Planet Grok

Where intuition reigns supreme

Nature vs Nurture is Stupid

Posted by PlanetGrok on March 24, 2010

It’s rather ridiculous to me how HBD-deniers always trot out cultural explanations as some kind of trump card to nullify any genetic explanation of human group variance. Jews have high IQs because study is so ingrained in their culture, Chinese have high innate visuospatial ability because of their writing system, and blacks are more athletic because…wait, is there ever a culture-only explanation presented for this?  But I digress. The blinders are quite selective, since they are irrational blinders.

Does it not occur to these egalitarians that someone who is genetically dumb would not be reproductively successful in a Jewish population? Cast out to the goyim, he would be. Does it not occur to these people that a Chinese person who had difficulty with literacy due to diminished visuospatial ability would not be as desireable of a mate as his literate peers? Nerdy blacks are socially ostracized while black females gravitate to criminally-inclined men with testosterone overload. Culture is indeed very important. Why? Because it shapes the genes of the population.

Conversely, it should be obvious that the Chinese writing system would never occur in a population with the average qualities of sub-saharan Africans.  Genes shape culture.

The catch is you can modify an individual’s culture, but you can’t change his genes. The traits he either does or does not have will need to be selected for/against by the population at large, due to the culture of the population. Our wars in the middle east and in our ghetto schoolrooms have shown what a losing battle it is to shape a population’s culture. It’s much easier to strike at the root and adopt eugenic policies.

This is all so intuitively obvious that it shouldn’t need to be said. But judging from the comments I’ve read here and elsewhere, it should be.

In other genetic news, there’s a new and improved genetic test for Alzheimer’s.

Sorry, those-who-would-blame-vaccines. Autism is largely genetic. And the reason why it is concentrated heavily in areas like Silicon Valley should be painfully obvious to any of us who know computer geeks.

Advertisements

46 Responses to “Nature vs Nurture is Stupid”

  1. Does it not occur to these egalitarians that someone who is genetically dumb would not be reproductively successful in a Jewish population? Cast out to the goyim, he would be.

    Wouldn’t this be a case of culture shaping genes?

    It seems to me like cultures exist to maximize genetic potential.

    Chinese writing system would never occur in a population with the average qualities of sub-saharan Africans.

    The mayans had an around ~800 character hieroglyph system (logograms and syllabic characters). This pales in comparison to the chinese system (~10,000 characters – logs) but you have to keep in mind that maya was written by a few thousand people, while ancient chinese was written by a few million.

    • Levi,

      If you read it again, you’ll see that’s exactly what I am saying.

      Culture influences genes and genes influence culture. You can’t really disentangle them.

      A people groups genetic traits are the result of a long history of cultural and environmental molding that can’t be undone easily (like with inter racial adoption, etc).

  2. Vincent Ignatius said

    What do you think of the cultural explanation for the decline of Western women? Genetically, the jizz buckets of 2010 UVA aren’t very different from the Southern debutantes of 1910 Charlottesville.

    • What behavioral changes do you have in mind that constitutes this decline? Not that I don’t agree with you, I just want to define the terms. To take a stab at it anyway, I would attribute the decline in female sexual morals to the decline of the Christian religion and the rise of feminism. Religion acts as a powerful inhibitor.

  3. I’m skeptical of the hypothesis that the Chinese writing system developed because of the high-visual-spatial ability of the Chinese. Conversely, I’m also skeptical of the hypothesis that the Chinese writing system developed high visual-spatial ability. There most likely is a bivariate relationship between the two factors, but I hesitate to draw any conclusions about the relationship between Hanzi and VS IQ, because after all, until very recently, the large majority of Chinese were illiterate.

    I am wondering whether the Africans in China can learn Chinese. It’s a difficult language, even for natives. Most of the whites who I know that master Chinese probably have an IQ of >130, and they still had to spend an extraordinary amount of time and effort to learn the language (think 6yrs+). Even simplified characters are difficult. I highly doubt that an average African can master the Chinese language, even if they grew up learning it.

    • JB said

      “Conversely, I’m also skeptical of the hypothesis that the Chinese writing system developed high visual-spatial ability.”

      I don’t see why it would — at best it would develop an above average visual (2-D) memory. But why would it improve other skills like rotation, 3-D scanning, etc.?

  4. Jamila said

    You’re still saying “nature vs nurture”; that’s so old school. Im using the terms “genetics vs environment” now. I picked up a a book called “The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do” by Judith Rich Harrison which uses the later phrase, and with good reason.

    blacks are more athletic because…wait, is there ever a culture-only explanation presented for this?

    Actually, yes, there is. Africans have been most of the greatest long distance runners because of the better training conditions there (lower oxygen concentrations in mountaineous regions trains the body for greater oxygen efficiency etc., ) Also, blacks tend to dominate in sports that have low econonic barriers to entry such as basketball and football; sports that require expensive financial and time outlays in order to reach peak status such as figure skating and hockey are going to be dominated by people in social classes with more money i.e. white people.

    The catch is you can modify an individual’s culture, but you can’t change his genes.

    Over time, modifying culture would change genes since natural selection would occur.

    Our wars in the middle east and in our ghetto schoolrooms have shown what a losing battle it is to shape a population’s culture. It’s much easier to strike at the root and adopt eugenic policies.

    The wars in the middle east are due to tribalism on their part and (neo)imperialism on our (the West’s) part.

    • East Africans who are great long distance runners do benefit from living in high altitude conditions. But studies seem to indicate that certain East Africans have a biological advantage that allows them to excel at long distance running, their bodies are perfect for the sport. It takes a combination of both environment and genetics to produce great runners. After all, you don’t see many great runners from high altitude places like Tibet, Bolivia, or Peru. The environment-only explanation isn’t sufficient here.

      I will say that higher-class sports such as figure skating, hockey, swimming, lacrosse, tennis, etc, wouldn’t be dominated by whites if the barriers to entry were not so high. I’m interested in black involvement in figure skating. Since figure skating is judged, it is a highly subjective sport. I can’t picture black people on white ice.

      It’s true that natural selection would occur over time. The problem is, it takes a VERY LONG TIME. This doesn’t happen overnight. And with humans becoming so godly lately and intervening with the natural selection process, it becomes even harder to modify culture.

      • Jamila said

        After all, you don’t see many great runners from high altitude places like Tibet, Bolivia, or Peru. The environment-only explanation isn’t sufficient here.

        My explanation isn’t environment-only; but, that’s the point: it is, as of yet, virtually impossible to detangle the influence of genetics completely from the influence of environment, and vice versa.

        Which is why I can’t see why otherwise reasonable, intelligent people, think that tracking people based on genetics is a good idea, when there are clearly a multitude of other factors that determines success in life.

        I’m interested in black involvement in figure skating. Since figure skating is judged, it is a highly subjective sport. I can’t picture black people on white ice.

        That’s partly why many black people, even those that have the means, don’t get their children into it either: they think of it as a “white” sport, and apparently so do many non-blacks.

        It’s true that natural selection would occur over time. The problem is, it takes a VERY LONG TIME.

        I don’t believe it would take extremely long–perhaps 4-5 human generations for the culture of blacks to closely resemble whites (or the dominant culture) here in America w/r/t out-of-wedlock child birth rates and marriage rates. It was only the 60’s–2 to three generations ago–when those rates were very similar for blacks and whites. And thats just dealing with behavior.

        Black children who grow up in white foster families versus those that are adopted by black families show differences in intelligence levels–and that’s just one generation.

        A laissez-faire economy would do wonders for causing the convergence of cultural dictates among different ethnic groups in a democracy. Too bad America is growing more and more socialist by the day…..

      • That’s partly why many black people, even those that have the means, don’t get their children into it either: they think of it as a “white” sport, and apparently so do many non-blacks.

        And there’s far less money in many of these sports, making it even less enticing. If you’re a working class athletically gift black kid with hopes of making it big, would you really want to waste your time on swimming, gymnastics, or lacrosse? Hockey is a regional sport but can pay, but it still pays far less than the NBA or NFL, and the route to the NHL is rather screwy (e.g. minor leagues where you live with host parents with no stipend) compared to playing college ball for a few years and then going pro. Given the alternatives and combined with the social pressure and fear* of avoiding “white middle class” sports, it’s little wonder why there are so few blacks in them.

        *I must admit I suspect that some black people fear being the only black person somewhere. I admittedly feel that way at times, especially because you stand out.

      • JB said

        “A laissez-faire economy would do wonders for causing the convergence of cultural dictates among different ethnic groups in a democracy. Too bad America is growing more and more socialist by the day…..”

        There’s the libertarian version of eugenics (no AFDC) and there’s the statist-socialist (subsidized abortion.) After Obama’s EO is overturned by some lefty judge, we will surely have the second.

      • Black children who grow up in white foster families versus those that are adopted by black families show differences in intelligence levels–and that’s just one generation.

        What study is this? and at what age were the IQs measured?

        The Minnesota Interracial adoption study showed that ghetto black kids adopted into rich white homes at a young age grew up to have the same low IQ’s they would have had if they had stayed in the ghetto their whole lives. The adopted kids hat higher IQs (115ish) when they were young, but as they grew up and genetics played a large role, they only ended up with a lousy 84 IQ.

      • the Scarr study had a very small number of black kids.
        20, i think?

        Interracial adoption studies also don’t control for in utero environments.

    • Actually, yes, there is. Africans have been most of the greatest long distance runners because of the better training conditions there (lower oxygen concentrations in mountaineous regions trains the body for greater oxygen efficiency etc., )

      Nonsense. Not all human populations at high altitudes make good distance runners, and certainly not all Africans.

      http://vdare.com/misc/entine_boston_marathon.htm

      Also, blacks tend to dominate in sports that have low econonic barriers to entry such as basketball and football

      Football is a very expensive sport. Blacks are successful at the majority of football positions due to their innate abilities. Whites do better at more cerebral positions like QB.

      • Jamila said

        What study is this? and at what age were the IQs measured?

        This is what most studies show:

        “When black or mixed-race children are raised in white rather than black homes, their preadolescent test scores rise dramatically. Black adoptees’ scores seem to fall in adolescence, but this is what we would expect if, as seems likely, their social and cultural environment comes to resemble that of other black adolescents and becomes less like that of the average white adolescent.”

        Nonsense. Not all human populations at high altitudes make good distance runners, and certainly not all Africans.

        You failed to pay attention to the “etc.,” part. 🙂

        There is a difference between high altitude and rocky vs high-altitudes on a level plain.

        Football is a very expensive sport.

        I don’t believe so. It is definitely not as expensive as hockey or figure skating.

      • Black adoptees’ scores seem to fall in adolescence, but this is what we would expect if, as seems likely, their social and cultural environment comes to resemble that of other black adolescents and becomes less like that of the average white adolescent

        I highly doubt that the social life of a black kid raised by well-to-do white parents resembles anything like the life of an inner city ghetto kid. Adopted black kids I’ve known were pretty much Oreos. A more plausible situation is that as someone gets older, genetics come more into play. For example, I imagine I could train a 4 year old to be a standard deviation faster than his peers with excercise, but that doesn’t mean he will be any more capable of high level competition when he’s in high school. There are genes related to fast twitch muscle fibers that people either have or don’t have.

        It would be interesting to test the IQ scores of white suburban whiggers and compare to non-whigger family members of theirs to see how negatively underclass black culture actually does affect intelligence.

  5. Camlost said

    But if we debunk the validity of the age-old “Nature vs. Nurture” argument, then doesn’t that imply severe problems for those with high IQ?

    any thoughts?

    • JB said

      “Over time, modifying culture would change genes since natural selection would occur.”

      What kind of culturally-based selective pressures do you have in mind to achieve something like this rapidly?

      Short of sterilizing everyone below a threshold, I don’t see any. We no longer have a world where the dumb starve to death and the smart reproduce. Now the dumb reproduce more than the smart. Good luck treating them with culture.

      Since heritability is still at least half of the equation, there’s no getting around this.

      • JB said

        Let’s remember – it took the Ashkenazis at least half a millenium to go up 10-15 pts — under some pretty intense selection pressures.

        It just isn’t that easy or fast.

  6. Cast out to the goyim, he would be.

    I seriously suspect that “low IQ” Jews are absorbed into the mainstream where they may fit in, while high IQ gentiles are absorbed into the Jewish community which has the side effect of importing new and “fresh” genes while preventing too much inbreeding.

    Of course, the question to ask is what lead to selection for high IQ in other ethnicities that didn’t occur in those with lower average IQs. In the case of those of African descent, I suspect that the relatively unharsh environment of sub-Saharan African may have lead to a situation where the low IQ were just as easily able to survive as the high IQ due to a lack of winter, decent water supplies, and soft soils allowing for some degree of female subsistence. In other words, the women can survive on their own, and thus can be far less picky about the men that they need to survive.

    FWIW, I suspect that some of the relationships between white women and black males may be a “flight to quality” in terms of genes. If you’re a black man that’s 1 SD above average black IQ, it may make sense to date a white woman of average IQ, especially in light of the population dynamics in the United States. Of course, this has the long-term effect of diluting both pools which creates nightmares in the hearts of black and white separatists, and creating a perverse situation where all the “smart” black people are light-skinned. And of course, this presumes that these are decent white women, and not the low IQ cast offs…

    what a losing battle it is to shape a population’s culture

    Given that most of the world wears Western clothing, seeks to learn English or some other western language, and little kids in Kenya sing Happy Birthday, I think that the culture is a little bit more maliable than one may suspect.

    • JB said

      “I seriously suspect that “low IQ” Jews are absorbed into the mainstream where they may fit in, while high IQ gentiles are absorbed into the Jewish community which has the side effect of importing new and “fresh” genes while preventing too much inbreeding.”

      In fact, it’s likely the opposite. Half-Jews are more likely to be absorbed into the mainstream of the host culture (and go on to make important contribution in the name of their other half.) E.g. Russia, Soviet Union, etc. Most half-Jews tended to self-identify as Russians.

    • The environment of SubSaharan Africa has intense selective pressures. But mostly relating to disease resistance, physical prowess, etc.

      There’s been good evidence for positive selection in European populations for introgressed genes from africans that have to do with malaria resistance.

  7. JB said

    “Given that most of the world wears Western clothing, seeks to learn English or some other western language, and little kids in Kenya sing Happy Birthday, I think that the culture is a little bit more maliable than one may suspect.”

    Those are trappings of a culture, not their essentials.

    Really, “culture” in this context is code for “being civilized”, in a modern, Western manner, in all its aspects. It’s entirely likely that a certain mean IQ is required for its sustenance.

  8. Vincent Ignatius said

    What behavioral changes do you have in mind that constitutes this decline?

    Same as you, the decline of sexual morals.

    …high IQ gentiles are absorbed into the Jewish community which has the side effect of importing new and “fresh” genes while preventing too much inbreeding.

    Just an anecdote, but I had a lot of people comment about finding a Jewish wife/girlfriend while I was in Israel. Even among Ashkenazim, I stand out as someone with a very high IQ.

    • If you are considered very bright in upper class white society, you will still be very bright among the Ashkenazim. Ashkenazim, at an average of 115, are probably at about the upper-class white average. White gentiles have a large number of proles from stocky European peasant stock pushing the average IQ down. Jews performed a niche role among white society at large so they never needed a large working class to support them.

  9. PA said

    I wonder if the high average Ashkenasi IQ isn’t simply the result of it being just like a Gentile IQ bell curve, with the peak at 100, but with the left end loped off.

    This is just my amateur hypothesis based on my anecdotal experience in never really meeting any dull Jewish people, but plenty of briliant Jewish and Gentile ones.

    • There are probably 150 million white people with an IQ of 115 or above (compared to what, 15 million Ashkenazim?). Yet their percentage of Nobel Prize recipients appears disproportionate to that..

      What really strikes me is how much the Jews are able to promote their geniuses. Michelson, first measurement of speed of light guy, only got into the U.S. Naval Academy after his local Jewish community put pressure on the local congressman to appoint him.

  10. The Undiscovered Jew said

    Ashkenasi IQ isn’t simply the result of it being just like a Gentile IQ bell curve, with the peak at 100, but with the left end loped off.

    That’s basically what I think.

    The real mystery is why the left end of the Ashkenazi IQ distribution got “lopped off” while the Sephardic/Southern European Jews didn’t seem to accrue a similar IQ boost despite the Sephardim working in similar job niches as the Ashkenazi.

    One possible factor in this equation that I have been mulling over is that possibility that there was (for some not yet well understood reason or reasons) substantially more pressure on less intelligent Ashkenazi to convert to Christianity than there was on Sephardic/Southern European Jews to convert.

    If, on balance, there was more pressure for Eastern European Jews to convert than there was on the Sephardim, then the Ashkenazi would have gone under more intense pressure for IQ selection because only the smartest Ashkenazi would have been able to earn enough money to survive, have children, and remain a practitioner of Judaism.

    Remember that the vast majority of European and Middle Eastern Jews wound up converting to Christianity and Islam respectively since the Roman Empire collapsed. The reason so many Jews converted to Christianity (e.g. the conversos) and Islam was that the only way to gain full legal and political rights in both Europe and the Middle East was to give up Judaism.

    The persecution of Jews by Christians and Muslims was not racial prior to 1933. Historically, the persecution of Jews by Christians and Muslims was motivated mostly by theology, not ethnicity.

    The way Christians and Muslims got so many Jews to convert was by restricting their political and property rights so long as they remained Jewish.

    If the Ashkenazi had more reason to convert than the Sephardim because, say, the persecution of Jews, or the economic position of Jews, or legal restrictions against Jews was more severe in Eastern Europe than in Western Europe, then pressure to convert might have been the reason Eastern European Jews surpassed the Western European based Sephardi* in terms of IQ.

    The problem with my tentative hypothesis is that I’m not sure whether the persecution/financial position/legal rights of European Jews between the 15th and 19th centuries was worse in the East or the West.

    *and the Sephardim were no dummies. After all, Disraeli, David Ricardo, Spinoza, and the criminologist/anthropologist Cesar Lombrouso weren’t dumbasses.

    The Sephardi are at least IQ 100, and I wouldn’t be terribly surprised to find out that Southern European Jews are 5 or so IQ points ahead of Europeans, but still not as intelligent as Ashkenazi.

    • Sagat said

      If you understand animal husbandry then you know that if you are going to breed for a specific trait, then it’s not enough to simply select for the trait, you have to eliminate the undesirable traits from the gene pool, so your hypothesis makes a lot of sense.

      • The Undiscovered Jew said

        you have to eliminate the undesirable traits from the gene pool, so your hypothesis makes a lot of sense.

        Exactly. Since the majority of Jews who have ever lived in Europe and the Middle East ended up converting to Christianity and Islam, this must have had an evolutionary effect on the Jews who remained behind (ie the Ashkenazi, Sephardim, and Mizrahim).

        The question then becomes, would the effect of conversions had an effect on intelligence in the Sephardi and Ashkenazi.

        To followup my theory, another reason why less intelligent Ashkenazi Jews might have converted to Christianity at a higher rate than less intelligent Sephardi did is that the Sephardim were living in countries with better economies than the Rhineland, and Eastern Europe.

        That is to say, the Sephardim enjoyed working in more prosperous Western European nations such as France, the Italian city states, and the Netherlands from the 15th to 19th centuries than did the Ashkenazi.

        And because the Sephardim lived in generally a superior economic climate there would have been easier for marginally less intelligent Sephardim to financially afford to remain religiously Jewish, despite the legal, political, and property penalties associated with practicing Judaism.

  11. Tarl said

    I knew a stupid Jewish guy once.

    He was also the only rabidly conservative Jewish guy I’ve ever known.

    Any connection between these facts is purely conjectural…

  12. […] the original post:  Nature vs Nurture is Stupid « Planet Grok Share […]

  13. […] More here: Nature vs Nurture is Stupid « Planet Grok […]

  14. ffffff said

    There’s no such thing as any population having half of their “bell curve” lopped off. The expression of IQ variation in a human population is a universal trait, with most people clustering in the middle.

    “Cut off” the left half and the distribution is only going to move further to the right.

    Unless someone has any psychometric evidence of jew’s having virtually nobody below an IQ of 115? This is insane.

    • OM said

      Undiscovered Jew, what is the point in converting from one Abrahmic faith to another? They are all basically the same.

      Planet Grok, 1STDV has allowed his site to be overrun with Abrahamic (of the Christian strain) fanatics and any voice of reason that questions the “superiority” of desert tribal religions, particularly of the Christian strain, is squashed.

      I expect some white-knighting from you!!!!

      Your reward will be Kama Sutra lessons from Desi 7s.

    • “Cut off” the left half and the distribution is only going to move further to the right.

      I think that’s what TUJ/PA are saying actually happened. Yes, the verbiage could be improved, but your making the semantic issue to be a bigger deal than what it is here.

  15. OM said

    Undiscovered Jew, what is the point in converting from one Abrahmic faith to another? They are all basically the same.

    Planet Grok, 1STDV has allowed his site to be overrun with Abrahamic (of the Christian strain) fanatics and any voice of reason that questions the “superiority” of desert tribal religions, particularly of the Christian strain, is squashed.

    I expect some white-knighting from you!!!!

    Your reward will be Kama Sutra lessons from Desi 7s.

  16. The Undiscovered Jew said

    Undiscovered Jew, what is the point in converting from one Abrahmic faith to another?

    For European and Middle Eastern Jews the purpose of converting was to earn full property and political rights in Christian and Muslim nations.

  17. […] Planet Grok: Beyond Belief, Nature vs. Nurture is Stupid […]

    • Desi 7+ said

      “I’m not opposed in principle to white-knighting for guaranteed sexual favors. But I demand at least Desi 8’s for me to stoop so low.”

      What or who is your idea of a Desi 8.

      Coz what I’ve found, men rate women much more liberally than women rate other women.

      So if I can get an idea of what you consider “8”, I can decide if in comparison to her, I’m really a 7 or a 10.

  18. namae nanka said

    “Culture influences genes and genes influence culture. You can’t really disentangle them.”

    Genes and more importantly environment form culture, which in turn “can” influence genes through a selection pressure.But environment has a bigger role to play here too.Culture is not as influential on genes as the other way round.It can be said that it’s effect on genes is merely accidental and dictated through environment.

    Indirectly environment as resources and the resulting wealth affect culture, the decline of sexual morals can be linked to it as well.Unless of course the sexual morals were never present in the first place.

  19. […] PlanetGrok – “Nature vs. Nurture is Stupid” […]

  20. dmm said

    The whole nature vs. nurture is old. It’s nurture and that’s just how it is. E.G.”Those to whom evil is done, do evil in return” It’s not rocket science.

  21. estar triste…

    […]Nature vs Nurture is Stupid « Planet Grok[…]…

  22. Katharina said

    I’ve been browsing on-line greater than three hours these days, but I by no means discovered any interesting article like yours. It’s beautiful price enough for me.
    Personally, if all site owners and bloggers made excellent
    content material as you probably did, the web might be a lot more helpful than ever
    before.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: