Here's what seems like the 87th New York Times article of the last month on that single study in Norway finding a slightly higher average IQ for oldest brothers:
Separated by Birth
By ELIZABETH GILBERT and CATHERINE GILBERT MURDOCK
The eldest children in families tend to develop higher I.Q.’s than their siblings, researchers are reporting. Skip to next paragraph Enlarge This Image Kelly Blair
— The Times, June 22
LIZ So ... how not surprised were you when you learned that science has now officially declared older children to have higher I.Q.’s than their unfortunate younger siblings? [More]
I'm starting to wish the NYT would go back to treating IQ as That Which Must Not Be Mentioned if it would just get them to shut up about this one IQ study...
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
21 comments:
This is only halfway relevant here, but I just wanted to mention that there are liberals who are interested in knowing the truth about IQ and I have been able to educate them and occasionally convince them about racial IQ differences with the help of books like the Bell Curve and a lot of patience. More specifically, there are three names on my "converted" list and a few more who've admitted at least that I might be right. And at least one of these people is close enough to a real-world Democratic politician to maybe (I can hope!) have some influence. I've also tried convincing these same people of the existence of God, with no success.
Well, wasn't there another popular study liberals were celebrating which showed (?) that the elder children were more conservative while their younger siblings, who were more self-centered and narcissistic, were more rebellious and eager to challenge authority (one of the alleged pastimes of liberals who, in their chronic inability to distinguish necessary and sufficient reasons, identify rebelliousness with being bright while all studies on crime show otherwise because of lack of impulse control), therefore more "progressive" in thinking? Doesn't that say, then, that liberals are more likely to be dumber?
I'm really thinking the reason they loved this one (like the abortion cut crime theory) is, it caters to liberal women's idea that having children is another "choice" (allegedly a wonderful thing in itself), just another "experience" (like going to college -- preferably to a wymmyn's studies program --, smoking pot, visiting one of those "vibrant" places, and taking it up the butthole in a gangbang). They'd like to try this one, too, you know, to "expand their horizons" and to "live life to its full potential" (I'm puking as I write these phrases), and get it over with. After that, comes swinging or buying a summer house, I believe. Followed by a messy divorce (the messier it is, the better since it will also help them experience yet another rich aspect of life to its potential -- or something like that. And since what doesn't kill us makes us stronger -- like, for example, a severed spine did Christopher Reeves -- that will make them even more desirable.)
Ok, I've lost my breakfast and lunch -- probably you, too. But you get what I mean.
JD
"NYT readers can't get enough IQ blather"
The pot called the kettle something un-PC.
An unfortunate side effect of the obessision-with-/denial-of- IQ dynamic? They so often have to repress thought about IQ because it's so often dangerous; so when it seems safe enough...burbling overkill.
Speaking of IQ Steve, there was a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal yesterday you might find interesting. In response to a previous letter by a teachers' union president, in which the president compared teachers favorably to engineers and other professionals, yesterday's letter writer listed average GRE scores for various education-related graduate programs, showing most of them to be on the far left end of the bell curve.
To be a little fair though, I imagine someone applying for a less -competitive graduate program like education isn't going to study as hard for the GRE as someone applying for a more competitive program.
The NYTimes must reason thus: "So if IQ is higher in older siblings, then IQ does not have a genetic basis."
Maybe that is what the NYTimes is trying to hint at. It fits with their thinking.
The NYTimes must reason thus: "So if IQ is higher in older siblings, then IQ does not have a genetic basis."
Maybe that is what the NYTimes is trying to hint at. It fits with their thinking.
Yeah, well the difference is still only about 2-3 points.
The reason the NYT loves this study is because it allows them to talk about IQ without challenging their PC belief in the equality of races, since full-brothers are obviously of the same race. If a study found a 30 point difference in IQ between two races (as it might between blacks and Jews) it wouldn't get any coverage at all.
This IQ study also has few policy implications, which is also why it is harmless and fair game for the NYT.
Peewee...don't mean to get too philosophical, but wouldn't you say that racial IQ differences are evidence that a) either God doesn't exist or b) God is cruel?
If you understand the reasoning behind IQ differences, its pure r-K theory and evolutionary biology-which flies in the face of God-centric philosophies. Read Rushton.
Even if you are right, Steve, I visited a concentration camp a few weeks ago and it made me strongly reconsider being vocal about my racial ideas.
Peewee...don't mean to get too philosophical, but wouldn't you say that racial IQ differences are evidence that a) either God doesn't exist or b) God is cruel?
The subject of God's [alleged] cruelty has been the grist for poets & philosophers since time immemorial.
Certainly from Job, through Christ, and on until at least the era of Monty Python:
Kevin: Yes, why does there have to be evil?
Supreme Being: I think it has something to do with free will.
If you understand the reasoning behind IQ differences, its pure r-K theory and evolutionary biology-which flies in the face of God-centric philosophies.
Can you cite a specific scriptural reference where God contends [or is alleged to have contended] that he created all men with perfectly equal intelligences?
Both Moses & Jesus would dispute that:
For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land...
For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.
You must be an atheist, taboo =P
I clicked your profile. I find your blog very interesting but I wish you wrote more.
But how could the supposedly just and benevolent God of the Bible be so cruel as to create men of different races and intelligences? Honestly, it has been evolutionary biology and HBD awareness that even more cemented my atheism/agnosticism/anti Abrahamic beliefs.
While I agree with most on this blog about race, we vastly disagree on religion. And my fellow atheists are rarely willing to break with traditional liberals on race.
But how could the supposedly just and benevolent God of the Bible be so cruel as to create men of different races and intelligences?
Who knows?
Maybe he didn't "create" them - maybe he just enabled the set of circumstances that would allow them to create themselves [free will again].
After all, it's been a mere 50,000 years since we all shared [largely] the same DNA in Africa.
Besides, wouldn't it all be kinda boring [to the point of purposelessness] if we were all absolutely identical? Right off the bat, perfect physical identicalness would do away with sexuality - so you'd have to say goodbye to Eve.
And then suppose you wanted to be a real Nazi about it, and you demanded of God that not only should we all have identical physical structures, but also that we should all experience exactly the same experiences. How would you go about creating such a universe - in which any two [ostensibly "different"] people always experienced exactly the same experiences?
Seems like that might require you to abandon the very notion of "two", which kinda gets you back to square one, with just poor little Adam, wandering around there in the Garden, all by his lonesome.
And from God's point of view, why would he bother to love us as individuals if we were all identical?
That seems like it would be kinduva pointless exercise on his part.
This is only halfway relevant here, but I just wanted to mention that there are liberals who are interested in knowing the truth about IQ and I have been able to educate them and occasionally convince them about racial IQ differences with the help of books like the Bell Curve and a lot of patience. More specifically, there are three names on my "converted" list and a few more who've admitted at least that I might be right. And at least one of these people is close enough to a real-world Democratic politician to maybe (I can hope!) have some influence. I've also tried convincing these same people of the existence of God, with no success.
That's because one exists and the other doesn't. ;)
Seriously, stick to one kind of proselytizing at a time. Too many ideas at once are hard to take in.
Re existence of God: never really saw any reason to believe. I seem to have no problem explaining the universe without Him, and psychological truths in the Bible would be expected given the accretion of several centuries of life experience. Besides, even if you can argue for some sort of larger cosmic order or morality that exists outside of the verifiable world of phenomena, that doesn't mean the Bible is correct and not, say, the Koran, the Torah, or Buddhist scriptures. Or the Principia Discordia, or that green mimeographed pamphlet that guy on Broadway gave me the other week.
The problem with arguments about religion (and why neither the atheists nor the religious people here are going to be convinced) is that it's by definition a matter of faith and hence a-rational. I spent a long time arguing with Jim Henley about this and he seemed to be mostly saying that the world made no sense without God and thinking without God led to meaninglessness, which I don't see a problem with. Why does the world have to make sense? It exists because it exists...
TabooTruth,
You're falling into the "I'm the first person to have ever thought of this!" pithole that so many atheists do.
Granting your assumption that having groups exist with different average intelligences is somehow an inherently cruel or unpleasant thing (I see no obvious reason why that would be so), your problem is essentially the same question of ANY evil or suffering in a world created by a just and loving God.
I suggest that you at least take a gander at this debate that has been hashed out back and forth for about 3000 years before you declare on the topic.
SFG: The problem with arguments about religion (and why neither the atheists nor the religious people here are going to be convinced) is that it's by definition a matter of faith and hence a-rational.
That was not Jesus's position [as recounted by John] - Jesus held that rationality was not some attribute that existed apart from God, but that "rationality" was in fact God himself:
In the beginning was Logos, and Logos was with God, and Logos was God...
And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you...
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you... Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come...
PS: The entirety of modern "Philosophy", which usually goes by the name of logical positivism, is just one long, centuries-old attack on the Gospel according to John.
PPS: Logos, which was translated by William Tyndale as "The Word" [which is probably not that bad of a translation], is generally understood to mean "that which brings order to chaos" [or maybe, "that which is capable of bringing order to chaos"].
More specifically, there are three names on my "converted" list and a few more who've admitted at least that I might be right. . . . I've also tried convincing these same people of the existence of God, with no success.
That just makes me smile.
its pure r-K theory and evolutionary biology-which flies in the face of God-centric philosophies.
The reliance on r-K mechanics is probably the weakest part of Rushton's argument because it ought to go the other way. Tropical and sub-tropical species are under pressure to pursue K strategies where temperate species are more likely to follow r strats.
There is also the problem that it seems to defy reason that the human brain evolved from natural selection.
My pet theory is sexual selection and I think a lot of the Ev Psych guys are saying social selection or the ability to trick others out of resources. A few people have suggested tribal warfare. The only professions were intelligence was regularly noted to be of importance before the industrial age were religion, law and war. The real gap in earnings or economic return to IQ didn’t come about until roughly the mid 20th century.
If intelligent people weren’t more productive, as measured by wages, then it’s hard to see why they would have been selected for by natural pressures. The human brain is just too big, too hungry and mostly useless. It’s even harder to imagine that it’s under pressure to get larger where food is more scarce.
Now there might be a case that it is under greater sexual pressure in a colder environment, since currying the favor of successful males is more important. And of course, charm is more important when physical features are hidden by clothing.
You will note that Rushton’s hierarchy of brain size also matches the hierarchy of hair length and thickness. If there is a genetic component to racial IQ differences I am betting that it comes through that mechanism.
What do you guys think the genetic roots for higher white suicide rates are?
(There's a far bigger gap in white suicide rates as compared to black suicide rates than there is in IQ differences.)
Why isn't this issue talked about more? Far more whites kill themselves than are killed by all non-whites combined.
Since most of you are white nationalists, or at least sympathetic to white nationalists, it would seem this would be an important topic for you -- since it is a critical issue for the well-being of whites.
Yet I never hear anyone talk about it.
So what's your theory? Or are you surprisingly similar to the close minded liberals you deride at the New York Times?
Just remember to look under your nose. Hopefully you won't see a thin mustache.
I actually attribute the large african sexual organ to female mate choice (sexual selection) that was aided by sparse clothing.
The reason cold weather selects for intelligence is that people had to INNOVATE in order to survive. Humans can't evolve enough fur to keep them warm in the insane cold of the ice age. So, they had to figure out how to make fire, kill and skin animals, and build warm shelters. Also, they had to learn group hunting and strategize. Not sure if it was Rushton or Lynn who made the chart comparing average brain size and wurm glaciation (ice age) temperature of region of origin.
And muswell, I've seen the debates. Every argument against God has been thoroughly hashed out (regarding terrible world problems and whatnot, problem of evil). They have all been resolved with the free will cop-out.
However, we don't CHOOSE to have racial disparities. It is a situation that could ONLY have come about due to humans evolving in different environments over the last 50,000 years after they left africa. How could God be anything but cruel to basically GUARANTEE slavery and colonialism and world poverty and genocide by creating intelligence disparities between races. Intelligence disparities between people, fine-to keep the society "vibrant". But, if you combine racial differences with ethnocentrism (also part of human nature) then you get alot of troubles.
Seriously, I have no idea how racist (who acknowledge racial intelligence differences) hardcore Christians and Muslims and Jews still have faith in their "just" God. It amazes me. People don't want to think. They want to be told what to think. They use anecdotal evidence from their own lives to justify their beliefs and conveniently forget about the tens of thousands of children who die of starvation and the suicide bomber whose guts are on the floor because he believes strongly in God.
What do you guys think the genetic roots for higher white suicide rates are?
Possibilities:
Per the "whites evolved in the icy wastes to be altruistic/collectivist thing": suicide can be good for the many; many suicides are no longer useful, and they check out.
Lower confidence/self-esteem/etc: blacks are too in love with themselves (and too oblivious to opprobrium) to check out.
Not that I'm lionizing suicide, mind you. Can't quite wrap my head around it. Maybe if I believed in an afterlife it would make more sense...
P.S., I don't sweep anything racial/political under the rug, period. But, how are we supposed to talk about issues that impact the white community when we aren't allowed to have a white community, or even be white unless we're apologizing/flagellating? I know that doesn't stop us on other issues, but still...I see your point as similar to the "separation won't create utopia" "argument" - so what?
Also, a different shade of the same argument: the suicide thing gets attention and money. Black and mestizo crime is covered up, profiling banned, etc.
The reason cold weather selects for intelligence is that people had to INNOVATE in order to survive. Humans can't evolve enough fur to keep them warm in the insane cold of the ice age.
I understand the argument I just don't buy it.
1) Neanderthals occupied cold regions and no one thinks they're brilliant. One explanation is that the did become hairier.
Why not homo sapien sapiens?
2) Brains are can innovate but they also eat, a lot. Big brains are hungry brains.
Moreover, human capacity for thought greatly outdistances what's necessary for survival.
3) Most human brains even in hunter gather societies do not busy themselves with thoughts about survival. They busy themselves with thoughts about other humans.
Even when you watch child development the first thing that rational abstract thought is used for is deception. Usually this is used to get more food rewards from adults until puberty when it is taken over by thoughts about sex.
4) There is always leaving as an adaptive strategy.
As a side theory I am developing a model that centers around curiosity as they genetic component to IQ. Perhaps, IQ is responds to environmental pressures much in the way that muscle response times do.
If you read sports science, training does indeed increase neural efficiency and decreases reaction time.
The problem is not everyone likes to think. Not everyone is curious.
This explains why parents have a strong effect on a child's IQ, when they are a child but not after.
Smart parents force their children to train their brains. Once the kids leave home they do what they want to do as determined by genes.
This also explains the Flynn effect through a mechanism I won't go into now.
It also explains the relationship between IQ differences and economic capacity.
It also, and here is the really cute part, explains some biological difference between Africans and Eurasians.
Eurasians are descended form people who left Africa. The reason those people are genetically more curious is well, that their curiosity is what spurred them to leave.
Suicides are highly self-critical. We've discussed self-criticalness as being higher among whites & yellows (Asians have high suicide rates under certain conditions, if they lose "face" for example.)
Griffe de Lion discusses serial killers quite honestly.
Post a Comment