see clearly through the abuse of statistics, the fallacy of equating IQ with functional intelligence, the fallacy of equating potential intelligence with actual intelligence, the fallacy of ignoring values and character in a discussion of real intelligence, or don't see through the application of this new psuedo-intellectual/pseudo-scientific lipstick to the old, racist pig.

I dont write to convince Trun (not a possibillity) - he has never been my target or an important part of my motivation. I'm writing for those who aren't racists at the motivational level because they ARE open to new information. And, as always, I write as an exercise in getting my own thoughts clear and to parse issues to deeper levels. And, as long as Trun spews toxins, it is good to have people call him on it - integrity never objects to our defending our values.

Post 150

Monday, June 4, 2012 - 12:05am

Brad wrote,

You never answered whether your personal/esthetic evaluation of any and all racial demographic trends is fixed at neutral. You just attempted a diversion to the issue of rights, which is a red herring.

Actually, I didn't. As I said in Post 129, I recognize that you aren't talking about legal restrictions.

People have the right to subscribe to barbaric religions.

Not if the subscription includes violating other people's rights, which in the case of Sharia Law, it does.

But that's irrelevant to the question of whether you want Muslims to succeed in converting most the world to Islam.

Of course, I don't.

Would you rather the Muslim population not double in the U.S. and Europe over the next 20 years, as it's projected to do?
http://www.pewforum.org/The-Future-of-the-Global-Muslim-Population.aspx

No, I would prefer that the Muslim population not double in the next 20 years, just as I would prefer that the population of white liberals or of evangelicals not do so, but that's a philosophical or cultural concern, not a racial one.

As for my "personal/esthetic preferences," I don't see how these should govern my desires regarding demographic trends, since the latter involve more important issues than something as concrete bound and superficial as which physical types I consider most esthetically appealing. The real issue concerning demographics is the cultural values of the populations, not their racial composition. It is true that today the cultural values of a majority of the black population are rather more dysfunctional than those of a majority of whites (higher crime rates, poor academic performance, more single-parent families, etc.), just as those of whites are in these same respects more dysfunctional than those of Asian Americans.

But you also can't lump all members of a particular race into one undifferentiated category. For example, the children of black immigrants from the West Indies have a higher average income and better representation in the professions than either their parents, the national average or Anglo-Saxons. These data are from the 1970 census, which is to say, they are 1969 incomes -- two years before the 1971 federal guidelines mandating quota hiring, and so cannot be explained as effects of affirmative action.

As for how I apply my views on interracial marriage, a Nordic-type white guy I value highly as a person has been dating a half-African woman and told me he wants to marry her and have kids. I suggested to him that his parents might be disappointed that their future grandkids won�t turn out blond. He agreed that they probably would, but that it wasn�t a big deal to them. I asked him if he was sure that this is the woman he wants to be with, and he said yes. I didn�t try to change his mind at that point. I just suggested that he donate to a sperm bank to give his Nordic traits a chance to express themselves in someone else�s children.

Why? Why should he care whether or not his Nordic traits are expressed in someone else's children? You don't know how obsessive this sounds. You are so preoccupied with racial composition and corresponding physical traits that you seem incapable of thinking about cultural values in any other terms.

(Edited by William Dwyer on 6/04, 1:23am)

Post 151

Monday, June 4, 2012 - 1:24am

Steve, your heavy reliance on name calling speaks for itself. You provided no evidence that I am guilty of any of the fallacies you accused me of. You are arguing against your own extrapolations of a vague set of stereotyped views you assign to me. You are committing the straw man fallacy. The bottom line is that you can't refute the facts on race and IQ. They're all consistent with Darwin's theory, Jefferson's observations, and the latest findings in psychometrics and genetics.

Race realism is the application of objective science to questions of race. But your mind protests objectivity. You'd rather fight for the politically correct fantasy viewpoint in the name of "defending our values." You're attempting to use your emotions and your moral pronouncements to argue against objective facts. You fail.

Post 152

Monday, June 4, 2012 - 10:56am

Brad,

[To Steve]

The bottom line is that you can't refute the facts on race and IQ. They're all consistent with Darwin's theory, Jefferson's observations, and the latest findings in psychometrics and genetics.

You're a hypocrite. You can't "refute the facts on race [and environment] and IQ" in post 143 above. They are part of the "latest findings in psychometrics and genetics [and environment]" -- yet you ignore them, pretend they do not exist, dodge your intellectual responsibility of integrating them, and then you attempt to criticize others based on the very thing of which you are guilty.

Ed

Post 153

Monday, June 4, 2012 - 4:24pm

The real issue concerning demographics is the cultural values of the populations, not their racial composition.

False dichotomy. Both are real issues. If you are taking an inductive (scientific) approach to assessing a nation's demographics, then the full context (biology and culture) matters.

I don't think any sensible person would say that the behavioral differences we observe in dog breeds come down entirely to differences in training. Surely some observed behavioral differences are a result of innate physiological differences. I think that otherwise sensible people exempt sets of distinct human phenotypes from realistic, full-context assessments because of pre-conceived idealism. They deduce the absolute irrelevance of measurable brain and hormone differences from their normative ideology.

Post 154

Monday, June 4, 2012 - 6:55pm

Someone should tell Trun, "Dogs aren't people."

I'm not being a smart ass... Look what Ed said - he talked about the demographic importance of values (something dogs don't have) but Trun went ahead and talked about dog breeds.

He keeps looking at the genes to rank people by color (or is he looking at the skin color to rank individuals!?!?) - some races, he feels, have more pleasing traits (Nordic), and others not. Some have more intelligence, whoops, more IQ. Well, he just doesn't get it. Values will play a massive role in an individual's actual, functional intelligence - not the melanin in their skin cells.

Post 155

Tuesday, June 5, 2012 - 12:48am

Steve, it was I who talked about the demographic importance of values (in Post 150), not Ed. But thank you for your reply. It was spot on.

Yes, different breeds of animals exhibit different behavioral characteristics. And different human beings do too, but these are not inveterately ethnic or racial. As I pointed out in a previous post, bad (unjust, uncivilized) behavior has occurred in all races and ethnic groups at different times in our history. The fact that someone is German, Asian, Slavic or Irish does not mean that he is therefore prone to acts of violence, simply because other members of his ethnic group have been guilty of it. Neither does the fact that someone is of African ancestry.

Irish people have a reputation for inebriation and pugnacity. Does that mean that I am to be judged as having these characteristics, simply because my ancestors were Irish? No, of course not. It bears repeating that people are individuals, and need to be judged accordingly.

There's also something that human beings do not share with animals, and that is their capacity for reason. Human beings can learn to behave in an ethical manner. For example, they can grasp the importance of individual rights and the need to respect them. Animals cannot, which is why human beings have rights and animals do not.

Post 156

Tuesday, June 5, 2012 - 3:19pm

Different breeds of animals exhibit different behavioral characteristics due to differences in nature, but different breeds of humans don't because humans reason and consciously value...so the argument goes.

But "reason" and "value" divorced from physiology are floating abstractions. Mind does not transcend brain. Every individual posseses a unique brain physiology and a unique psychological nature. Individuals who share similar evolutionary origins will share more brain and biochemical phenotypes in common with each other than they will with individuals from divergent geographic ancestral lineages.

Even though both Africans and Europeans can reason, they can't use reason to transcend the differences in their respective biologically given natures. Skin color tends to co-vary with brain size, testosterone levels, and other traits linked to behavior.

In many species, melanin-based coloration is found to be pleiotropically linked to behavior. We review animal studies that have found darker pigmented individuals average higher amounts of aggression and sexual activity than lighter pigmented individuals. We hypothesize that similar relationships between pigmentation, aggression, and sexuality occur in humans....Darker individuals average higher levels of crime, sexual activity including HIV/AIDS, and lower IQ.

...across 100 countries, the rate of murder, rape, and serious assault is four times higher in African and Caribbean countries than elsewhere in the world. In violent crimes per 100,000 people, the rate for African countries was 149; for European, 42; and for Asian, 35. These results are similar to those carried out on other data sets from INTEROL and the United Nations. They show the Black overrepresentation in violent crime to be a worldwide phenomenon.

"Do pigmentation and the melanocortin system modulate aggression and sexuality in humans as they do in other animals?"
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912000840

Huge differences in cultural, social, and political systems can be observed in people of the same race. But within any given society, sub-Saharan Africans will exhibit behavioral tendencies that differ on aggregate from those of other races in very predictable ways that are explainable by corresponding physiological differences.

The idealists' conception of reason as a universal equalizing attribute that negates physiological differences among human populations rests on an implicit mind/body dichotomy. The equalitarian hypothesis is also refuted consistently by the empirical evidence. Rather than being an equalizing force, reason is better conceived of as a phenotypic expression that, like all others, varies among individuals and among groups of individuals with shared phenotypic similarities.

Post 157

Tuesday, June 5, 2012 - 9:07pm

Different breeds of animals exhibit different behavioral characteristics due to differences in nature, but different breeds of humans don't because humans reason and consciously value...so the argument goes.

That's not my argument. I would never use such demeaning language as "different breeds of humans, as if human beings were no different from animals and could therefore be classified in the same way. I don't deny, however, that individual differences in human physiology give rise to differences in behavior. They certainly do. Individuals with higher levels of testosterone, for example, behave differently in certain respects from individuals with lower levels. That's evident if only in the differences between men and women.

But "reason" and "value" divorced from physiology are floating abstractions. Mind does not transcend brain.

I agree.

Every individual posseses a unique brain physiology and a unique psychological nature. Individuals who share similar evolutionary origins will share more brain and biochemical phenotypes in common with each other than they will with individuals from divergent geographic ancestral lineages.

On average, that's true, but these differences are not universal within a given race. They are simply average differences in behavior.

Even though both Africans and Europeans can reason, they can't use reason to transcend the differences in their respective biologically given natures. Skin color tends to co-vary with brain size, testosterone levels, and other traits linked to behavior.

Except in cases where it doesn't. You talk as if the differences you refer to were universal within a given race or ethnicity. Again, you can't lump all members of a given race into one undifferentiated category.

In many species, melanin-based coloration is found to be pleiotropically linked to behavior. We review animal studies that have found darker pigmented individuals average higher amounts of aggression and sexual activity than lighter pigmented individuals. We hypothesize that similar relationships between pigmentation, aggression, and sexuality occur in humans....Darker individuals average higher levels of crime, sexual activity including HIV/AIDS, and lower IQ.

Once again, these differences refer not to individuals but to groups of individuals, because there are light skinned individuals who are criminals and darker-skinned individuals who are rights-respecting and productive. In a previous post (#150), I cited the children of black immigrants from the West Indies who have a higher average income and better representation in the professions than either their parents, the national average or Anglo-Saxons. These statistics are based on data from 1969 incomes -- two years before the 1971 federal guidelines mandating quota hiring, and so cannot be explained as effects of affirmative action.

....across 100 countries, the rate of murder, rape, and serious assault is four times higher in African and Caribbean countries than elsewhere in the world. In violent crimes per 100,000 people, the rate for African countries was 149; for European, 42; and for Asian, 35. These results are similar to those carried out on other data sets from INTEROL and the United Nations. They show the Black overrepresentation in violent crime to be a worldwide phenomenon.

Be that as it may, I would question your apparent assumption that a change in philosophy and cultural values is insufficient to reduce or eliminate this kind of criminal behavior -- that physiology is destiny. If I thought it were, I would abandon philosophy as having any power to change the world.

The idealists' conception of reason as a universal equalizing attribute that negates physiological differences among human populations rests on an implicit mind/body dichotomy.

Well, that's not my view. I don't think that the capacity for reason negates physiological differences.

The equalitarian hypothesis is also refuted consistently by the empirical evidence. Rather than being an equalizing force, reason is better conceived of as a phenotypic expression that, like all others, varies among individuals and among groups of individuals with shared phenotypic similarities.

What varies is intellectual capacity, not the ability to reason or to grasp and adhere to a rational philosophy.

Post 158

Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - 3:54pm

You talk as if the differences you refer to were universal within a given race or ethnicity.

Do I really need to post another set of overlapping bell curves to dissaude you of this view you have of my views? Apparently, I do.

In a previous post (#150), I cited the children of black immigrants from the West Indies who have a higher average income and better representation in the professions than either their parents, the national average or Anglo-Saxons.

Of course, we cannot generalize from immigrants who are a selected, elite sample of a population to the entire population. When we look at whole populations and adjust for socioeconomic status, clear evidence for genetics playing a major role in racial IQ disparities emerges: "Black children born to well-educated, affluent, parents have test scores 2 to 4 points lower than do White children born to poorly-educated, impoverished parents" (http://inductivist.blogspot.com/2009/05/race-differences-in-iq-for-those-of-you.html).

I would question your apparent assumption that a change in philosophy and cultural values is insufficient to reduce or eliminate this kind of criminal behavior -- that physiology is destiny. If I thought it were, I would abandon philosophy as having any power to change the world.

I would again question your apparent assumption of a false dichotomy, that philosophy is either omnipotent or impotent. It can help or hinder people in making the most out of what they are endowed with. It can't wipe the slate clean so that all phenotypes on the planet are interchangeable with one another and equally equipped to produce the characteristics of advanced civilizations.

The denial of human nature, as Steven Pinker calls it, for purposes of ascribing transformative and transcendent powers to sets of ideas, leads to disaster. It's true of Marxism, and it's true in a more insidious way for the type of individualism that reaches for the stars but fails to ground individual identity in an objective, unchosen, inherited biological/evolutionary basis.

The philosophical and demographic patterns now unfolding are socially significant and are linked (Islam is on the rise in the West among lower IQ populations due to their higher birth rates and the West's altruistic immigration policies; lower IQ populations are less likely to be attracted to rational, individualistic philosophies and more likely to find comfort in more primitive religious and tribal philosophies ).

"...most people don't read their books before deciding whether to be religious. Instead, they inherit their faith from their parents, who often innoculate them against the elegant arguments of secularists. And what no one has noticed is that far from declining, the religious are expanding their share of the population: in fact, the more religious people are, the more children they have. The cumulative effect of immigration from religious countries, and religious fertility will be to reverse the secularisation process in the West" (http://www.amazon.com/Shall-Religious-Inherit-Earth-ebook/dp/B004DL0OCG).

Demographic change is socially significant, regardless of whether you want it to be. The choice to value or not value the extant demographic trends and their consequences is, of course, yours.

(Mean white IQ is set at 100.)

Post 159

Thursday, June 7, 2012 - 7:54am