# 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:** 18\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/141 "2004-03-30T21:39:40Z")
> [@Nachtwolf](#): > > …Understand that I, at least, used to be in the same position you were in, but the proponderance of the evidence forced a reversal of my opinion. Don’t be too quick to dismiss opposing ideas as resulting from ignorance - I’m a physics major, but I’ve spent more time over last three years researching this issue than learning about physics. ScienceGirl is no dummy, either; does anyone else here notice how _she’s_ the one throwing all the information on the table so far? Let’s nip this in the bud. The problem that you and SG have is that your “proof”, your “information” is the words of racists and psuedo-sciencists which have been disproven for sometime now. A peer reviewed piece, is not a racist vouching for another racist, using the same sloppy science or lack of science to prove their point. A book, a website, an article that only uses the words of other racists as evidence, is worthless and will be torn to shreds with **real** science. What you’re witnessing here, is what will always happen when you and your ilk turn up; your cause will be proven false. Easily so. I almost feel sorry for you. Almost. Unless you are prepared to provide **real** evidence, evidence not sponsered by a bunch of guys skeeting on each other about how \*\* they\*\* are ones who are intelligent enough to have the right to breed…you’re wasting your time, but hey it’s your dime. Now, let’s see that proponderance of evidence… ---
**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 30, 2004, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/142 "2004-03-30T22:11:03Z")
Oh goody, another one! Well, let’s have a look at what the peers say in this peer journal. > [@](#): > > What Jensen has done, then, is to proceed with his programme of assuming the innate intellectual inferiority of people of African origin without making even the beginnings of an effort to set up a scientifically credible test situation. > [@](#): > > What Jensen has done is to substitute a statistical construct for ‘intelligence’ and to attribute different amounts of it to groupings that have no biological reality. I have previously referred to this as ‘statistical theology’ where ‘divinity is depicted with a lower case g’ > [@](#): > > His insistence that the primary cause of variation in IQ within and between races is genetic does not seem warranted by the evidence presented. > [@](#): > > The results of the more recent and highly touted “Minnesota study” of separated twins have not yet been published in great detail, but it seems unlikely that they will support such a claim either. The Minnesota investigators have summarized their findings as indicating, “In the current environments of the broad middle class, in industrialized societies, two-thirds of the observed variance in IQ can be traced to genetic variation.” They explicitly advise that their results “should not be extrapolated to the extremes of environmental disadvantage still encountered in society” (Bouchard et al., 1990, p. 227). > [@](#): > > Jensen’s book is a masterpiece of scholarship and careful reasoning … Yet, I find it disquieting. Not because of its socio-political or socio-genetic aspects, but because it appears to exemplify a truly fundamental mistake made by many psychologists, who assume that they are doing science when in fact they are merely observing and classifying phenomena with ever more complex quantitative statistical methodologies. Whilst I stand back in awe of Jensen’s profound scholarship in this book, I feel he has inadvertently written the epitaph of g as a meaningful scientific construct. > [@](#): > > Looking at the correlational data presented by Jensen from the areas of electrophysiology, chronometrics, and nuclear imaging (including brain size and other biological and biochemical correlates), at first glance it appears that this is an impressive body of evidence. This is based on the sheer quantity of work, but it is not so impressive when we ask “what knowledge does this give us of g, its processes, and its causal mechanisms?”. Further, as I have shown elsewhere (Barrett, 1999a), with regard to the evoked potential, choice reaction time, and inspection time correlates, correlation scatter plots from real experimental data show how one can obtain correlations of up to about -0.3, yet simultaneously be faced with the fact that no consistent theory or law can explain certain results from a substantive number of cases in the scatterplot (and I don’t mean outliers). Alright, that’s enough. You have one guy who holds up some statistics and makes some theories, then you have a dozen guys who say that his research is sloppy, correlations and causality poor, questioned the research methods of his cites, outright called it psuedo-science, etc etc. On the other hand, I’m just a dumb, sub-par poor Hispanic, so maybe I don’t understand the obvious genius of statistical methods. > [@](#): > > Oh, come on. There are plenty of ways to promote and practice eugenics which don’t rest on inhumane or unconstitutional actions, John. Consider voluntary eugenics, for instance; I’m healthy and intelligent, and I intend to find a similarly healthy, intelligent woman to have many children with. Knock yourself out. > [@](#): > > It turns out that Psychometric g (that is, the distilled “essence” of IQ) correlates positively with height, general health, artistic ability, and a variety of other positive factors. So does diet and environmental factors. The fact that your high IQ people “happen” to live in more post-industrialized nations with larger exposure to arts, nutrition, etc correlates with a variety of other positive factors, as well. In any case, I though that the East Asians were the uber-smart people? How come they’re so short, socially dysfunctional, have the highest rate of suicide, etc? Or is this a case of Science Girl’s “environment is only important when it meets my needs” logic? I don’t think that anyone is arguing that genetics have no effect on intelligence, including IQ. In fact, most people agree that it does. The questions being thrown around involve the concept of race, evolution, and environment. There is nothing from the studies I’ve seen that points to racial bias against IQ. ---
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/143 "2004-03-30T22:26:30Z")
> [@Science Girl](#): > > Native Indians are not the same ethnic group as East Asians. Professor Kevelli-Sphorza (I think that’s how you spell it) followed the Human Genome Project and actually created for main racial groups: Whites, Blacks, North-East Asians, and South Asians. Native Indians are said to be South East Asians. One advantage of getting people’s names correct is that it makes it easier for you to check whether they actually said what you wish they had. Luigi Luca **Cavalli-Sforza** in fact believes that any attempt to define races in humans will be arbitrary. For instance: > [@](#): > > [W]hat level of genetic divergence would be necessary to determine boundaries for a definition of racial difference? Because genetic divergence increases in a continuous manner, it is obvious that any definition or threshold would be completely arbitrary. (_Genes, Peoples and Languages_, 2000; Penguin, 2001, p26.) Or: > [@](#): > > Proposing an improved classification [of races] can only end in failure. Observing the variation between ethnic groups should convince us of that. Visible differences lead us to believe in the existance of “pure” races, but we have seen that these are very narrow, essentially incorrect criteria. And when measured and plotted carefully, visible traits are actually far less discontinuous than is usually believed … [It] is immediately clear that all systems lack clear and satisfactory criteria for classifying. The more we pay attention to questions of statistical adequacy, the more hopeless the effort becomes. (p28-9). If anybody ought to be reading Cavalli-Sforza, it should be **Science Girl**. ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/144 "2004-03-30T22:26:34Z")
**Nachtwolf** I have a question: how do you explain the fact that black northerners scored higher on IQ tests than white southerners when soldiers were recruited and tested during WWII? (Bergen Evans, The Natural History of Nonsense (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1957), ch. 14, “The Skin Game.”) Were Southern Whites genetically inferior to Northern Blacks? Are there genetic differences between Northern Whites and Southern Whites? Are Northern Whites and Southern Whites a different race? Should Southern Whites not be discouraged to reproduce, while Northern Blacks encouraged? Was the difference in I.Q. between Southern Whites and Northern Blacks based on genetics? [history of i.q](http://www.aceviper.net/aceviper_net/ace_intelligence/aceviper_detailed_history_of_the_iq_test/aceviper_long_detailed_history_of_the_iq_test.html) > [@](#): > > The social controversy involving Yerkes work started after the end of the war. The army testing program provided a massive amount of data which Yerkes and his colleague began to analyze. Fancher (1985) pointed out three controversial finding which Yerkes revealed. First, Yerkes asserted that the average army recruit had low native intelligence. In his 800 page book entitled Psychological Examining in the United States Army published in 1921, he calculated the average recruits mental age to be around 13. Second, A Study of American Intelligence was published in 1923 by Yerkes’ colleague Carl Brigham. He reported that immigrants from northern Europe scored lower than native-born American whites, and also that immigrants from southern and eastern Europe scored much lower than those from northern Europe. Brigham failed to consider that the amount of time an immigrant had been in the country influenced his test score and northern Europeans, on the average, had been in the country much longer than the other two groups. Third, Yerkes and Brigham noted that blacks scored lower than whites and blacks from northern states often scored higher than whites from southern states. > > Yerkes failed to consider the environmental factors of the subjects, as well as the inappropriateness of the test. The statistical report of the army testing program contained one of the early applications of multiple correlation in psychological testing (Carroll, 1982). ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/145 "2004-03-31T02:39:19Z")
Meh. Eugenics strikes me as an unworkably inefficient way of improving a population. Even if you paired up breeders in an attempt to maximize the chances of offspring with a desired characteristic, you’d have to wait thirty years, minimum, to see if you were successful. Animal husbandry at least involves creatures with quicker reproductive cycles, so one farmer might see a definite result of his experiments within his own lifetime. Besides, if intelligence is the desired characteristic for eugenics in humans, how is it measured? Simple mathematical ability? Big fucking deal. Thirty years ago, a person smart at math probably had a handle on logarithms and how to use slide rules; skills that have now been made largely obsolete by modern calculators and computers. A good handle on calculus, I’ll admit, remains useful for a wide variety of engineering jobs, but it doesn’t take a genius to understand calculus. Given a good textbook and a good teacher, likely any motivated student (even one of average intelligence) could get a handle on Calc 101. I daresay our best bet is identifying environmental and genetic causes that make some of us dumber, rather than chase the dream of giving evolution a helping hand, tainted as that dream is by two centuries of pseudoscience and brutality in the name of purity. ---
**Author:** ![vasyachkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/c5a1d2/32.png) [@vasyachkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vasyachkin)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/146 "2004-03-31T03:54:34Z")
i have no issues with any arguments you eugenicists provide. i only wonder why do you care about this bs in the first place ? you’re not going to be there to reap the fruits of your labor, you will be dead by that time. i also think that effort in other areas of science such as Artificial Intelligence and various areas of Biotech is going to have a MUCH bigger payoff. i mean selective breeding is so oldskool. yes it makes sense, yes it works, but there are more exciting things we can do today. despite your claimed drop in IQ, productivity in US keeps rising at a record rate, this proves that average IQ of the masses is not the key to a better standard of living, technology is. ---
**Author:** ![TitoBenito](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2acd7d/32.png) [@TitoBenito](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TitoBenito)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/147 "2004-03-31T05:39:04Z")
> [@Nachtwolf](#): > > Yes, eugenists spend much of their time discussing these possibilities. It turns out that Psychometric _g_ (that is, the distilled “essence” of IQ) correlates positively with height, general health, artistic ability, and a variety of other positive factors. So by encouraging the smarter to have more children, we would as a side effect become healthier, more creative, and so on. The only downside to being smarter is that studies find that if you are smarter, you are more prone to developing myopia (nearsightedness) and allergies. You can read more about this here: For a “scientist” you sure don’t understand causal relationships. Just because there is a correlation between two variables doesn’t mean the relationship is causal. It is more likely that there is a lurking variable, nutrition perhaps, that is affecting height, IQ, and health. ---
**Author:** ![Yeticus\_Rex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a698b9/32.png) [@Yeticus\_Rex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yeticus_Rex)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/148 "2004-03-31T22:22:25Z")
**Science Girl** , I would like to introduce you to [Hydrocortisone](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=222855). I think you two will hit off well… Hopefully, his banning won’t affect your future relationship together. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Arab](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eb9ed0/32.png) [@The\_Arab](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Arab)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/149 "2004-04-01T00:17:34Z")
> [@holmes](#): > > Was the difference in I.Q. between Southern Whites and Northern Blacks based on genetics? > [history of i.q](http://www.aceviper.net/aceviper_net/ace_intelligence/aceviper_detailed_history_of_the_iq_test/aceviper_long_detailed_history_of_the_iq_test.html) Well, I am no IQ disciple, but why does your link quote such dated sources?? The most recent date I saw in your article was 1954. Don’t you think IQ testing has progressed since 1954?? Just curious. ---
**Author:** ![Nachtwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/edb3f5/32.png) [@Nachtwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nachtwolf)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/150 "2004-04-02T06:23:40Z")
Hello again! > [@holmes](#): > > Let’s nip this in the bud. The problem that you and SG have is that your “proof”, your “information” is the words of racists and psuedo-sciencists which have been disproven for sometime now. To start things off, let me make it clear that while ScienceGirl might labor under the mistaken impression that science can _prove_ things, I don’t. What we presented is information, not proof. But more importantly, this information we provided, and the hypotheses which it supports, _hasn’t_ been disproven - not by you, at least! There is more to arguing against an idea than pointing out that it conflicts with the current politically correct ideology then saying that someone else, at some other time, showed in some way, that it was wrong. Certainly I have no idea why you believe that all ethnic groups have the same innate abilities - I remind you that just _assuming_ that all ethnic groups have the same intelligence, strength, longevity, and so forth isn’t acceptable. > [@](#): > > What you’re witnessing here, is what will always happen when you and your ilk turn up; your cause will be proven false. Again, I’m not witnessing that yet. You haven’t provided any evidence whatsoever for your own belief that races display equal abilities. Look, if we want to test the hypothesis that ethnic groups have the same levels of intelligence (since it’s pretty clear that this is what you believe), we can consider several sources of evidence: 1. Standardized tests 2. History 3. Social indicators 4. Brain size Well, East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews score very well on IQ and achievement tests, whites somewhere in the middle, then blacks and Latinos. This is inconsistent with the hypothesis that ethnic groups have the same levels of innate intelligence. History shows the progress of civilization and science occurring throughout Eurasia, with Africa lagging. This is also inconsistent with the hypothesis that ethnic groups have the same levels of innate intelligence. Social indicators show a strong trend for East Asian societies to have high levels of wealth and low levels of crime, with African societies having low levels of development and a variety of backward beliefs and cultural norms. This, too, is inconsistent with the hypothesis that ethnic groups have the same levels of innate intelligence. And of course brain size studies find that (even when controlling for body size) blacks have smaller brains than East Asians. This, too, is inconsistent with the hypothesis that ethnic groups have the same levels of innate intelligence. While a variety of explanations for these phenomena exist, only one can account for all of them. Poor socioeconomic environment (the “standard” theory) and Discrimination (Ogbu’s theory) can apply to 1 & 3; Guns, Germs, and Steel (Diamond’s argument) can apply to 2; but I am not aware of any theory which can adequately explain all four points other than the default hypothesis (Jensen’s theory) which says that different racial groups differ from one to another for much the same reason that individuals differ from one to another - because of a combination of genetic and environmental factors and the way in which they interact. Occam’s razor favors the simple explanation over a collection of entertaining ad-hocs. > [@](#): > > Just because there is a correlation between two variables doesn’t mean the relationship is causal. It is more likely that there is a lurking variable, nutrition perhaps, that is affecting height, IQ, and health. Indeed! In this case cross-assortive mating seems to be the lurking variable - wealthier, more-intelligent men choose women with longer legs, and the result is that taller genes and IQ-boosting genes end up clustering together. One does not (to the best of my knowledge) cause the other. However, _how_ these two traits came to be associated is not important regarding the initial objection, which was, “What if by selecting for intelligence, we select against physical prowess and artistic inclinations?” The fact is that these traits do seem to cluster, and this means that selection pressures favoring one trait will not end up selecting in favor of the other; the converse seems to be the case. So no, there really is no reason to think that eugenics would end up making us smarter at the expense of physical prowess or artistic inclinations. > [@](#): > > You have one guy who holds up some statistics and makes some theories, then you have a dozen guys who say that his research is sloppy, correlations and causality poor, questioned the research methods of his cites, outright called it psuedo-science, etc etc. Of course others objected; do you imagine that all the people who agreed with Jensen would have felt obligated to chime into the discussion saying “rah rah rah, sis boom bah?” However, to the extent that there is a consensus among the academic community, you can see it in the results of the Snyderman & Rothman poll, which found that those who agreed with Jensen - i.e. those who stated their belief that the black/white IQ gap was partially genetic - outnumbered those who thought it was totally environmental by a ratio of 1.5 to 1. So while scientific truth is not determined by scientific democracy, it is a mischaracterization of the issue to present Jensen’s voice as a lone one; he is seconded by many, many others. > [@](#): > > If anybody ought to be reading Cavalli-Sforza, it should be Science Girl. Actually you might want to read up on Cavalli-Sforza yourself. [http://www.vdare.com/sailer/may\_24.htm](http://www.vdare.com/sailer/may_24.htm) \*This is Cavalli-Sforza’s description of the map that is the capstone of his half century of labor in human genetics: “The color map of the world shows very distinctly the differences that we know exist among the continents: Africans (yellow), Caucasoids (green), Mongoloids … (purple), and Australian Aborigines (red). The map does not show well the strong Caucasoid component in northern Africa, but it does show the unity of the other Caucasoids from Europe, and in West, South, and much of Central Asia.” Basically, all his number-crunching has produced a map that looks about like what you’d get if you gave an unreconstructed Strom Thurmond a paper napkin and a box of crayons and had him draw a racial map of the world.\* > [@](#): > > i have no issues with any arguments you eugenicists provide. i only wonder why do you care about this bs in the first place ? Obviously you do have _some_ issue, or you wouldn’t characterize eugenics as “bs.” However I can answer your question very simply: Altruism. I care about human genetic quality the same way others care about the homeless, education, worldwide poverty, and other issues - in fact I care about those things as well, and am interested in eugenics because it represents a solution to _all_ of these problems. If you care nothing for the welfare of others, I of course will not argue with that, but I hope you can understand that many people are concerned with issues outside of themselves. > [@](#): > > I would like to introduce you to Hydrocortisone… > > Hopefully, his banning won’t affect your future relationship together. I have no idea who Hydrocortisone is, but I will note that it is unfortunate that those who question the dogma of political correctness are so frequently censored. –Mark ---
**Author:** ![Nachtwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/edb3f5/32.png) [@Nachtwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nachtwolf)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/151 "2004-04-02T06:29:47Z")
**Correction:** The fact is that these traits do seem to cluster, and this means that selection pressures favoring one trait will not end up selecting **against** the other; the converse seems to be the case. So no, there really is no reason to think that eugenics would end up making us smarter at the expense of physical prowess or artistic inclinations. (I apologize for my sloppiness; I’m accustomed to boards which allow for editing.) –Mark ---
**Author:** ![TitoBenito](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2acd7d/32.png) [@TitoBenito](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TitoBenito)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/152 "2004-04-02T07:48:14Z")
> [@Nachtwolf](#): > > Social indicators show a strong trend for East Asian societies to have high levels of wealth and low levels of crime, with African societies having low levels of development and a variety of backward beliefs and cultural norms. This, too, is inconsistent with the hypothesis that ethnic groups have the same levels of innate intelligence. Really only since the 1950’s. Guyana and South Korea had about the same GDP per capita before the war. Their success had more to do with investments in capital and human capital. How do you explain that Laos has low levels of weath and backward beleifs and cultural norms while Barbados for the most part doesn’t. > [@Nachtwolf](#): > > And of course brain size studies find that (even when controlling for body size) blacks have smaller brains than East Asians. This, too, is inconsistent with the hypothesis that ethnic groups have the same levels of innate intelligence Using brain size to equate intellegence went out of style some time in the last century. It has never been proven. > [@Nachtwolf](#): > > While a variety of explanations for these phenomena exist, only one can account for all of them. Poor socioeconomic environment (the “standard” theory) and Discrimination (Ogbu’s theory) can apply to 1 & 3; Guns, Germs, and Steel (Diamond’s argument) can apply to 2; but I am not aware of any theory which can adequately explain all four points other than the default hypothesis (Jensen’s theory) which says that different racial groups differ from one to another for much the same reason that individuals differ from one to another - because of a combination of genetic and environmental factors and the way in which they interact. Occam’s razor favors the simple explanation over a collection of entertaining ad-hocs. Choosing one theory over another simply because it is simpler is neither scientific nor logical. > [@Nachtwolf](#): > > Indeed! In this case cross-assortive mating seems to be the lurking variable - wealthier, more-intelligent men choose women with longer legs, and the result is that taller genes and IQ-boosting genes end up clustering together. One does not (to the best of my knowledge) cause the other. However, _how_ these two traits came to be associated is not important regarding the initial objection, which was, “What if by selecting for intelligence, we select against physical prowess and artistic inclinations?” The fact is that these traits do seem to cluster, and this means that selection pressures favoring one trait will not end up selecting in favor of the other; the converse seems to be the case. So no, there really is no reason to think that eugenics would end up making us smarter at the expense of physical prowess or artistic inclinations. Then if asian are smarter than whites why aren’t they taller? Also why are Asian in the US taller than they are in the Asia? Nutrition? Explain to me then why people who are better fed tend to be smarter and taller. Coincidence? ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/153 "2004-04-02T16:18:44Z")
> [@Nachtwolf](#): > > Look, if we want to test the hypothesis that ethnic groups have the same levels of intelligence (since it’s pretty clear that this is what you believe), we can consider several sources of evidence: > > 1. Standardized tests > 2. History > 3. Social indicators > 4. Brain size > > Well, East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews score very well on IQ and achievement tests, whites somewhere in the middle, then blacks and Latinos. This is inconsistent with the hypothesis that ethnic groups have the same levels of innate intelligence. Again, I’ll point to the standardize tests done by the USA Army. Northern Blacks did better than Southern Whites. What is your reason for this? If you truly believe that there is an innate difference in the IQ in races based on I.Q tests, then you have no choice but to conclude that Southern Whites are inferior to Northern Blacks. So using your requirements… I can assume that Northern Blacks **must** have a bigger brains, than Southern Whites. right? Since they did better on the standardized tests…If not, then the “bigger brain” theory falls apart; there’s that causation problem again. > [@](#): > > The social controversy involving Yerkes work started after the end of the war. The army testing program provided a massive amount of data which Yerkes and his colleague began to analyze. Fancher (1985) pointed out three controversial finding which Yerkes revealed. First, Yerkes asserted that the average army recruit had low native intelligence. In his 800 page book entitled Psychological Examining in the United States Army published in 1921, he calculated the average recruits mental age to be around 13. Second, A Study of American Intelligence was published in 1923 by Yerkes’ colleague Carl Brigham. \*\* He reported that immigrants from northern Europe scored lower than native-born American whites, and also that immigrants from southern and eastern Europe scored much lower than those from northern Europe. Brigham failed to consider that the amount of time an immigrant had been in the country influenced his test score and northern Europeans, on the average, had been in the country much longer than the other two groups. Third, Yerkes and Brigham noted that blacks scored lower than whites and blacks from northern states often scored higher than whites from southern states.\*\* > > **Yerkes failed to consider the environmental factors of the subjects, as well as the inappropriateness of the test.** The statistical report of the army testing program contained one of the early applications of multiple correlation in psychological testing (Carroll, 1982). I ask you again, explain the results. ---
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/154 "2004-04-02T19:11:57Z")
[Here’s](http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/anthropology/anthro-l/archive/october-1994/0402.html) an interesting take on this subject that, IMO, puts things in the right perspective. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Arab](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eb9ed0/32.png) [@The\_Arab](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Arab)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/155 "2004-04-02T23:07:43Z")
> [@zwaldd](#): > > [Here’s](http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/anthropology/anthro-l/archive/october-1994/0402.html) an interesting take on this subject that, IMO, puts things in the right perspective. The link you provided doesn’t disprove a relationship between human brain size and intelligence. In order to discredit Rushton, one would have to cite a study where a researcher measured human brain sizes among human races and concluded Rushton to be wrong, based on the statistical information that they accumulated from their study. The link states that some animals have larger brain than humans, which has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. ---
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/156 "2004-04-02T23:32:21Z")
> [@The Arab](#): > > The link states that some animals have larger brain than humans No it doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Arab](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eb9ed0/32.png) [@The\_Arab](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Arab)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/157 "2004-04-03T00:05:18Z")
> [@zwaldd](#): > > No it doesn’t. \ Your right, it doesn’t say some animals have larger brains than humans, that means your link is worthless. ---
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/158 "2004-04-03T02:04:08Z")
> [@The Arab](#): > > your link is worthless. Yep, worthless. 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874.md?page=7)