Other than IQ, are there any genetically-determined psychological differences between "races"?

Are you sure you don’t mean cultural aspect in how asian versus euro? That is very different from genetics.

Alcohol is metabolized by alcohol dehydrogenase enzyme, so yes of course there will be variation.

Autism is a cultural definition, the same issue would be called something else in different times and places.

Women are not an alien species! Women are deformed men! (Aristotle.) (No, really.) :wink:

The main races are Negro, Caucasian, and Mongoloid. Australian Aborigines, and the aboriginal inhabitants of New Guinea are a fourth race. The differences between these races are sufficient that they can be determined by DNA testing, and the examination of skeletons.

Europeans are a subset of Caucasians. Orientals are a subset of Mongoloids. There are considerable differences between these and others in terms of average intelligence, and crime rates.

What race are Andaman Islanders? Or the inhabitants of Madagascar? How about Nubians (in Sudan)? Tuareg? Saami? Inuit? Samoans? Ainu?

If Negro is a race, then why does sub-Saharan Africa have more genetic variation than the rest of the world combined? If there are populations of sub-Saharan Africans that are more closely related, genetically speaking, to Europeans than to certain other populations of sub-Saharan Africans (and this is true), how can they possibly be the same race?

Cuz darkies are bad.
Try to keep up.

Now we’re getting somewhere. Cite?

Also – something you’ve not addressed, that I can recall, in this thread or your race-and-IQ thread – 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?

You can believe this only because you’ve been culturally impregnated by the concept of the existence of races (and more specifically of the three “races” you mention in a latter post).

It’s not “liberal dogma running against common sense”. In fact, as I wrote in a different thread about racism in Roman times, it’s the belief in the existence of races that is very counter-intuitive and requires quite a lot of cultural baggage.

Not only the concept of races doesn’t make sense from a scientific point of view, for reasons already or soon to be mentioned, but it doesn’t make sense either from a common sense point of view. One could give tons of examples, but for instance : in eastern Africa, where does the “white race” end and the “black race” begin? To what race (caucasian, negroid, mongoloid, according to you) do black-skinned southern Indians belong to? What is the race of the current American president, and why? Do Pygmies and Dinkas belong to the same race and why?

It is true that we can identify most members of various populations by DNA. The problem comes when we take dozens of separate populations and throw them into arbitrary lumps that you call “races.” I note that you are working on a four race theory. Why not Linnaeus’s different four race theory? Why not Blumenbach’s five-race theory? Why not a six-race theory? This is the problem with Rushton’s tripe. He has chosen a schema that does not even correspond to the various definitions that anthropologists have used to identify the four, five, or sixty or so races that some of them have tried to identify, then he goes out and makes up stuff about the “three” races when no other scientist even considers that an appropriate division.

Define “Oriental” in biological meaningful way.

Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Tibetanese, Mongolians, and Vietnamese. They are a subset of Mongoloids. They are distinguished from other Mongoloids because they have epicanthic folds over their eyes. The Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans tend to have high IQs.


Their children usually outperform American children in school.


Funny you stop at Vietnam. What about Thailand? The Burmese? Bangladeshis? Nepalese? How bout other North (or East) Indians? Is that list of yours exhaustive? Why or why not?

Negroes, whites, and Orientals are the three main races. Together they make up more than three quarters of the human population. As Professor Rushton has pointed out, they differ significantly not only in appearance, but in average ability levels and behavior.

China comes it at 100, which is, by definition, the mean IQ score.

India, a caucasian country, comes it at 81.

Your data do not support your statements.

That first cite looks more like a GDP listing. Funny about that, huh? Rich countries produce high IQs and poor countries produce low IQs. What a coincidence!

Those others lack epicanthic eye folds. The inhabitants of India are considered to be Caucasian, although the darker skinned Indians are closely related to Australian Aborigines.

But not the Vietnamese, Mongolians, Burmese, Cambodians, Thai, Malaysians, and others who are, purportedly, of the same “race.” Interesting.
(I note that Lynn does not seem to have even attempted to come up with IQs for North Korea, Vietnam, and a few other places in the same way that he artificially created “IQs” for several other countries where he wanted to show how dumb they were.)

Dravidians are closely-related to Abos?! Never heard that theory before.

People in Thailand lack epicanthic folds?

Cite that they are more closely related to Australian?

There are some groups with markers indicating the descend from populations that also inhabited Australia, but you do realize that any genes they have from those populations are completely swamped out by the interbreeding that has been going on for, literally, thousands of years. And this does not correlate with skin color.

Using your logic you take a map a divided it into three pieces with ignored convergence areas.

Now I say nice but you are wrong. The pie is to be sliced into four pieces with also ignored convergence areas.

How is your model of humanity more accurate then mine?

In NK’s case, of course, low IQ could be attributed to malnutrition; I’ve read that the better-fed Southies are measurably smarter these days. And it’s more or less the same gene-pool on either side of the DMZ.

Utter nonsense. Vietnamese, Burmese, and Cambodians all have various versions of the epicanthic fold. (And even if they lacked that, how do you reconcile that with your bogus “three race” claim?)