Females actually have about 2-2.5 points less IQ than males.

I didn’t know that believing that Christ is a created being was a racial characteristic.

You seem to be beating a strawman. I said in my initial post there was only a slight positive correlation. However, the original poster above said that the relationship between brain size & IQ was “thoroughly debunked”. It hasn’t. There is a statistically significant correlation (I agree it doesn’t helpt to predict much). Correlation does not prove cause, but, just as zero correlations provide no support for a hypothesis of cause and effect, nonzero correlations do provide support.

And as I noted above, more sophisticated scanning is helping to understand brain functioning and cognitive abilities. See the recent paper: ‘Genetics of Brain Fiber Architecture and Intellectual Performance. The Journal of Neuroscience, February 18, 2009, 29(7):2212-2224;

http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/c...../29/7/2212

Semites (Arabs & Jews) were dealing with Geometry thousands of years before Christ. At a time when peoples on the British Isles were living in caves & painting themselves blue & had no written language. Inuit & American Indian tribes had no written language but had amazing capacity to adapt to changing living condition in terms of survival. The “intelligence” to adapt & survive & the “intelligence” to write & conceptualize building structures may be measured differently but both produce a positive result for their respective peoples.
Subjective interpretation of intelligence based on what are abstractions in today’s society may be useful but if it ends there the mathematician can not repair his car & society eventually comes to a stop.
Intelligence does not stop where the pencil hits the paper. It can’t, because if we did not share our individual abilities we could not function as a society.
The “Puzzle” of the internal combustion engine & the “Puzzle” of the trigonometric equation are different in format but both demand certain forms of intelligence that much standardized testing does not encompass.

Keep clutching at straws, Brian.

A more recent study, not in terms of race, but in terms of brain volume & IQ is this one by ‘A genetic analysis of brain volumes and IQ in children’ in Volume 37, Issue 2, March-April 2009, Pages 181-191
Intelligence and the Brain:

Marieke van Leeuwena, , , Jiska S. Peperb, Stéphanie M. van den Bergc, Rachel M. Brouwerb, Hilleke E. Hulshoff Polb, René S. Kahnb and Dorret I. Boomsmaa

“In a population-based sample of 112 nine-year old twin pairs, we investigated the association among total brain volume, gray matter and white matter volume, intelligence as assessed by the Raven IQ test, verbal comprehension, perceptual organization and perceptual speed as assessed by the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-III. Phenotypic correlations between the brain volumes and intelligence traits ranged between .20 and .33. Processing speed and brain volume did not correlate. The relation between brain volume and intelligence was entirely explained by a common set of genes influencing both sets of phenotypes.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/s.....04a4a5f66b

http://www.asamst.ucsb.edu/cou.....menand.pdf

If you can’t see why Morton is rubbish then I’d say you are just uncritically grasping at anything that supports your preconceptions.

Except that Gould is quite mistaken about a number of points.

Even Professor James Flynn, who argues for an environmental explanation for group differences, notes that Gould avoided most of Arthur Jensen’s main arguments.

Gould repeats the old canard about Jew’s doing poorly as a group in the 1920’s on psychometric tests. Actually, Henry Goddard tested a small group of migrants suspected of being mentally handicapped. The results were never seen as representative of the entire groups. At that same time Ashkenazi Jews in the UK were already noted to be outperforming other groups even adjusting for economic background. Ivy League Universities were also about to implement the infamous ‘Jewish quotas’ because Jewish students were overrepresented. The idea that Jews as a group did poorly is false.

Gould also tries to link this to the passing of the 1924 Immigration Act, but Snyderman & Herrnstein (American Psychologist 1983) found this was incorrect.

Gould spends a lot of time attacking old testing methods while avoiding more sophisticated tests that strongly predict academic performance (and that the army still uses). For instance, East Asians (eg Japanese & Chinese tend to do very well on the non-verbal section of the tests, which is consistent with their above average performance in math/science subjects – see Dan Seligman’s “A Question of Intelligence”).

Gould also says “Thurstone dispersed g as an illusion” but this is misleading (see John Carroll’s review Intelligence 21, 121-134 (1995), (also, Jensen Contemporary Education Review Summer 1982, Volume 1, Number 2, pp. 121- 135.)

David J. Bartholomew, from London School of Economics, who has writtena textbook on factor analysis, also explains in “Measuring Intelligence: Facts and Fallacies” where Gould goes wrong in this area.

Gould states that Morton “doctored” his collection of results on cranial size, but J. S. Michael (1988) remeasured a random sample of the Morton collection he found that very few errors had been made, and that these were not in the direction that Gould had asserted.

There is a slight correlation, this has never been debunked (note according to Rushton, those of Chinese or Japanese descent actually have the highest average). I think you’re referring to the comments from ‘Mismeasure of Man’? See the paper by JS Michael (1988) where he found Gould had actually been mistaken in his comments about Morton’s data.

Also, there are some physical correlates with cognitive ability:

See Behavioral and Brain Sciences (2007), 30:135-154 Cambridge University Press:

“Overall, we conclude that modern neuroimaging techniques are beginning to articulate a biology of intelligence. We propose that the P-FIT provides a parsimonious account for many of the empirical observations, to date, which relate individual differences in intelligence test scores to variations in brain structure and function.”

Also, EEG studies show increased neural efficiency in the cortex of ‘brighter’ individuals:

“In the field of physiological study of human intelligence, strong evidence of a more efficient operation (i.e., less activation) of the brain in brighter individuals (the neural efficiency hypothesis) can be found”

Cognitive Brain Research, Volume 25, Issue 1, September 2005, Pages 217-225

There is also circumstantial evidence from twin studies & transracial adoption studies on the hereditability of IQ:

“A substantial body of literature from twin, family and adoption studies documents significant genetic effects on human intelligence. Heritability estimates range from 40 to 80% and meta-analyses suggest an overall heritability of around 50%” Dick et al, (2006) “Association of CHRM2 with IQ: Converging Evidence for Genes Influencing Intelligence.” Behavioral Genetics.

“Multivariate genetic analyses indicate that general intelligence is highly heritable, and that the overlap in the cognitive processes is twice as great as the overall phenotypic overlap, with genetic correlations averaging around .80.”

Plomin et al (2004) “A functional polymorphism in the succinate-semialdehyde dehydrogenase genes is associated with cognitive ability,” Molecular Psychology 9, 582-586.

Genetics of Brain Fiber Architecture and Intellectual Performance. The Journal of Neuroscience, February 18, 2009, 29(7):2212-2224;

“In a cross-trait mapping approach, common genetic factors mediated the correlation between IQ and white matter integrity, suggesting a common physiological mechanism for both, and common genetic determination. These genetic brain maps reveal heritable aspects of white matter integrity and should expedite the discovery of single-nucleotide polymorphisms affecting fiber connectivity and cognition.”

I think we all agree that that eye color is a poor predictor of life outcomes, at least among whites in the USA.
Among rich people, businessmen, scientists, top politicians, famous writers we find individuals with eyes in very different color.

If IQ is a poor predictor of life outcomes, we should find many, many rich, scientists, top politicians, businessmen, etc with LOW IQ.

Please give me a few in each category. Obviously no athletes, actors, rock musicians and the like.

Please. Just 2 – 3 LOW IQ Math professors in top 20 schools.

Please.
My fantasies about the real world are about to be shattered.
Please. Just 2 – 3 top science professors who are also stup… I mean have totally irrelevant low IQ.

Think, Carter, and stop with the name calling. Think of pan-Arab nationalism — that was love of people who generally share a phenotype — a race if you will. Likewise pan-Africanism basically focussed on blacks — sub-Saharan Africans. How about Garveyism? Again focussed on blacks, and yet again ‘Negritude’ — the movement among French speaking blacks in Africa and the West Indies. Were these movements bigotry? No, they simply recognized that biological race was a big part of they people they were. Likewise with White Nationalists.

The European descended peoples not only share biological traits in common — that we don’t share with other groups — but are in similar circumstances as far was mass migration. No other peoples are in the situation. The Japanese, the Koreans, the Taiwanese, the Han Chinese of Singapore, none of these people have any compunction about maintaining their demographic position in their lands. Only White folks. Given this common situation, it makes sense for us who resist this state of affairs to unite. This does not mean we do not love our individual cultures less, but it does mean that we see unity as a way to help preserve them in their diversity.

stari_momak said,

“I think most white separatists/nationalists would like to be able to do that, tyrone. Unfortunately, we can’t. Mass immigration is transforming almost every white (or European-descended or whatever you want to call it). ”

Whose fault is mass immigration? If you enjoy the capitalist system, or private enterprise, you are supporting massive immigration, the natural outgrowth of capitalism.

“Bussing and other forms of forced intergration are removing our ability to separate ourselves”

Bussing was largely a flop and isn’t practiced widely now.

“. Block voting by so-called ‘minorities’ is ensuring that we cannot rule ourselves.”

Why do you write “so-called” minorities? Are you seriously suggesting that blacks or Mexicans aren’t minorities in the US?

And despite voting in blocs, did you notice that they have been voting for overwhelmingly white candidates for decades? Most politicians, especially on the national level, are white. If these people only think about race, why do they seem to have no problem voting en bloc for white candidates for decades? Why not hold out for more black or Latino candidates?

As for voting in blocs, it’s quite simple. Due to systematic discrimination, as well as other historical factors, a larger portion of the black and Hispanic communties are working class or lower working class. For some bizarre reason which I still can’t understand- the Democratic party is still associated with labor and the working class. Minorities are basically voting their class interests.

Now what does the large white working class tend to do? They vote for the party that openly supports big business, the latter being responsible for many of America’s problems, all because they are overly concerned about other people having the opportunity to get an abortion. or if gays can get married. In other words, they vote against their best interests due to trivial matters.

” Basically we want to be left alone — we don’t think we need blacks or others.”

Most white folks don’t seem to share that opinion.

However true Nationalism is one of the criteria for Fascistic political thinking. In some “non-white” countries (Japan to an extent), racist thinking is more the norm than the exception as it has cultural imperatives.
And while the expression “white nationalism” was coined via the statement “my race is my nation” it also leads to the convention that it is not true Nationalism in the appropriate political sense. Therefore there is a obvious difference between Nationalism and the “white nationalism” that is merely a catch phrase for modern white bigotry.
The “white nationalist” is actually someone who cannot be said to love his country before his “love” of a bizarre conviction that those with the same level of melanin in their skin color represent a finite collective.

Since this is a discussion of the scientific worth of the “IQ Test”, I would be interested in the results of those white nationalist members (not leaders) test results.
It appears no accident that effective leaders of WN organization either have a formal education (William Pierce) or maintain the appearance of formal education (David Duke).
Without that “intellect” or the cunning leadership skills of those who use “religion” to maintain an aura of legitimacy, it seems the common “member” is a rudderless boat adrift in a sea of fear.

I think most white separatists/nationalists would like to be able to do that, tyrone. Unfortunately, we can’t. Mass immigration is transforming almost every white (or European-descended or whatever you want to call it). Bussing and other forms of forced intergration are removing our ability to separate ourselves. Block voting by so-called ‘minorities’ is ensuring that we cannot rule ourselves. Basically we want to be left alone — we don’t think we need blacks or others.

We are only at the beginning of our understanding human beings at the genomic level. Only in the past couple of years have the first African genome and the first Chinese genome been mapped.

And only in recent months have scientists claimed to located specific regions on the human genome that account for variations in intelligence.

Just sayin’…

Indeed we should be able to discuss disparate political ideas face-to-face with confidence and in good faith. With failing to tepid schools and a media that alternates between hype and pallid drivel, where do we find such an environment? Maybe by holding our representatives to account more responsibly and regularly? They should be the principal targets of our desire for better understanding and results.

*) This is because in Europe, for example, racially-conscious nationalists are English, French, Swedish, Polish etc. nationalists, i.e. they identify with an ethnicity, not with the entire white race. In fact, it’s typical for European nationalists that they dislike certain other white ethnicities due to historical grievances. Nazis, for example, were not white nationalists but German nationalists bent on the extermination or subjugation of other white ethnicities.

You succeed here in expressing belief in the very hubris you accuse your conservative opposition, a sort of personalized foe, of using in its stand against the rest of the world. Had it never occurred to you that many abandon default liberalism because they are bucking *that* authority that is now “tradition”?

You damage your credibility of argument with this one stroke and at the same time demonstrate your apparent inability to conceive that your worldview could have its own serious flaws.

The good news is that in America we have managed in spite of any political and social vitriol to avoid the extremes of anarchy or tyranny. By virtue of that fact alone we have a particular heritage and nation worth understanding and protecting. But those are probably signal words of hate and authoritarianism to you– this makes the dividing line easier to see but all the more appalling to consider.

Because Phillip Rushton has lots: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.....d_Behavior

Jared Taylor too: http://www.vdare.com/taylor/050913_crime.htm

“I am appalled by the comments of Professor Hart beliefs regarding intelligence are appalling [sic].”

And what comments might those be? You have no idea what Michael Hart has written, because you were too lazy to bother reading his work.

You say you’re a professor of literacy, Mr. Hess. How can that be, when you are yourself not literate? If, however, you told me that you were a professor in a Department of Redundancy Department, I could get my mind around that. You really should take your irony supplement; your posts are full of iron!

“As a Jew and academician, I know the arguments he puts forth about the various levels of intelligence are very old and worn out assertions as mythical and biased as the canard that African Americans are better suited to athletics because they have longer arms, looser joints, larger muscles, et al. The truth is intelligence as marked by IQ is in itself a misnomer because the equation of chronological age divided by mental age (CA/MA = IQ) does not take into account the many factors that contribute to a person [sic] intellectual capacity and a person’s response to her environment and within the context of her cultural experiences.”

Why do you claim to be a Jew? It’s one thing for you to claim to be an academic; it’s impossible, at this stage in the game, to libel the professoriate, but please do not embarrass Jews, by insisting on your membership among them.

By the way, the routine socialist/communist/black supremacist/whatever talking point against the science of intelligence is that it is somehow “culturally biased.” You now suggest that it is insufficiently “culturally biased.” Where, pray tell, did you get your talking point? I know that it isn’t your own thought, because you have none.

Was the following bombast supposed to cow people? “[T]he many factors that contribute to a person [sic] intellectual capacity and a person’s response to her environment and within the context of her cultural experiences.” How the hell is that supposed to be a criticism of IQ? (Relax; the question was rhetorical. I know you were just trying to sound smart.)

“His assertion does not include the many ways by which we are intelligent and talented.”

What assertion?

“Hart’s thesis is no better then [sic] Hitler’s theory of the Arian [sic] Race.”

What thesis? And what theory might that be? You’ve never read Hitler, either!

“As Hitler did, Hart disgraces humanity and academic pursuits by the drivel he espouses and bases on inaccurate data, inaccurate assumptions, and biased data.”

What thesis? What “inaccurate data, inaccurate assumptions, and biased data”?

“I have neither time nor inclination to debunk his thesis.”

Of course, not. How can you debunk someone who writes on fields about which you know nothing, and whose work you’ve never read?

“He would not be able to complete his doctorate at my institution because he works from faulty assumption [sic] to which is he too blinded by his hatred and biases to see.”

What “assumption”? And what institution would award a doctorate to an intellectual fraud like you? As for “hatred and biases,” pot, kettle, Mr. Hess, pot, kettle.

“Next he will want the enactment of laws limiting public access and privilege based on racist ‘intelligence’. Wasn’t that the Third Reich’s reasoning in the enactment of the Nuremberg Laws. [sic]

Actually, no.

“Professor Hart does not belong in the same academy as I and my other colleagues who have a clearer understanding of what it means to be human.”

So, you question Michael Hart’s humanity, too, do you? Well, why not? Why not go for the trifecta, while you’re at it, eh, “Professor” Hess?

Here’s what I know about Michael Hart. (We’ve met three times, are cordial, and have mutual friends, but do not know each other well.)

1. He’s a polymath, and one of the towering intellects of his generation;

2. Morally, he’s about as close to fearless as a man can be, without being a danger to those around him. He stood up to David Duke, who is at least one foot taller than him, in a room containing many of Duke’s friends;

3. When it comes to arguing his beliefs, he is willing to put his own time, money, and reputation on the table, whether it is writing and publishing his work, or producing a conference.

Here’s what I know about “Wm George Hess.”

1. Intellectual fraud: Claims to be a professor of literacy, while himself being of dubious literacy. Claims expertise in fields which he has never studied, and about writers whom he has never read. Calls world-class scholars frauds, based on the authority of an academic hoax (Stephen Jay Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man);

2. Moral fraud: Condemns the humanity of one of the most courageous intellectuals of his day. Jumps on the bandwagon with other liars, morons, and cowards to persecute their betters. Demands that other critics sign their real names, so that he and his comrades can destroy their lives.

Were my Hungarian-born Nana (1893?-1976) still alive, she would call you a liar, Hess. She’d say that it’s impossible for a man so lacking in intelligence and literacy to be both a Jew and a professor. And indeed, in her day, it was impossible. Unfortunately, I know that we live in an age of Jewish mediocrity. But that is the fault of you and your ilk, Hess, not Michael Hart. It is Michael Hart whom my Nana would have recognized, for in his intellectual and moral excellence, he is a throwback to her age.

To impale you on your own words, Hess, you and your colleagues do “not belong in the same academy” as Michael Hart.

As for my characterization of your first post, well, you’ll excuse me if I stand by it. I believe it speaks for itself.

And I missed this before: “He would not be able to complete his doctorate at my institution. . . ”

I guess he’s just going to have to settle for his PhD from Princeton University.

;)