Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

. . . but since you insist he's not a crank you should be willing to answer them.

Please do.

You've made your point. Don't press it.

[ /Moderating ]

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

Orientals are slower to mature, less fertile, less sexually active, less aggressive, and have larger brains and higher IQ scores. Blacks are at the other pole. Whites fall in the middle, but closer to Orientals than to Blacks.
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org...n_Behavior.pdf

Brain Size Differences. Studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) find a correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40. Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. Race differences in brain size are present at birth. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks.
http://www.news-medical.net/news/200...3-eafd0730133a

I don't see anything here related to closeness of eyes, larger occipital ridges or anomalous ears-to-nose ratios ; those surefire predictors of criminal minds, alcoholism, Irishness and similar degenerations. When come back, bring calipers, SIR !

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Kobal2

I don't see anything here related to closeness of eyes, larger occipital ridges or anomalous ears-to-nose ratios ; those surefire predictors of criminal minds, alcoholism, Irishness and similar degenerations. When come back, bring calipers, SIR !

Paging Cesare Lombroso!

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Una Persson

I know everyone's having the usual GD fun of playing "pile on the unpopular OP," but come on. The human brain is not analogous to a computer in terms of the behavior of the structure, power, performance, etc. Furthermore if you're talking about chip die sizes and speed even that is not analogous to the "size" of a computer.

I know, but it points up the fact that a bigger brain does not necessarily translate to better. Whales and elephants and cattle are not as intelligent as humans.

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

Eighteen years since the end of apartheid in South Africa that country has one of the highest murder rates in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate

And the fact that it's been steadily falling means? I mean, a 19% drop in the last 7 years? Clearly the longer Black rule goes on, the better the country gets...

[grude]

You know this obsession the scientific racists have with penis size suggests to me a desire to do extracurricular research, in fact it would be good.

I tip my hat to the people doing community service here but really it is a waste of time, I mean "oriental race"?

[Bryan Ekers]

Big brains, huh? Clearly India will eventually dominate, what with all their elephants and such.


African elephants need not apply.

[Latro]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Whales and elephants and cattle are not as intelligent as humans.

Whales are pretty smart and dolphins.
If they had hands and would devote more time to their studies, in stead of enjoying their life of swimming and sex, who knows what they could achieve.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Latro

Whales are pretty smart and dolphins.
If they had hands and would devote more time to their studies, in stead of enjoying their life of swimming and sex, who knows what they could achieve.

I recall Terry Pratchett at an SF con recounting how scientists had finally translated the langauge of whale-songs, but all that came out was, "I'm going for a swim today . . . Swim! . . . Swim!"

[Latro]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

They are members of the same race. I use the word "Oriental," rather than "Asian," because an Asian can be an Arab, and they are Caucasians.

No they are not. You should read up on your genetics.

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

If the obvious differences between the races in terms of average intelligence, crime, and sexual behavior were due to environmental differences we would expect more variation within a race and less variation between the races.

But we do see wide IQ variations inside the same 'races'.
Having worked as a teacher I can assure you of that.

There are also criminal/behavioural differences within race. Some may be explained by IQ levels but mainly by culture and environment.

Over here we have quite a high percentage of criminality amongst our 2nd generation maroccan immigrants. They usually stem from normal law abiding families. It is the environment that has allowed/pushed them into criminal behaviour.

Within the 'Caucasian race' there are also variations in violent behaviour.
There's a lot more violence in England than in Germany f.i. and even more in Russia or the Balkans. I am certain that that is cultural. Which stands to reason.
If you grow up in a violent environment you will (have to) become violent too.

Likewise, if you grow up in poorer area of town with it's own (sub)cultures you will be influenced by those. Say by not respecting governemental authority as much, lower threshold to crime ( as all your friends do it), disdain for studying etc..

The place, neighbourhood and family, you are born and its cultures influences your behaviour far far more than any race factor.

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by Latro

Whales are pretty smart and dolphins.
If they had hands and would devote more time to their studies, in stead of enjoying their life of swimming and sex, who knows what they could achieve.

"For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons." -- Douglas Adams

[Smeghead]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

Experiences vary. School teachers I have talked to have told me that predominantly black public schools are dangerous places where little learning takes place. One teacher told me that many blacks have difficulty understanding concepts as simple as negative numbers and fractions.

Hang on, everyone! We've got ANECDOTES now!! Anonymous ones, even!

I think we can now all agree that the matter is conclusively settled.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Smeghead

Hang on, everyone! We've got ANECDOTES now!! Anonymous ones, even!

I think we can now all agree that the matter is conclusively settled.

I would actually agree with this--although probably not in a way that New Deal Democrat would approve.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Latro

But we do see wide IQ variations inside the same 'races'.
Having worked as a teacher I can assure you of that.

Right. Doesn't the whole "bell curve" debate begin with that assumption? The white American IQ-distribution bell curve has its peak or median point to the right of the African-Americans' IQ-distribution bell curve -- fine, that much is well-documented and entirely noncontroversial (though every conceivable interpretation of those data is controversial, as we see here, and public-policy implications more controversial still); but, each bell curve remains a bell curve, with its mentally retarded on the left tail and its geniuses on the right tail and a huge more-or-less-average mass in the middle.

[BrainGlutton]

From the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica:

Mentally the negro is inferior to the white. The remark* of F. Manetta, made after a long study of the negro in America, may be taken as generally true of the whole race: "the negro children were sharp, intelligent and full of vivacity, but on approaching the adult period a gradual change set in. The intellect seemed to become clouded, animation giving place to a sort of lethargy, briskness yielding to indolence. We must necessarily suppose that the development of the negro and white proceeds on different lines. While with the latter the volume of the brain grows with the expansion of the brainpan, in the former the growth of the brain is on the contrary arrested by the premature closing of the cranial sutures and lateral pressure of the frontal bone.3 This explanation is reasonable and even probable as a contributing cause; but evidence is lacking on the subject and the arrest or even deterioration in mental development is no doubt very largely due to the fact that after puberty sexual matters take the first place in the negro's life and thoughts.

Racist thinking seems to have progressed very little since then, it's strange.

If black children in that period were observed to appear bright until puberty and then turn stupid, I would offer a more obvious explanation: The kid has reached an age where he figures out he is living in a society that has no use for intelligent blacks and will not reward any display of intelligence on his part. The perception of oversexedness among blacks is easily attributable to prevailing cultural stereotypes then and now. But what I find most curious is the unstated assumption that oversexedness is incompatible with intelligence. Where did that come from?!

[FinnAgain]

Sexually frustrated research scientists.

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

But what I find most curious is the unstated assumption that oversexedness is incompatible with intelligence. Where did that come from?!

Hydraulics 101

[Belowjob2.0]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

Average penis size by race is one of Professor Rushton's assertions that I am not able to independently verify.

Come on, NDD. You're just not trying hard enough. Get out there and do it!

Sexual Behavior in the Human Male Alfred Kinsey said the differences were minimal, but but he seems to have made mistakes, so I would prefer additional substantiation.

"Prefer"? Aren't you the coy one. We know what you like. Cheeky monkey!

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Kobal2

Hydraulics 101

What, ain't a guy got enough blood to fill two heads at once?

What am I saying, of course he doesn't . . .

[Kobal2]

You ever tried doing double entry accounting in your head while fucking ? It's harder than it sounds, man.

Also a little sadder.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

These questions are relevant when assessing the sexual abilities and proclivities of different individuals and races.

That is not a matter of intelligence, is it? Neither is criminality.

I have started a new thread for discussion of "racial" psychological differences other than IQ.

[Chen019]

They may well be. Certainly Professor Robert Weinberg suggests in this biology lecture at MIT that may be revealed in time.

This recent paper by Rindermann et al is suggestive. Research like this at BGI may resolve these debates.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Kobal2

You ever tried doing double entry accounting in your head while fucking ? It's harder than it sounds, man.

Also a little sadder.

Well, what if you don't know anything about baseball?

[Honesty]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

Why do blacks recreate the same bad environments everywhere they go?

These threads are depressing. Imagine for a moment if nearly every month there's a thread on how stupid you are and idiotic and lazy your ethnic group happens to be. You wouldn't understand, though. I just hope there aren't any impressionable minorities who read these threads and begin to internalize this trash. Here's a few morsels to chew on. There are no genes or alleles that control how smart one is. There's no researcher worth his salt that'll tell you otherwise. The paper posted by Rushton displays data on cranial size but doesn't show the margin of error of that data or the n. I suspect that if error bars were placed on the data, there would be no significant difference.

Frankly, if there are differences between blacks and whites, can we please retroactively change graded evaluations from college? I mean, I got a "B-" in organic chemistry with about 300 students (mostly whites and "orientals"). Since I'm black and had to overcome the sloth of my IQ and bad cognitive genes, can I get an "Amen" to raise my grade from a "B-" to a "A+++"? If there are differences, do you suggest that we take a page from the penultimate chapter of the The Bell Curve and enroll blacks to the welfare rolls en masse to keep them from robbing their white overlords? If your dream comes true and blacks are on the bottom rung of the ladder of intelligence, what's the next step? Surely, you've thought this through more than a raspberry and "haha, ur stoopid."

Also, based in my experience, blacks have bigger penises than whites. However, I will say that a white guy with a big penis (that is >7.5 inches) is much hotter than a black guy with a big penis (>8 inches) Don't know why. Guess it's the rarity. As for Asians, they're small, but I think it's due to eating dietary estrogen. I've never seen an Asian over 6 inches. Would be interested to see how American-born Asians stack up. Unfortunately, there's not much research on penis size. It is unfortunate because research on penis size would help woman choose mates that meets the needs of the vagina.

- Honesty

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by Honesty

There are no genes or alleles that control how smart one is. There's no researcher worth his salt that'll tell you otherwise.

- Honesty

If that is true, why is the race gap in mental aptitude so durable?

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=171

Also, why do a growing number of employers in the private sector give mental aptitude tests to prospective employees?

[Smeghead]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

If that is true, why is the race gap in mental aptitude so durable?

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=171

Also, why do a growing number of employers in the private sector give mental aptitude tests to prospective employees?

Because, as has been explained to you over and over and over, there are plenty of other nongenetic factors at play, and employers are stupid. Regardless of race.

[grude]

Originally Posted by Honesty

Also, based in my experience, blacks have bigger penises than whites. However, I will say that a white guy with a big penis (that is >7.5 inches) is much hotter than a black guy with a big penis (>8 inches) Don't know why. Guess it's the rarity. As for Asians, they're small, but I think it's due to eating dietary estrogen. I've never seen an Asian over 6 inches. Would be interested to see how American-born Asians stack up. Unfortunately, there's not much research on penis size. It is unfortunate because research on penis size would help woman choose mates that meets the needs of the vagina.

- Honesty

Funny anecdote but when I explained a comment or joke in US media about black men having a large penis a woman here in Trinidad said what really and said in her experience black men have small penises and asians big ones In fact there are plenty of local jokes on the Jamaican grandfather theme(where the woman in a white couple will have an obviouslly mixed race baby and feebly attempts to explain it) except here it is a mysteriously asian looking baby born to a black couple. Asians are oversexxed, east Indians are drunks and not studious, etc. Its funny because it almost seems random who gets assigned what.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by grude

Funny anecdote but when I explained a comment or joke in US media about black men having a large penis a woman here in Trinidad said what really and said in her experience black men have small penises and asians big ones In fact there are plenty of local jokes on the Jamaican grandfather theme(where the woman in a white couple will have an obviouslly mixed race baby and feebly attempts to explain it) except here it is a mysteriously asian looking baby born to a black couple. Asians are oversexxed, east Indians are drunks and not studious, etc. Its funny because it almost seems random who gets assigned what.

I recall Harry Turtledove's AH novel The Two Georges, wherein the American Revolution is averted by compromise and negotiation. Thus, when Parliament finally abolishes slavery throughout the British Empire in the 1830s, it applies to American slaves as well; and the British government, moreover, takes steps to basically-educate the freedmen and provide them with low-level clerical and civil-service jobs, which then becomes their traditional role in American society; with the result that, at the end of the 20th Century, the most prevalent stereotype about blacks is "fussy precision."

[Honesty]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=171

Also, why do a growing number of employers in the private sector give mental aptitude tests to prospective employees?

Probably the same reason why the South administered poll tests.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

If that is true, why is the race gap in mental aptitude so durable?

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=171

You are claiming that the test results of different groups on a single test in a single society are a good indication of a world-wide genetic situation? Where is your devotion to logic?

(I also note that the native North Americans on that graph do not test very high, even though they are, basically, transplanted Asians. So, unless you are going to fudge the numbers or play "move the goalposts" regarding cultural influence on the tests, Rushton's nonsense about Asian intelligence is disproved on those graphs.)

[Strassia]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

If that is true, why is the race gap in mental aptitude so durable?

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=171

Also, why do a growing number of employers in the private sector give mental aptitude tests to prospective employees?

For the first point, why is racial discrimination (in fact if not intent) so durable? In other words, the fact that the gap has not disappeared when the environmental differences have not disappeared does not prove it is a genetic issue.

Your second point is a complete non sequitur. Are you trying to say that the reason employers are giving aptitude tests is because they are trying to weed out blacks? Or are you confusing Honesty's statement about no gene for IQ with claims that IQ is not a valid measurement of anything important.

If the second, I would respond that the reason for the tests is the same as the reason employers were adopting credit checks for all perspective employees even though there was no data showing how that related to their job performance: companies sold them on it in order to increase profits.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I'll make a bet with NDD regarding EOG scores.

I predict that socioeconomic class, not race, is the primary predictor of EOG scores among students.

To that end, I'll get two random groups of students: one group will be white students who live in generational poverty (that is, their parents are poor and grew up poor), and one group will be African American students who live a middle-class lifestyle.

I predict that the white students will perform worse on the EOGs than the African American students.

Do you disagree with this prediction?

(Note: I can't actually get these two cohorts, and if I could, I couldn't tell you their test scores; this bet is a thought experiment.)

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

I'll make a bet with NDD regarding EOG scores.

I predict that socioeconomic class, not race, is the primary predictor of EOG scores among students.

To that end, I'll get two random groups of students: one group will be white students who live in generational poverty (that is, their parents are poor and grew up poor), and one group will be African American students who live a middle-class lifestyle.

I predict that the white students will perform worse on the EOGs than the African American students.

Do you disagree with this prediction?

(Note: I can't actually get these two cohorts, and if I could, I couldn't tell you their test scores; this bet is a thought experiment.)

In 1995 white students whose family incomes averaged less than $10,000 averaged higher higher SAT scores than black students whose family incomes averaged above $70,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1995-SAT-Income.png

This is how that can be explained:

IQ Scores of Blacks and Whites Regress toward the Averages of Their Race. Parents pass on only some exceptional genes to offspring so parents with very high IQs tend to have more average children. Black and White children with parents of IQ 115 move to different averages--Blacks toward 85 and Whites to 100.
http://www.news-medical.net/news/200...3-eafd0730133a

[BrainGlutton]

Something you've not addressed, NDD: Practically all African-Americans, even the darkest-skinned, are of mixed blood, descended from slaveowners as well as from slaves (the average white admixture is 20%). How does that affect your analysis?

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

In 1995 white students whose family incomes averaged less than $10,000 averaged higher higher SAT scores than black students whose family incomes averaged above $70,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1995-SAT-Income.png

This is how that can be explained:

IQ Scores of Blacks and Whites Regress toward the Averages of Their Race. Parents pass on only some exceptional genes to offspring so parents with very high IQs tend to have more average children. Black and White children with parents of IQ 115 move to different averages--Blacks toward 85 and Whites to 100.
http://www.news-medical.net/news/200...3-eafd0730133a

Andrew Hacker addressed this back in the 90s. Most of the whites in this study were kids from middle class homes living with recently divorced mothers, not kids who'd grown up in poverty.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

This is how that can be explained:

IQ Scores of Blacks and Whites Regress toward the Averages of Their Race. Parents pass on only some exceptional genes to offspring so parents with very high IQs tend to have more average children. Black and White children with parents of IQ 115 move to different averages--Blacks toward 85 and Whites to 100.
http://www.news-medical.net/news/200...3-eafd0730133a

Of course, the explanation is wrong, but I suppose one could try to "explain" it that way.

Note that Jensen is another guy who has devoted his entire life to denigrating blacks, getting much of his funding from avowed white supremacist groups.

Looking over their "study," I notice that they are back to comparing brain sizes, when there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that brain structure plays a much larger role in intelligence than does size. I also note that they are back to claiming that an average IQ of 85 for an entire population is not ludicrous on the face of it. Were that true, the overwhelming percentage of people in that population would be unable to function as cashiers in retail, (much less run their own businesses), and few of them would be capable of driving a car. When the numbers come up against reality and just look stupid, it is time to question the numbers, not reality.

[Ibn Warraq]

BTW

NDD,

You've made it clear you're a huge admirer of Rushton's work.

However, while you're convinced he's right that blacks are mentally inferior to whites, you've said you don't think he's correct about whites having small penises.

Why is that?

Why are you so quick to believe him that blacks are mentally inferior but hesitant to believe him that whites are anatomically inferior?

Why do you seem to only accept his "studies" that vindicate your prejudices while rejecting his claims about potential shortcomings that you and other whites might suffer from?

Thanks

[gamerunknown]

Not to mention the existence of situational effects on performance beyond socioeconomic status.

[Enola Gay]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Something you've not addressed, NDD: Practically all African-Americans, even the darkest-skinned, are of mixed blood, descended from slaveowners as well as from slaves (the average white admixture is 20%). How does that affect your analysis?

It's a shame the slave owners weren't Oriental, as that would have upped the average IQ for black Americans

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

I also note that they are back to claiming that an average IQ of 85 for an entire population is not ludicrous on the face of it. Were that true, the overwhelming percentage of people in that population would be unable to function as cashiers in retail, (much less run their own businesses), and few of them would be capable of driving a car. When the numbers come up against reality and just look stupid, it is time to question the numbers, not reality.

Isn't it also impossible by definition ? As in, there's no such thing as absolute "IQ numbers" and one's IQ is measured along a scale where 100 is defined as the average IQ for the observed population & age group, with a standard deviation of 15 ?
If the average IQ over the entire population is 85, the population is not dumb. The scale is fucked to begin with.

[RickJay]

I wonder how New Deal Democrat explains criminality and lack of scholastic success among North American aboriginals, who are most directly descended from "Orientals."

I would imagine he doesn't. Neither, by the way, did Philippe Rushton, who deliberately left them out of his "studies" because the numbers shoot his claims all to shit.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

In 1995 white students whose family incomes averaged less than $10,000 averaged higher higher SAT scores than black students whose family incomes averaged above $70,000.

Perhaps I should have explained what "generational poverty" means.

Oh, wait--I did. So the study you linked to is completely irrelevant.

As others have pointed out, even if I hadn't specified generational poverty, your study would be at best highly misleading.

If you have an on-point response to my post, please make it.

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by RickJay

I wonder how New Deal Democrat explains criminality and lack of scholastic success among North American aboriginals, who are most directly descended from "Orientals."

I would imagine he doesn't. Neither, by the way, did Philippe Rushton, who deliberately left them out of his "studies" because the numbers shoot his claims all to shit.

In The 10,000 Year Explosion, which I reviewed here:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=605733

the authors argue that agriculture and urban civilization have different population pressures than a paleolithic existence. Orientals - which is to say mainly Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, and Vietnamese - have been practicing agriculture for about eight thousand years, and civilization for over three thousand years. North American aboriginals have not practiced either for nearly as long. Indeed, agriculture only reached the Great Lakes regions about one thousand years ago.

Consequently, North American Indians are more similar to Negroes than Orientals when it comes to average intelligence and crime.

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Of course, the explanation is wrong, but I suppose one could try to "explain" it that way.

Note that Jensen is another guy who has devoted his entire life to denigrating blacks, getting much of his funding from avowed white supremacist groups.

Looking over their "study," I notice that they are back to comparing brain sizes, when there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that brain structure plays a much larger role in intelligence than does size. I also note that they are back to claiming that an average IQ of 85 for an entire population is not ludicrous on the face of it. Were that true, the overwhelming percentage of people in that population would be unable to function as cashiers in retail, (much less run their own businesses), and few of them would be capable of driving a car. When the numbers come up against reality and just look stupid, it is time to question the numbers, not reality.

An average IQ for American blacks of 85 is the general consensus. The SAT is not an IQ test, but it correlates with IQ. Since the school year of 1990-91 there has been a significant and growing gap between SAT scores for whites and blacks.

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=171

On the other hand, Orientals have always exceeded whites in mathematics, and are catching up on reading.

No Child Left Behind seems to have had no effect on the race gap in SAT scores.

[Kobal2]

And yet they had nothing to do whatsoever with "negroes", at least not until Columbus, slavery and everything ; but were very likely descended from the same general stock as your "orientals".

So what does that say about your classification system, the conclusions you make from it and the value thereof ?

ETA: that was re:Native Americans, naturally.

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by Kobal2

And yet they had nothing to do whatsoever with "negroes", at least not until Columbus, slavery and everything ; but were very likely descended from the same general stock as your "orientals".

So what does that say about your classification system, the conclusions you make from it and the value thereof ?

ETA: that was re:Native Americans, naturally.

The higher average IQs of whites of European descent and Orientals can be attributed to several thousand years of urban civilization, and several thousand more of neolithic farming. In addition, the imperial exam system bred the Chinese for superior intelligence. Men who were intelligent enough to pass the exams were given generous incomes. They had several wives, and many children who were more likely to survive and reproduce than the general population.

These were factors that did not effect the American Indians.

[Mosier]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

The higher average IQs of whites of European descent and Orientals can be attributed to several thousand years of urban civilization, and several thousand more of neolithic farming. In addition, the imperial exam system bred the Chinese for superior intelligence. Men who were intelligent enough to pass the exams were given generous incomes. They had several wives, and many children who were more likely to survive and reproduce than the general population.

These were factors that did not effect the American Indians.

Ancient stone age humans are genetically modern humans. Are you saying that something other than genetic differences are what's causing IQ discrepancies?

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by Mosier

Ancient stone age humans are genetically modern humans. Are you saying that something other than genetic differences are what's causing IQ discrepancies?

The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution, which I reviewed here

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=605733

explains the nature and importance of racial differences which evolved during the past 10,000 years.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

I still do not understand why the Japanese and South Koreans have higher average IQs than the Chinese.

It won't do to handwave; this is equivalent to a creationist saying that he doesn't understand all those anatomical homologues in various species or a Birther saying he doesn't understand how those birth announcements got printed in contemporaneous Hawaiian newspapers.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

Orientals - which is to say mainly Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, and Vietnamese - have been practicing agriculture for about eight thousand years, and civilization for over three thousand years.

***BZZZTTTT***!!!

Nice try, but the fatal counterexample of Japan (where basic civilizational features such as agriculture only date back to c. 200 BCE) cannot be evaded by either handwaving (your previous tactic) or outright falsification (your current one).