# NEO-Eugenics **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 28, 2004, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874 "2004-03-28T05:31:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/81 "2004-03-29T22:39:12Z")
> [@Science Girl](#): > > Do you mean you believe Matt Nuenke has a low IQ and has no college background? IQ has nothing to do with it. A person with a high IQ can act just as stupidly as someone with a low IQ. I will say this, if he does have a college education he is refusing to use it and is, in fact, actively engaged in opposing serious science (which I believe is stupid). **Capacitor** posted his comment just after midnight last night. You’ve been asked quite a few serious questions since then ( **RickJay** , **Dogface** , and **Zoe** in particular have all asked for supporting material and/or clarification) and this is what you chose to answer? I have to wonder what your purpose is here. ---
**Author:** ![legion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/838e76/32.png) [@legion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/legion)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/82 "2004-03-29T22:40:51Z")
> [@Dogface](#): > > What you have there is a “hypothesis”, specifically that natural selection has stopped acting upon humans. Please define your terms so that your hypothesis can be evaluated. > > What is “natural selection”? How is it that humans are no longer part of “nature”? How is this definition of “nature” you use any better than a bunch of romantic nonsense? IMO natural selection means that individuals of a species who are “unfit” do not contribute genes (to any great extent) to the next generation. The presumption is that their fitness is determined by their genes, and that only those individuals with the “best” genes for the particular environmental conditions those organisms live under will reproduce, and thus the gene-pool for that species will become enriched with “good” genes. Clearly, nowadays, most everybody gets a fair crack of the whip to pass on their genes, not just the “fittest”. Technical and medical advances have made age, infirmity, sexual persuasion and even infertility no real barrier to procreation. We also have the spectre of human cloning on the horizon. Of course, whether natural selection does or does not still have some say on human evolution, is there anyway we can actually tell? Without waiting a few 100’s or 1000’s of generations, I mean? Let me just add that these are only my opinions, and I am perfectly willing to give them up if they are shown to be nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![Science\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f14d63/32.png) [@Science\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Science_Girl)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/83 "2004-03-29T22:43:13Z")
> [@](#): > > If a government were to implement nation-wide programs to improve the intelligence levels of children born to all of its citizens, I.Q. levels would remain the same. Do you understand why? I understand median IQ is always set to 100, but in absolute terms, intelligence would rise. > [@](#): > > If citizens of differing countries were given _exactly_ the same I.Q. tests, differences in cultures could account for differences in scores. If they were _not_ given the same I.Q. tests, then scores cannot scientifically be compared. Do you understand why? The American Psychological Association says you are wrong. > [@](#): > > If each country gives its own I.Q. test and compares the scores of its citizens, the average I.Q. is the same from country to country. Do you understand why? I am thinking that scientists set the international median to 100 and then compare each nation separately. But I am just speculating, I am not sure how people like Professor Richard Lynn arrived at their conclusions, but I trust them. > [@](#): > > Are you aware that your DNA may more closely match someone of another “race” than of your own? Breeds of dogs have more genetic variation within each breed than between them, this does not mean breeds don’t exist. I read that there is more genetic variation within a wolf and within a lassie than there is between a wolf and lassie, but no one would take a wolf home to their kids because they understand a wolf is different from a lassie, much more aggressive. The only thing that matters is not how many genes are different, but WHICH genes are different, such as genes that code for intelligence and behavior. Here is some data supporting my claims: [http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/tab.htm](http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/tab.htm) > [@](#): > > Richard Lynn publishes mostly in a journal which makes no bones about being pro-Nazi. It has included works by even Joseph Mengele’s mentor. Richard Lynn is an associate editor – or at least he was as of the mid-1990’s. I believe calling someone a Nazi is not valid argument but rather an insult. > [@](#): > > Lynn’s comments about African’s lower I.Q.'s was based on a study of results of a Junior _aptitude_ test administered 15 years ago to 1,000 sixteen year olds. Lynn did not do the study himself. The person who _did_ do the study specified explicitly that the results were a reflection of the horrors of apartheid – **not** of any biological inferiority of African blacks. Lynn’s research is backed by many others and indirectly by the APA. I believe his works are legit. > [@](#): > > believe that I have some understanding of your purpose and background. So this will be my last post to you I enjoyed my time with you. Thank you for your input. Regards. ---
**Author:** ![Science\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f14d63/32.png) [@Science\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Science_Girl)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/84 "2004-03-29T22:57:40Z")
> [@Jack Sarang](#): > > The fact that you cite Rushton clearly identifies your agenda. J. Philippe Rushton is a white supremicist who uses poorly executed studies to “prove” his views. He coins such cute terms as “Negroid”, “Mongoloid” and “Caucasoid” to refer to Blacks, Asians and Whites. His papers have been published but even a first year psychology major (like you?) learns to punch holes in them. His sampling is a joke and so is all his “evidence” which depends entirely on correlation. They did teach you that correlation != causation right? > > There have been dozens of papers published as refutations and rejoinders to Rushton’s 2-3 “studies”. Hi, I don’t consider name-calling like “White Supremacist” a valid argument. Also, what is the definition of a “White Supremacist”? There is not objective definition, rather everyone defines it differently and out of emotion. But, does not a White Supremacist at least believe Whites are the greatest race and that non-Whites should be made slaves or killed off? Professor Rushton says Whites are only average and that East Asians are smarter and more moral than Whites, and he does not advocate slavery or genocide. I believe you already knew this and were intentionally being dishonest? I speculate though. I have not seen any research debunking Rushton but rather only confirming his claims. Regards. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/85 "2004-03-29T23:00:46Z")
> [@legion](#): > > IMO natural selection means that individuals of a species who are “unfit” do not contribute genes (to any great extent) to the next generation. Define “fitness” in a biologically valid fashion. Here, I’ll give you a head-start by giving a measure of “fitness” as actually used by biologists: To quantitatively measure fitness, count offspring of offspring. This is a valid and worldwide accepted definition of “fitness” among real biologists, as opposed to ignorant armchair speculators. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/86 "2004-03-29T23:04:24Z")
> [@Science Girl](#): > > Breeds of dogs have more genetic variation within each breed than between them. Prove it. Give citations of peer-reviewed PRIMARY scientific journals, not predigested pap specifically designed to appeal to the ignorant and dogmatic. Give me the real meat, not the pablum. I can take it. Walk the walk, cite the REAL science in the REAL journals. ---
**Author:** ![Science\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f14d63/32.png) [@Science\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Science_Girl)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/87 "2004-03-29T23:08:36Z")
> [@Dogface](#): > > Give citations from peer-reviewed journals, not mere web sites or popular press books. I want to see original research articles. Talk the language of science, not the predigested pap of popularizers and political wonks. I posted research from the American Psychological Association, are they peer-reviewed? But anyway, I believe, as Professor Kevin MacDonald has shown [http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/Preface.htm](http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/Preface.htm) that there is a political agenda in mainstream acadamia to stop legit research into human intelligence, esp. when dealing with race. As such, mainstream peer-reviewed which tend to be controlled by Marxists don’t do such research. Thus, independent scholars to the research, like Professor Rushton, Professor Lynn, Professor Brand, Professor Vanhanen, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/88 "2004-03-29T23:10:03Z")
> [@Science Girl](#): > > I don’t consider name-calling like “White Supremacist” a valid argument. I don’t consider poorly thought out correlation = causation to be a valid argument, either. Answer me this: Have you taken a first year statistics course? > [@](#): > > Professor Rushton says Whites are only average and that East Asians are smarter and more moral than Whites, and he does not advocate slavery or genocide. Again, answer me this: Why aren’t East Asian nations, obviously a bastion of superior intellect, morals, and ability, a veritbale utopia, instead of being torn by rebellion, repression, disease, famine, and tyrrany, not to mention being decades - in some cases, centuries - behind advancements of dumb people like Latin Americans? Oh, I forgot to mention: They are also generally pretty poor, which contradicts your “poor people are dumb smart people are rich” argument rather nicely. I mean, unless you really like taking vacations to the wonderlands of Vietnam, North Korea, and Cambodia. > [@](#): > > I have not seen any research debunking Rushton but rather only confirming his claims. That’s because no one takes him seriously. Do you also believe the research published about fake moon landings and alien anal probes? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/89 "2004-03-29T23:11:26Z")
> [@](#): > > , what is the definition of a “White Supremacist”? There is not objective definition, rather everyone defines it differently and out of emotion. Rather the way that “intelligence” and “fitness” tend to be defined. ---
**Author:** ![Science\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f14d63/32.png) [@Science\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Science_Girl)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/90 "2004-03-29T23:11:39Z")
> [@Dogface](#): > > Translation: You realize that you have no real science to back up your lies, so like a coward, you run away. I believe everything I say and am satisfied with my sources. But I believe you are entitled to your opinion. Regards. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/91 "2004-03-29T23:12:23Z")
> [@Science Girl](#): > > As such, mainstream peer-reviewed which tend to be controlled by Marxists don’t do such research. OK, I literally fell to the floor laughing. If your career as a ethnic cleanser doesn’t work out, you should consider stand up comedy. Oh, you want to be scientific? How about some cites that either mainstream peer-reviewed journals are Marxist, or that Marxists don’t do research. Take your pick on either one. ---
**Author:** ![Science\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f14d63/32.png) [@Science\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Science_Girl)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/92 "2004-03-29T23:15:04Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Rather the way that “intelligence” and “fitness” tend to be defined. I agree, intelligence can be defined based on what one wants to accomplish. If for example, one values the ability and desire to lick one’s genitals clean, then cats are very intelligent. But, if one desires to succeed in a technologically advanced society, then the type of intelligence called “general intelligence” as measured by IQ tests is what is important and its the type of intelligence I value. Regards. ---
**Author:** ![legion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/838e76/32.png) [@legion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/legion)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/93 "2004-03-29T23:20:57Z")
> [@Dogface](#): > > Define “fitness” in a biologically valid fashion. Here, I’ll give you a head-start by giving a measure of “fitness” as actually used by biologists: > > To quantitatively measure fitness, count offspring of offspring. This is a valid and worldwide accepted definition of “fitness” among real biologists, as opposed to ignorant armchair speculators. Hmmm…this is turning into less fun than having root canal work. Strike one “ignorant armchair speculator” from this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Science\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f14d63/32.png) [@Science\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Science_Girl)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/94 "2004-03-29T23:21:46Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > I know that this won’t help the OP, but there are plenty of lurkers out there who might have missed it. I want to again debunk the “heritability” idea. > > The simplistic way of thinking about heritability is that it measures the amount of variation in a trait that can be explained by genetic factors. For instance, we could measure the heritability of height in a field of corn, and find, say, that the heritability of height was 95%. In other words, 95% of the differences in height between corn plants was explained by genetic differences, and 5% by environmental differences. > > We might therefore be led to conclude that changes in environment would have a minimal effect on the height of corn plants, and that we would be better off ignoring changing the environment of the plants and instead concentrate on selecting the best breeds. > > But this is a fallacy. Imagine one field where the plants average 1 meter, another field where the plants average 2 meters. And in both fields the heritability of height is 95%. So the plants in the different field must therefore be different genetically? No, of course not. I could have added fertillizer to all the plants in the second field, and none in the first field, and the plants could have been sprouted from the exact same bag of seeds. Plants with short parents invariably turned out short themselves, and plants with tall parents invariably turned out tall…but the difference between the two fields was not genetic but environmental. > > Now, substitute height for score on an IQ test, and the different fields for different socioeconomic castes, or different countries, and we can replicate the same results. High IQ people from rich countries have high IQ children, and low IQ people from poor countries have low IQ children. But it doesn’t follow that the difference between the high IQ children and the low IQ children is a genetic difference. And when you take into account that we know for a fact that children in poor countries tend to have poorer diets, lower parental care, lower education, and lower familiarity with standardized test taking, it doesn’t seem far-fetched to imagine that a large fraction of the difference is due to different environments. > > And this is true even though it is also true that we can measure the heritability of IQ score, and find it to be pretty high. High heritiability does NOT mean that a trait is unamenable to change via a changed environment. If environment can affect the biological correlates of IQ, no one has discovered them as yet. But then, why do identical twins reared apart have almost identical IQs? Tons of research have been done that debunk environment hypothesis and I have posted much of the research but it seems you don’t care to look at it, but that is your choice. In fact, Professor Plomin has already identified one gene affecting IQ. It’s only a matter of time when every gene is found. Regards. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/95 "2004-03-29T23:32:24Z")
> [@Science Girl](#): > > If environment can affect the biological correlates of IQ, no one has discovered them as yet. But then, why do identical twins reared apart have almost identical IQs? Because no one has tried scientifically rearing identical twins apart in completely different countries, one with established educational systems and colleges, and one with famine and poverty? Because that is a pretty obvious conclusion? Come on, you’re not thinking like much of a scientist. ---
**Author:** ![Karmagun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Karmagun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Karmagun)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/96 "2004-03-29T23:37:32Z")
> [@Science Girl](#): > > I believe everything I say and am satisfied with my sources. No doubt about that. ---
**Author:** ![Science\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f14d63/32.png) [@Science\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Science_Girl)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/97 "2004-03-29T23:37:39Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > Because no one has tried scientifically rearing identical twins apart in completely different countries, one with established educational systems and colleges, and one with famine and poverty? Because that is a pretty obvious conclusion? Indentical twins rared apart are closer in IQ than fraternal twins rared together. This was shown for example in the highly publicized Minnesota Twins Study carried out by Professor Bouchard and I have already posted links to his research. Regards. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/98 "2004-03-29T23:39:34Z")
Since you like studies so much, how about a few that you likely missed in following your neofascist links… now, be careful! This one is from the Federal government, so it is probably a pack of lies from the Jewish Marxist NWO… > [@](#): > > CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that vitamin-mineral supplementation modestly raised the nonverbal intelligence of some groups of Western schoolchildren by 2 to 3 points but not that of most Western schoolchildren, presumably because the majority were already adequately nourished. This study also confirms that vitamin-mineral supplementation markedly raises the non-verbal intelligence of a minority of Western schoolchildren, presumably because they were too poorly nourished before supplementation for optimal brain function. Because nonverbal intelligence is closely associated with academic performance, it follows that schools with children who consume substandard diets should find it difficult to produce academic performance equal to those schools with children who consume diets that come closer to providing the nutrients suggested in the U.S. RDA. The parents of schoolchildren whose academic performance is substandard would be well advised to seek a nutritionally oriented physician for assessment of their children’s nutritional status as a possible etiology. I dunno, I just grabbed [the second Google link in a simple search](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10706232&dopt=Abstract), and WOAH! Oopsie. This is a simple VITAMIN test on REGUARLY NOURISHED Western kids. Do you have any comprehension of the effects this could have on kids in famine-plagued nations? How does this speak for your 100% genetics 0% environment speech? Or are you going to be “too busy” to answer any more questions today? ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/99 "2004-03-29T23:41:03Z")
> [@Science Girl](#): > > Indentical twins rared apart are closer in IQ than fraternal twins rared together. This was shown for example in the highly publicized Minnesota Twins Study carried out by Professor Bouchard and I have already posted links to his research. Maybe you should start measuring verbal IQ in addition to non-verbal. Are you even able to read? I said nothing about “twins in the same city with comparable diets and decent education.” In fact, I said quite the opposite. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/100 "2004-03-29T23:47:24Z")
> [@Science Girl](#): > > But then, why do identical twins reared apart have almost identical IQs? Tons of research have been done that debunk environment hypothesis and I have posted much of the research but it seems you don’t care to look at it, but that is your choice. I’d say it’s you who is [choosing not to look](http://www.txtwriter.com/Onscience/Articles/intelligence.html). > [@](#): > > This thus constitutes a huge “twin study,” the first ever conducted of I.Q. among the poor. > > When the data were analyzed, the results were unlike any ever reported. The heritability of I.Q. was different in different environments! The influence of genes on I.Q. was far less in conditions of poverty, where environmental limitations seem to block the expression of genetic potential. Specifically, for families of high socioeconomic status, H = 0.72, much as reported in previous studies, but for families raised in poverty, H = 0.10. The lower a child’s socioeconomic status, the less impact genes had on I.Q. If you want info regarding the actual study, [here ya go](http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/abstract.asp?ref=0956-7976&vid=14&iid=6&aid=608&s=&site=1). Here’s the abstract for the paper: > [@](#): > > Scores on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children were analyzed in a sample of 7-year-old twins from the National Collaborative Perinatal Project. A substantial proportion of the twins were raised in families living near or below the poverty level. Biometric analyses were conducted using models allowing for components attributable to the additive effects of genotype, shared environment, and nonshared environment to interact with socioeconomic status (SES) measured as a continuous variable. Results demonstrate that the proportions of IQ variance attributable to genes and environment vary nonlinearly with SES. The models suggest that in impoverished families, 60% of the variance in IQ is accounted for by the shared environment, and the contribution of genes is close to zero; in affluent families, the result is almost exactly the reverse. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874.md?page=6)