Although these two books are about distinctly different topics, if you look at Lynn’s results in the context of these two books and a little basic paleopedological knowledge, one comes to the conclusion that the low IQ of Aborigines would logically be an essential adaptation to ancient, impoverished soils and variable food availability that in part results from the constraints these soils place on productivity. Smaller brain size has the basic advantage of requiring less food, so that in Australia’s impoverished soils and seas that could not support settled populations until huge amounts of phosphate were imported from the Middle East and various Pacific atolls, those individuals with larger brains and higher IQ were unable to reproduce and disappeared.

My guess is that this selection against the more intelligent alleles of DTNBP1 preceded in fact very rapidly by the standards of genetic selection. The reason I believe that such changes occurred rapidly rather than at an average rate is that the Highlanders of New Guinea, who live in a very fertile environment with none of the constraints of Australia, have no higher intelligence. This suggests that until New Guinea’s mountain glaciers retreated, there was no occupation of these regions, most likely because there were no large mammals in the alpine zone of New Guinea. By the time these fertile Highlands were settled, Australoids had evolved to such an extent that genes producing higher intelligence had been completely eliminated by selection in the infertile environments of Australia. In contrast, Pacific Islanders and Southeast Asians had never had this problem, so that some genes that influenced IQ had never evolved in them to the point of major reductions in intelligence.

I still consider the idea interesting as a plausible mechanism. Yet it certainly isn’t mainstream even within the decidedly politically incorrect community of scientists studying IQ and genetic differences, including potentially within populations. Therefore, the other proposed mechanisms, such as North-South climate differential, and even random chance, are at least equally likely.

You mention that the Flynn effect is due to non-genetic factors. Certainly I agree this is probably the case. As but one example, research shows parasites can reduce intelligence. Probably due to direct neural damage as well as the developing body being forced to divert resources from brain intelligence development to the energetic demands of the immune system. And then there’s simply the quality and quantity of calories, natural healthy fats, and protein.

I read a piece in the Guardian where scientists speculated the reason northern Europeans (Teutons, Galls, etc.) were taller and more powerfully built than the Romans was dietary.

The Northern Europeans ate, according to modern anthropologists, Julius Caesar, and contemporary Greco-Roman historians, more flesh and dairy. While we didn’t evolve on dairy for the better part of our development into Homo sapiens, it simulates the animal-protein and fat-rich food we did evolve on.

My point with the “Flynn effect” is non-genetic factors can be at play. They can be the leading factor. And yet, over time, due to epigenetics and other processes, this can lead to aaccelerated by changes within the genome — by whichever mechanism(s): The non-genetic factors can drive genetic change.

It will be interesting to see how it all unfolds. Whatever the truth turns out to be, I hope people will see the positive.

Knowledge should be a good thing. And yet it has the potential to be abused.

we seem to be talking cross-purposes here. It is almost indisputable that a large population will have more mutations in the gene pool. The analogy with diseases and resistence to diseases is not a good one though because, unlike genes, resistence to diseases can spreads accross the population without the death of people with the wrong genes via the learning ability of our immune system.

More importantly, variation within a species is not the same as the genetic change of the whole poulation. All humans on this planet still appear to be part of the same species, yet we havent yet (as far as I know) seen the emergence of a new species that is resistent to malaria and lactose tolerant and height-adapted (think of Nepalese) and super-smart, etc. Hence it is not clear that our species as a whole has changed. With the genetic mixing that is happening now via migration, perhaps many adaptations that provide local advantages will eventually be lost.

The Flyn effect clearly speaks for the importance of non-genetic factors.

I did have a look at the article, but whilst I am no expert in this field, I do know the field has moved on. They are busy with particular neuro-receptors now, and are looking more directly for a whole set of mental traits. For instance, in the field of explaining risk-aversion, they are looking for things like serotonin inhibitors (receptor gene HRT7) and are taking blood-samples all over the place. These things definitely differ accross poulations.

I know nothing about his work aside from that one article. Yet, as I mentioned, his thesis seemed to me to be both logical and match up fairly well with the IQ test results, which is why I am asking you knowledgeable people for your thought and opinions.

For my own part, I’m curious, as I am about most scientific questions, what studying the genome will eventually reveal on the question of race and average IQ. My preference would be it reveals no difference whatsoever. However now that I’ve just recently started thinking about it, I can’t bring myself to think that is likely.

Not so much because of the data — it could be wrong (although there’s lots of it) — but because, logically, why should there be no difference whatsoever?

Have you read the article I linked?

The author answered, I felt, that question quite well when forming his hypothesis. Basically it’s that intelligence is complex and is the interaction of many alleles, unlike many simpler traits which require less genetic information to make a noticeable difference.

One exception to this principle would be the action of chance, what is known in population genetics as drift. If a population is small, the accumulated action of chance can cause the frequency of a single gene in one population to differ considerably from that in another population (see any population genetics text such as Cavalli-Sforza & Bodmer, 1971). If intelligence was determined by a single gene, observed population differences in intelligence could easily be explained by drift. However, if drift was the only factor operating, different intelligence promoting alleles would predominant in different populations. One population might have an advantage in having a higher frequency of one intelligence promoting allele, and another population would have an advantage in the frequency of another intelligence promoting allele. Many of the differences in frequency would cancel each other out, leaving relatively small differences between populations in intelligence, even if there were large differences in the frequencies of specific intelligence promoting genes.

If we leave aside the influence of differential natural selection and drift, natural selection with a uniform strength would apper [sic] unable to change gene frequencies sufficiently to produce population wide intelligence differences. Yet we do observe such differences. Why? A possible answer is that, if populations do differ in size, they will differ in number of advantageous mutations. This will lead to differences in intelligence.

Incidentally, this same theory could be applied to other issues such as the evolution of disease resistance. The disease organisms in a large population should have evolved more effective mechanisms for overcoming the host’s defenses than the organisms in a small population. When the populations come into contact, there will be more diseases spreading from the large population to the small population, than from the small to the large population. This is indeed what was observed when the New and Old World populations were brought into contact. The diseases introduced from Europe and Africa into the Amerindian populations were more numerous and caused more harm than the diseases introduced from the Americas into Europe (of which syphilis appears the chief example).

j

The hypothesis he makes seems to correlate very well with actual recorded IQs as well as providing yet another mechanism to explain the “Flynn Effect” (that, worldwide, IQ test scores are increasing … as our population explodes).

What do you think of it in that light, Paul? Especially how a larger population might give more opportunity for a complex trait like intelligence to advance considering the sheer number of beneficial mutations which would occur over and above those which would occur in a smaller population (even though a given mutation would be adopted by the population as a whole, quicker).

Ken, have you had a chance to read the article? What do you think of the concept?

in terms of sheer variance of genes within a species, you must be right that a larger population means more diversity in genetic material (a more recent article saying the same thing is described here: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1043228620071210).

In terms of speed of change of a whole species though, as far as I know, the argument goes the opposite way, i.e. that evolutionary change of a whole species is fastest in smaller populations. The argument is that in large population with sufficient random cross-breeding, any change quickly gets diluted whilst in a small population you can match closely related people to each other reducing the dilution in changes (for better or worse!). Dog breeding, cow breeding, pig breeding, etc. thus all work on the principle of strenuously selecting and cross-breeding of a small population until you have sufficiently amplified the desired traits.

Fuzzy was of African ancestry if you haven’t figured it out. He had one wicked afro.

It’s amazing just how much the environment is shown to affect the actual physical development of the brain’s structures, isn’t it?

And the weaknesses of the theory that cold climates alone explain intelligence differences between populations are readily apparent, I agree, as you have pointed out.

I think both of those things are factors. And hopefully the environment proves to be a larger factor on brain size and structure, because the environment is under our control.

Yet Lynn’s theory that there is a substantial fixed genetic component may be true by an entirely different mechanism than the one he proposed. It’s an extremely simple idea. I think you’ll want to be aware of it and given an opportunity to consider it:

Population size. And how larger populations have more beneficial genetic mutations to draw upon, resulting in, over time, faster increase in positive adaptive traits such as g.

Would you please read this article and comment about whether you think it’s a reasonable proposition worthy of further scientific inquiry? I’d be most interested to hear your opinion.

I just read it today for the first time. I am no expert. But the idea itself seemed to me to have enormous merit: Simplicity, a plus for a scientific hypothesis, and a very plausible mechanism to explain the genetically-determined portion of the differential intelligence Lynn believes is there.

Sincerely yours,

Christoph

P.S. I was raised most especially by my father to believe in equality between all the races EXCEPT for culture. My father introduced people of other races to me at an early age. One of whom was (and is) a very fine fellow my sister and I called “Fuzzy”. This was before the hysteria that a man shouldn’t be alone with non-related children.

He looked after my sister on I for many an outing and we both loved him dearly. He was a really smart, loving, great fun fellow, and completely decent. He’s now an awesome husband and father.

I was and am a passionate opponent of racism. I hate racists. I have been outspoken about this for decades. I’m mixed race (although not visibly so), I love a mixed race person (different mixture than I) more than anyone else on the planet), and I like people of all the races, having dated and/or had friends of several different ones.

I’ve seen brilliant African American scientists, for example, women scientists, etc. I would love for the whole different racial groups have differing average levels of intelligence based on genetics hypothesis to be wrong.

However, looking at the data, I’m finding it hard to hold on to my lifelong view, which I only started questioning weeks ago. This even caused some emotional turmoil for me, initially, and yet the case seemed logical.

I’m just telling you this so you understand I have no vested interest, or desire, to prove that “my” race is superior to another race intellectually. For almost my entire life it was was an article of faith for me that it (they?) are not.

What’s a “race”?

Relative brain mass varies between races, and relative brain mass has been shown to have a VERY high correlation to IQ/G in multiple recent MRI/IQ studies.

It’s a total myth that IQ only tests your schooling, and there is a long leter from the American psycology association from the nineties saying that no-one supports this claim. There are a set of tests for illiterates called ‘Raven’s matrices’ that show consistent results across cultures and educational levels, and are in no way culturally biased.

The most common POV among psychology phd’s that specialise in intellligence is that racial differences in IQ are at least partially genetic, about three times more common than the ‘it’s enviromnmental’ school. There is a letter called ‘Egalitarian fiction, collective fraud’ by a psychology phd that makes this very clear. So far the bulk of the data collected shows that racial IQ difference are mainly genetic in difference. The real problem is that most academics are terrified of supporting this publicly, and most will only respond to the polls on the subject if they can do so anonymously. The media completely misrepresents what most of them beleive to be true, leading the public to beleive that the paradigm is ‘equality’ when it isn’t at all.

I’d also like to point out that the IQ studies of Europeans show a very consistent north/south clinal variation, consistent with the hypothesis that IQ is affected by climate in someway. The current population pattern of Europe was established in the Neolithic, and since then all the migrations and invasions have made only a negilible impact on the genetics of each nation.

More to the point, I’ve talked with an anthropolgist whose specialist area is the evolution of the human brain, and he’s made it perfectly clear there is zero evolutionary reason for human intelligence to be the same across races. You would have to assume (for them to be equal) that the human brain ceased evolving over 130,000 years ago when African and non African populations split up from each other. We know this is not the case as some mutations affecting brain developement appear in Europeans/Asians but not Africans and only have a TMRCA of about 35,000 years or less. Also, the neolithic era (the last 10,000 years) has been an era of unprecedented change in the way we live, and we know of a many mutations that affect Europeans and Asians date to this era and not Africans/Aborigines etc.

Finally, it has been shown on many occassions to be a strong correlation between low IQ’s and criminality/negative life outcomes (see the work of Linda Gottfriedsen). Culture factors in too, but IQ is a major factor in the cause of criminality.

And as it seems, you are playing safe and pandering to the ruling taboos & cliches you are more likely to be a Zeta,Theta,Kappa or even an Omega male-hardly likely to be optimal breeding stock!
Better leave the black chicks ( & the yellow,browns & whites for that matter !!!) to me.

“”Well I… I would hate to have to decide who stays up and who goes down.”

“Well, that would not be necessary Mr. President. It could easily be accomplished with a computer. And a computer could be set and programmed to accept factors from youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross section of necessary skills. Of course it would be absolutely vital that our top government and military men be included to foster and impart the required principles of leadership and tradition. Naturally, they would breed prodigiously, eh? There would bemuch time, and little to do. But ah with the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present gross national product within say, twenty years.”

In fact I can assure you, that as an Alpha white male at the top of the pyramid, I’d have no hestitation in tipping you two out of the boat first. That way there’s more room for biodiverse breeding stock (ie: groovy black chicks.)

I know you guys won’t mind. It’s for the common good after all.

“Let aboriginals and others -Pacific Islanders, Muslims,- succeed or fail in their own indigenous cultures and ways of being.” – millipede

Alas for the noble savage. milipede clearly has not seen small children swarming with flies, has never been the victim of a drunken assault, has not had to face violent religious bigots, has not bothered to read enough anthropology and history to understand that life is in fact nasty brutish and short pretty well everywhere except where modern world capitalism and/or democratic socialism has held sway. If she saw the consequences of “failing in their own way” she would be much less complacent about it.

Now we’re really going off topic here but unfortunately for your theory, China *started off* being scientifically advanced (see the work of Joseph Needham) and then declined. it declined because it turned inwards and the emperor decide to end all major seafaring voyages. then after stagnation under a whole list of other emperors, it underwent a period of warlordism, and then when Mao took over it eventually went shithouse even more . have you become a communist now?

Oh, and if you were trying to stir me up with the foot-binding remark I should point out that I’m Hakka and so none of my ancestors can be indicted for foot-binding.

Perhaps a seemingly dumb question can really require some intelligent answering. Human progress has often hinged on that very process. What if a seemingly dumb hypothesis is true?

Perhaps you just might have considered how Chinese treated women Jason, instead of blocking your ears to a what if? You know Jason, things like feet binding and getting rid of girl babies. What about tribal Africa Jason? How do most African males treat women? I note that in America, 70% of Afro-American males grow up without a father. Any reason for that Jason? Do you think that might have some impact on generational development? It certainly seems to for white families. Yes and there is the question of Arabic/Islamic treatment of women. Food for thought or beneath the dignity of experts such as yourself Jason?

I do agree the average scores that Lynn has worked out for Aborigines and sub saharan Africans not just borders on the absurd but actually is.