November 23, 2017

Race and IQ: the Case for Genes

This article will lay out the basic case for “hereditarianism” or the view that genes are an important cause of racial IQ differences. At this point, you may already be thinking something like “no reputable scientist would ever think this!”, “Race doesn’t even exist!”, “IQ tests are culturally biased and don’t measure intelligence anyway!”, “What about poverty, racism, single motherhood, education, etc.,!” all of which will be dealt with in this article. For the time being, just try to keep an open mind. Then, after reviewing the evidence fairly, you can decide whether or not I’m a crack pot.

Race and IQ tests

Some people are skeptical of the very ideas of “race” and “IQ”, so let’s deal with that first.

Races are just populations that evolved in different environments. Racial groups correspond to genetic clusters and differ enough genetically such that differences in IQ are plausible. If you really doubt the basic existence of race, see this article dealing with that subject in isolation.

Now let’s turn to IQ. The most popular IQ tests include items which test mathematical ability, pattern recognition, short-term memory, verbal comprehension, and vocabulary. They are not perfect measures of intelligence, but they predict how smart a person’s peers say they are as well as how well people do in school and on the job (Denissen et al., 2011; Palhusand and Morgan, 1997; Bailey and Hatch, 1979; Bailey and Mattetal, 1977). In fact, IQ is a better predictor of income and educational attainment than parental socio-economic status is (Strenze, 2006).

Now, you might think that other notions of intelligence are important too. Certainly, IQ is not the only important thing about a person and whether to call a given skill “intelligence” is just a fight about words. If you want, you can replace the term “intelligence” with “IQ”. The important point is not that IQ is everything we normally call intelligence, it’s not, but that it is real and important.

Some people think that IQ tests only measure intelligence among Europeans. This is not true. Surveys of experts show that the vast majority of researchers in this area do not think that IQ tests are substantially culturally biased, and this is for good reason.

Bias in Tests Survey.png

(Reeve and Charles, 2008)

If IQ tests painted non-Whites are being less intelligent than they actually are then they should under-predict how well non-Whites do in school and the work force. They do not (Kobrin, 2001; Cucina et al., 2016; Jensen, 1980). Moreover, if IQ tests are biased, there should be “bias” problems which are among the hardest problems for non-Whites but the easiest for Whites. Actually, Whites and non-Whites rank the difficulty of IQ tests items essentially identically (Jensen and McGurk, 1986; Reynolds and Suzuki, 2003). Further still, if IQ tests were really biased against non-Whites, you would expect Europeans to score the highest on them. They don’t, East Asians do (Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, 2012; Faulk, 2016A). In summary, the idea that IQ tests are culturally or racially biased makes several testable predictions and they have all been falsified.

Establishing the Gap

It is uncontroversial that racial differences in IQ exist. Meta-analyses of data on more than 6,000,000 people have shown that Blacks in America score about 15 points lower than Whites do (Roth et al., 2001). East Asians, by contrast, score a few points higher than Whites do.

Of course, this does not mean that every African American has a lower IQ than every European American. Actually, these numbers imply that around one in ten African Americans will have an IQ of 100 or higher (the White average) and one in six Whites will have an IQ of 85 or lower (the Black average). The point is that these groups differ on average.

Why gaps matter

That being said, these gaps do matter. If you control for IQ, many social inequalities between the races disappear. For instance, if you hold IQ constant, Blacks are more likely than Whites to get a college degree and get paid the same for the same work.

education-holding-iq-constantwages-holding-iq-constant

(Murray and Herrnstein, 1994)

Controlling for IQ also eliminates most of the Black-White Incarceration gap.

Incarceration holding IQ constant.png

(Murray and Herrnstein, 1994)

IQ is also an excellent predictor of national wealth, and changes in national IQ overtime predict changes in economic growth (Lynn and Vanhanen, 2012; Pietschnig and Voracek, 2015).

Thus, these differences have social importance aside from the fact that human differences are inherently interesting.

Obvious Environment Causes

At this point, some people may be thinking that the Black-White IQ gap can by explained away by poverty, racism, education, or single motherhood. These explanations have each been refuted.

First, let’s look at poverty. Poverty does correlate with IQ, but controlling for socio-economic status, whether measured by parental income, education, neighborhood, wealth, or any other way, does not eliminate the Black-White IQ gap. This has been shown in more than 60 studies over the last 100 years (Last, 2016A). In fact, poor Whites do better on standardized tests than rich Blacks do.

SAT by Income.png

(Black Journal of Higher Education, 2008)

The same is true of single motherhood. Even when just looking at people from two parent homes, the Black-White IQ gap persists (Prifitera et al., 2005, table 1.4; Weiss et al., 2016, table 5.6). Moreover, research has shown that the Black-White IQ gap, and the White-East Asian IQ gap, still exists even when only looking at people raised (via adoption) in White homes (Faulk, 2016A).

minn 2.png

(Loehlin 2000; Lynn, 2015)

Another possibility is that differences in access to education cause the Black-White IQ gap. This is not possible because the Black-White IQ gap exists by age 3 which is prior to the beginning of formal education (Malloy, 2013). Moreover, the Black-White IQ gap remains after controlling for parental education (Prifitera et al., 2005, table 1.4; Weiss et al., 2016, table 5.6). Further still, Blacks with graduate degrees score worse than Whites without even a four-year degree on tests of cognitive ability (Faulk and Last, 2016). Clearly then, education is not the cause of racial cognitive differences.

Finally, let’s look at racism. To affect intelligence, racism must impact Blacks through some concrete mechanism. As we’ve seen, racism making Blacks poorer, less educated, or more likely to be from single-parent homes cannot explain the IQ gap. Another possibility is that racism has caused Blacks to internalize negative stereotypes about their intellect which in turn impacts their performance on tests. This hypothesis is refuted by the fact that Blacks score higher than Whites on measures of general self-esteem and are more likely than Whites to describe themselves as being smarter than average (Twenge and Crocker, 2002).

“Black students estimate their own academic competence more highly than Whites despite their own objective and self reported lower academic achievement (Hare 1985: Table 3; Tashakkori 1993: 97). Black high school seniors in the Coleman study were more apt than Whites to classify themselves as “among the brightest” and less likely to agree that “Sometimes I feel that I just can’t learn” despite poor academic performance (Coleman et al. 1966L 287-288, Tables 3.13.11, 3.13.12). Remarkably, southern rural Blacks, whose academic performance fell below that of all other blacks as well as all Whites, were more apt than other Blacks to classify themselves as Bright and able to learn” – Levin, 2016, page 75

Beyond this, there is no obvious way that racism could lower the intelligence of Blacks. Moreover, the Black-White IQ gap is found all over the world, including in Black countries, and did not fall in America between 1920 and 1970 even though there was a huge decline in racism during this time (Last, 2016B).

To be fair, some of these potential causes, such as poverty, may contribute a few points to the Black-White IQ gap. However, they cannot account for even half of the difference, let alone all of it.

Evidence for a partly genetic cause

Obviously, these environmental explanations failing does not mean that a genetic explanation will succeed. So, why think genes have anything to do with racial intelligence differences, or, for that matter, intelligence in general?

We know that genes impact intelligence through studies of identical twins raised apart and non-biological relatives raised together. Such studies show that the heritability of IQ rises with age and is well over 50% by adulthood (Last, 2016C). This is backed up by studies showing that genetic similarity between individuals predicts how similar their IQ scores will be and by recent studies showing that genetic tests can predict standardized test performance (Last, 2016C, Selzam et al., 2016). This research also shows that non-biological relatives raised in the same home are no more similar than average in terms of IQ despite a far more similar than average experience in home environment. This suggests that differences in home environment explain little to no variation in intelligence in adults.

Before going any further, you should know that hereditarianism isn’t a fringe theory. Surveys show that most intelligence researchers take the hereditarian view on the Black-White IQ gap.

B-W Heritability survey.png

(Rindermann, Coyle, and Becker, 2013)

Recent advances in genetics are consistent with this viewpoint. For instance, Piffer (2015) looked at racial differences in 9 IQ related gene variants and found that Whites were more likely than Blacks to have the high IQ related variants of all 9 genes. East Asians were also more likely than Whites to have the high IQ related gene variant in the majority of cases.

IQ related genes by race.png

Piffer used data on all nine of these gene variants to assign people a “polygenic score”. This polygenic score had an astoundingly high correlation of .93 with a nation’s mean IQ in a sample of 23 countries.

Piffer  - national IQ and polygenic score.JPG

Becker and Rindermann (2016) provided further direct genetic evidence when they analyzed data on 101 countries and found that the more genetically different two populations were the larger the IQ difference between them tended to be.

Another variable which predicts the regional cognitive ability is the average degree of White admixture in a population or, in other words, the degree to which the average person is genetically European. Fruest and Kirkegaard (2016) found this to be the case in data sets on American nations, states within Latin American nations such as Colombia, Brazil, and Mexico, and in  US states.

Indirect evidence also points to a genetic explanation. Consider the fact scores on IQ test questions vary in their heritability. Some cognitive abilities are more heritable than others and it turns out that the more heritable a cognitive ability is the larger the racial gap in that ability tends to be  (Jensen, 1973; Nichols 1970; Last, 2016D). This finding is easy to explain on the hereditarian view but very hard to explain otherwise.

Research has also shown repeatedly that mixed race individuals have IQ scores in between the mean scores of the races of their parents (Faulk, 2016B; Faulk 2016C). One study even found that this was true of mixed race Blacks who incorrectly believed they were fully Black (Weinberg et al., 1992). Further still, white admixture in African Americans has been shown to correlate with both their income and their educational attainment (Fuerst, 2014). Once again, this is exactly what the hereditarian viewpoint would predict.

Furthermore, Blacks have smaller brains than Whites, who have smaller brains than East Asians (Last, 2016E). Contrary to what you may have heard, brain size does predict a person’s IQ score. Moreover, changes in brain size over time predict changes in IQ, and the same genes which influence IQ are known to influence brain size. A plausible explanation for this data is that variation in brain size causes variation in IQ. More on this can be read about here.

There are several reasons to think that racial differences in brain size have a genetic cause. First, the races differ in brain size even at birth (Schultz, 1922; Rushton, 1997Ho et al., 1980). Research also shows that the races differ in dozens of traits which tend to co-evolve with brain size in a way that is consistent with the brain size differences (Rushton and Rushton, 2003). (For instance, women need larger hips to give birth to larger brained children.) Furthermore, several studies have shown that mulattoes have an average brain size in between that of Blacks and Whites (Pearl, 1934Bean, 1906). Finally, the Black-White brain size gap did not shrink in the 100 year period between 1880 and 1980 even though the Blacks and Whites converged in every conceivable measure of social inequality (Last, 2016E). Given all this, there is reason to think that genetically caused racial brain size differences play a role in racial intelligence differences.

Finally, the racial gap “looks” genetic based on how it changes over time, age, and geography. First, the Black-White-Asian IQ gap is seen all over the world.

RAce and IQ around the world.pngLynn (2006)

As mentioned earlier, the Black-White gap is also known to be present at age 3, and the Black-White IQ gap did not converge at all between 1920 and 1970 even though the social inequality between the races declined markedly between 1920 and 1970. This basic pattern of data is what we would expect if the underlying cause of the gap was genetic and makes explanations which appeal to environmental variables which impact people later in life, or are particular to a specific set of countries, unlikely.

In summary, there are many lines of evidence which converge on racial intelligence differences having a partially genetic cause. This doesn’t mean they are entirely caused by genes. They aren’t. But it does mean that genes are an important factor which we should not ignore.

Environmental Causes

To drive home the point that I am not proposing purely genetic explanation of racial intelligence differences, I’m going to briefly mention a two environmental factors which I do think are involved. This isn’t an exhaustive list, but it shows that I really don’t think racial IQ gaps are 100% heritable.

Child abuse has been shown to negatively impact IQ and, unfortunately, child abuse is more common among African Americans than it is among Whites. This accounts for a small proportion of the Black-White IQ gap in America. I’ve written about this in more detail here.

There is also good evidence that breastfeeding raises IQ and African Americans are less likely than White Americans to breastfeed. This too likely contributes to the Black-White IQ gap in America.

Of course, none of this negates, or is mutually exclusive with, the positive evidence for a partially genetic cause. Rather, the take away is that a complex mix of genes and the environment account for racial intelligence differences. Given the strength of the genetic evidence and the high heritability of IQ in the general population, I am inclined to think that racial intelligence differences are at least 50% heritable if not more so, but that still leaves room for plenty of other causes.

Conclusion

This article is meant as an introduction to the hereditarian case on race and IQ. A more comprehensive set of articles can be found here for those who require further evidence. If the case presented here was compelling to you, here is what I consider to be the key take away: racial inequalities are probably a permanent feature of society that we’ll have to learn to deal with and they aren’t anybody’s fault. If society can internalize that truth, we’ll have made real progress towards understanding ourselves as a species.

Facebook Comments
  • Mike Eisenberg

    re: “seen all over the world.” reliable source there

    • Lynn’s data has been shown to be pretty valid. It predicts a wide range of national differences.

      • Mike Eisenberg

        I’m just fucking with ryan. I have a paper I wanted you to comment on, if you have time. Short, only 30 pages. Have to get final edits in before the end of the month.

      • Daniel UL

        There is one thing in Lynn’s work that doesn’t add up. Iranians have an average IQ of 84 based on Richard Lynn’s table. Then look at this interesting data from the American census (available in Wikipedia as well):
        One in four Iranian-Americans holds a master’s or doctoral degree, the highest rate among 67 ethnic groups studied. They have 21.5% business ownership rate. One in three Iranian American households has annual incomes of more than $100K compared to one in five for the overall U.S. population. 50 percent are in professional and managerial occupations, greater than any other group in the United States.
        Somehow they make a huge jump after moving to the US, especially in educational attainment and occupation. What makes it more interesting is that their first generation moved to the US during a mass immigration from Iran to the US in 1979.
        The same trend is true for Iranians immigrated to Australia. This is quite puzzling because for other countries, the level of success still lines up to a great extent after immigration.

        • Ryan Faulk

          Right Iranians in Iran =/= Iranians born and raised in the United States.

          Heritability depends on environmental range. Iran vs. US: big environmental range. Iranians vs. Europeans inside the US; almost zero aggregate environmental differences.

          • Daniel UL

            That is interesting. If my understanding is correct, this means that people of Iranian ancestry would be more compatible with an environment such as the US compared to their homeland.
            This is quite wierd.This easily refutes the claims of racism toward immigrants, Iranian immigrants at least. Otherwise they would have been more successful in their homeland. It also can show that people of particular ancestry might not be compatible with some environments (in this case Iranians with Iran).

          • Ryan Faulk

            “This easily refutes the claims of racism toward immigrants, Iranian immigrants at least.”

            Well, it should. But they can make this unfalsifiable argument:

            “The IQs of Iranians in the United States is 94, however, if there weren’t such intense anti-Iranian ‘racism’, their IQs would be 100.”

          • Daniel UL

            That is correct, that argument shouldn’t be a base for any policymaking. It would be ridiculous if it can, which seems to be the case, unfortunately.
            The more I look into this, the more puzzling it gets.
            There are other countries in the list with same average IQ. For instance, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.
            Iranian-Americans achieve the same or higher level of human development as Euro-Americans after immigration, while other people of close geographical proximity and same average IQ (Saudi, Afghanistan) don’t. I must be missing something obvious.

          • mina

            Hey Daniel
            I am one of those Iranic Americans you are talking about.
            Here is our King and Queen (before the revolution), and our president and his wife (after immigration):
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e0a29d974963a96f574bc175c493500cb669fc24c5eeb2daf8f1e62c2951bbe3.jpg

            Few reasons for the exceptional success of us despite the low average IQ of 84 in Lynn’s data:
            First one, is that we immediately return to our Persian culture after leaving Iran. Contrary to the popular belief, We are not really Muslims, when the indoctrination stops, so does our religion. That is why you don’t see Iranians wearing hijab in western countries. Persian culture and values are exceptionally similar to the European’s. Majority of Iranians don’t practice Islam even in Iran. What you see in CNN are a small minority of pro-government Iranians, they are usually the bottom 2% of the gene pool, but they have the government in power. I don’t know why the CNN insists on showing these people as “the” Iranians.
            Second, environmental effects can’t raise IQ above the genetic capability of a person, but it can decrease the IQ to no end. Children in areas with polluted water and soil are one example. So the average IQ that you see in Iran, is below the genetic capability of the Iranians. That is one reason that their IQ jumps after moving to a place with better environment.
            Third, Iranians have more winners in the mathematics Olympiad than Japan. And the same number of achievers as China, which is significant when you consider it on a per capita basis. Same for other Olympiads. Lynn did not have updated data for every country. The data for Iran
            comes from a 1959 study, in which they only measure the standard
            progressive metrics(test developed in 1938) for secondary school
            students in a single central province of Iran. I have seen a couple of recent studies that show Persian Children’s IQ to be 104 (other ethnicities such as Turks and Arabs living in Iran didn’t do as well).

            Fourth, they are usually quite beautiful. And beauty has been proven to increase the probability of success. Here is how we look like: https://youtu.be/BSNDmsqd8ZE

          • Medieval Knievel

            I’m more willing to bet that the reason for Iranian American achievement has more to do with selection bias than anything else.

          • Daniel UL

            They were refugees as far as I know. A mass migration from Iran to the US in 1979.

          • Medieval Knievel

            Our transatlantic immigration system still tends to heavily select for the best. Even if they are refugees.

          • Daniel UL

            That’s interesting. I was under the impression that the refugees are only checked for the validity of their refugee claim. At least that is the case for Australia.
            Regardless, I wonder why other immigrants from the same region and similar IQ average (Afganistan, Saudi, Turkey,…) do not have the same level of achievement/assimilation.
            It is also quite weird the Iranians have such high number of science olympiad winners, almost on par with China, that was shocking. They also rank higher than Austria, Denmark, Finland,… in scientific publication.
            I just can’t wrap my head around this, their GDP in Iran lines up with their average IQ, but nothing else does. Do you reckon that there is a chance that Lynn’s data is not accurate for some countries?

          • Medieval Knievel

            Lynn’s data is pretty accurate. He’s updated it multiple times throughout the years. Iranians in America score 94. There are other minority groups that do better than whites in America in terms of money and education level but it is mostly due to selection bias. It is most likely that it is a combination of Iranians themselves being an outlier group and the immigrants that tend to come over here are outliers. This doesn’t disprove us or go against hereditarianism as it is obvious that there are differences within races.

          • Henry Fordney

            Perhaps the GDP can be accounted for by oil. Or perhaps there are other reasons. I wonder how important science and technology are regarded in Iran. Iranians seem to be exceptionally disciplined and hard-working. And doesnt Iran also have a firm hierahical class structure? Perhaps the majority of immigrants come from an upper class. Which would explain their better achievement in the US (brain drain), and obsession with professinal success (to distinguish themselves from the poor or laboring). Intelligence isnt the only predictor of achievement.

          • They’re probably an outlier as far as Middle Eastern countries go, e.g. higher percentage of caucasians in their population relative to other states in the region, but I think what you say is correct, any super-normal performance is related to selection bias.

          • Henry Fordney

            Why are they all dudes? I suppose cause you’re a girl. Would have been nice to see some girls. No, this reply has nothing to do with the article.

          • Huy Ton

            You’re right, most Iranians (Persians) are Caucasians.

          • Jonathan Shockley

            Hey Stodles, you may want to look into Terror Management Theory. It basically says that our behavior is primarily motivated by an unconscious fear of death. Some substantial evidence. Here’s the 30 year paper https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289309102_Thirty_Years_of_Terror_Management_Theory and a video I did presenting some of the evidence https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szRsUj1Rjs4&t=273s

        • Robert Rönngren

          You’re missing some important points here. There’s a lot of iranians in Sweden as well, and they do a lot better than most other immigrant groups.

          First of all, there’s more ethnic groups than persians in Iran. If you do an average iq in Iran you’re gonna need to separate the different groups. Persians probably have a higher iq than the others.

          Second, the ones that left during the revolution and a lot of the ones that leave today are the high agency-high iq ones. They, in fact, are sending their best. I have a colleague who is a iranian kurd, and he says that after tge revolution it was hard to get proper medical attention because all the doctors left the country.

          Getting out from under islamic oppression also helps with performance.

  • Mike Eisenberg

    “If you really doubt the basic existence of race…From ref: ‘A race of people is just a geographically defined set of populations.'” How are your united states, south american, and european “africans” “geographically defined”. FAIL!

    • Medieval Knievel

      Are you retarded. You sound really slow.

      • Mike Eisenberg

        Ha! Can’t even give a coherent definition. Why no one takes you crackpots seriously.

        • Medieval Knievel

          I guess you are.

          • Mike Eisenberg

            We are all Africans in origin, dude.

          • Medieval Knievel

            Yeah and dogs all originated from wolves but yet you still have different breeds.

          • Mike Eisenberg

            breeds are often sympatric populations; thus not geographically defined. are rather in terms of conspicuous phenotypes. if you want to define race in terms of e.g., color, say so.

          • Mike Eisenberg

            but no doubt you believe that your pigment makes you superior. sure.

          • Martheric Sherwood

            As long as there’s an exception to a definition, that definition will not be good enough for you. If we applied the same autistic standard to species as you do to race, we’d be calling impotent humans not actually human because they cannot reproduce.

          • Mike Eisenberg

            Are you interested in discussing the topic or not?

          • Celine Latour

            lmao @ the loops race creationists have to jump through to defend their blank slate theology

          • Medieval Knievel

            You are being autistic here. When he says geographically defined, he is obviously talking about where these different population groups adapted and evolved differently from each other.

          • Mike Eisenberg

            so the pleiotropic effect of melanin makes the colored people “race” inferior?

          • Medieval Knievel

            No. Nobody here thinks any race is superior or inferior. The races are just different.

          • Mike Eisenberg

            yes, we know darker pigmented people are different from lighter ones. by definition. why some would imagine this implies differences in intelligence is the mystery.

          • Medieval Knievel

            Well intelligence is part of our genes and behavioral genetics and genetics in general shows that every trait in humans is inheritable. So it’s highly likely that there are partial genetic causes for racial differences in intelligence.

          • Mike Eisenberg

            so it’s probable that every IQ difference between every imaginable group is genetic because IQ differences within groups tend to be genetic? which is why the difference between people born now and in the 1950s is “highly likely” to have a partial genetic cause?

          • Medieval Knievel

            Well partially genetic because groups of people did evolve with each other which is going to make group averages.

          • Mike Eisenberg

            south asian, oceanian, sub-saharan african, etc. populations — all people part of your dark pigment race — didn’t exactly evolve together….

          • Medieval Knievel

            We don’t consider everyone with dark skin part of the same race.

          • Mike Eisenberg

            how, exactly, do you delineate “races” then? You guys can’t seem to make up your mind. First it’s in terms of geography, then in terms of ancestor’s geographic origin, then color, now what?

          • Medieval Knievel

            A mixture of all. Race is anatomy, bone structure, ancestral origin and genes. Europeans generally evolved with each other, sub Saharan Africans did, East Asians did, Semites did and so forth. And within races you have more groups like ethnicity. Within the European race there would be Italians, Germans, British and so forth.

          • Mike Eisenberg

            So a member of the Italian sub-race: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/01/italy-mp-blacks-up-anti-migrant-speech-20141175475595566.html ? Or are Italians not now ‘evolving with each other.’

          • Medieval Knievel

            What does that have to do with this?

          • Mike Eisenberg

            A supposed coherent definition of “race”…

            “geographic population” — defined in terms of geographic proximity
            “breeding population”/ “deme” — defined in terms of chance of mating
            “form” — defined in terms of common features
            “morph” — defined in terms of common features
            “species” — defined in terms of reproductive isolation
            “ecotype” — defined in terms of ecological adaptation
            see how it works? now, try “race”…

          • Medieval Knievel

            You are making this way more difficult than it needs to be. Most people know what we mean by race when we say that word. You are doing this though for a reason. To make it sound more complicated than it really is.

          • Mike Eisenberg

            so you can’t give a simple definition for “race” — like I can for every other widely accepted biological construct?

          • Medieval Knievel

            A race is a group of people with a common ancestral background in an area of the planet. The same as what Sean wrote. Just worded differently.

          • Mike Eisenberg

            So now the human species is a race — an African race?

          • Medieval Knievel

            No. A common ancestral background would be like proto Europeans and stuff like that. Again the human species broke up and evolved in different areas of the planet making different groups which we refer to as race.

          • Mike Eisenberg

            So, by definition, all Latinos have a common ancestral origin; and like virtually every other geographic-breeding population their ancestors, as a group, have been “evolving separately” for generations.Do they form a unified race too?

          • Medieval Knievel

            Latinos are mixed race groups. if you are talking about natives than yes.

          • Mike Eisenberg

            What makes them “mixed” and other groups “full” races. Thought you just defined races as groups of people whose ancestors evolved together in different areas. Hispanics seem to meet that criterion.

          • Medieval Knievel

            For example the Mexicans are a mixture of the Europeans and the Mexican natives. This has been shown in genetic tests.

          • Mike Eisenberg

            Sure, likewise Europeans are a mix of Neolithic Anatolian farmers, people from the West Eurasian steppe, and Palaeolithic Europeans. Genetics tests have shown this quite clearly. So they are a mixed “race” too?

          • Medieval Knievel

            Pretty much. Mexicans can be considered their own group just like the Europeans are since they came from proto europeans.

          • Mike Eisenberg

            We were talking about all Latin Americans in the US, not just Mexicans. Can all of these “populations” form their own racial group — like European can — or not?

          • Medieval Knievel

            No. Some Latina are full black, full white or a mix like mexicans.

          • Mike Eisenberg

            So not all ‘groups of people whose ancestors evolved together in different areas’ are races. What then are your fantasmic “races”?

          • Medieval Knievel

            But that’s the thing, I said ancestral background. A white Hispanics ancestral background is still Europe since genetic tests can show this.

          • Mike Eisenberg

            so you don’t mean ‘geographic ancestral background’ (ancestry with respect to some region. per se)?

          • Medieval Knievel

            Could be a better way of putting it. Also are you a troll? You commented up there that you’re fucking with Ryan.

          • Mike Eisenberg

            I’m still confused. Imagine the set of 5%/95% “genetic test” “African”/”European” individuals living in the US whose immediate ancestors were from Latin America and the set of 95%/5% “genetic test” “African”/”European” individuals in the US whose immediate ancestors were from Sub-Sahara Africa. Would you assign them to the same “race” or not. Why or why not?

          • Medieval Knievel

            It depends. If a group of Germans moved to a deserted South American town and stayed there for thousands of years than they could be considered their own race. But if a German couple move to Latin America and have a kid, then that kid moves to the U.S. and marries a white girl than no because him and his kin haven’t evolved long enough away from other Europeans.

          • Mike Eisenberg

            What if the German couple moved to the South American town 150 years ago and had a descendant who ended up 6% “genetic test” African and this descendant moved to the US and married a white girl, and their son identified as a Hispanic African American on hypodescent grounds to get Affirmative action. Could, by your conception, the son reasonably qualify as a bona fide biological non-white, given his genetically verifiable long enough evolved away African ancestry?

          • Medieval Knievel

            No. 150 years isn’t enough and if you could still trace a great majority of his ancestry back to Europe than no. Plus I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t identify as African. He would most likely still look white.

          • Mike Eisenberg

            So now Elizabeth Warren wouldn’t qualify as a biological Amerindian, because we are grouping, more or less, by propinquity of decent like a 19th century Darwinian racialist? Dude, you know this is the 21st century, right?

          • Medieval Knievel

            Ok no. I’m done with this. You sound like a troll.

          • Mike Eisenberg

            Sure, but what if a twin earth popped up in our solar system and a mostly twin Earth twin European ancestry twin geographically Latin American migrated to the this earth US. What race would he be then, as he could not “trace a great majority of his ancestry back to” this Earth Europe. A separate race from his this earth doppelganger despite his phentic similarity or the same race despite his complete ancestral difference?

          • Falcon9R

            the Flynn effect is low on many Wechsler subtests, as you already know, liar.

    • Mengerian Knight

      They’re descended primarily from people in the genetic clusters that evolved in different regions over the past several thousand years. It’s obvious, stop trying to play dumb, you aren’t going to fool anyone on this website.

      • Mike Eisenberg

        “Genetic clusters” are the output of a clustering algorithm. These don’t evolve and people don’t descent from these. Try again,

        • Mengerian Knight

          “”Genetic clusters” are the output of a clustering algorithm.”
          False.

          “These don’t evolve”
          False.

          “people don’t descend from these.”
          False.

    • Homo Sapiens Europaeus

      Fail, obviously a race or subspecies is a population within a species that differs from the rest of the species by having distinctive racial characteristics. Of course, this has nothing to do with geography.

      -why some would imagine this (race) implies differences in intelligence is the mystery-
      Well, it did not seem to be so mysterious to any nineteenth-century European. And after so much time Africa is even worse now than when the Europeans decolonized it.

      What are you both talking about? Mexicans are mostly Native Americans with a bit of European and African mix. The prehistoric peoples who populated Europe successively did not belong to different races, they were Caucasoids!

      • Mike Eisenberg

        “a population ,,, that differs from the rest of the species by having distinctive racial characteristics” So you resort to a self referential definition? What are “distinctive racial characteristics”?

        • Homo Sapiens Europaeus

          What is a self-referential definition? Does not matter. Do you know the concept of subspecies? Some may use the word ‘race’ with the same meaning as a species, but I use it as a subspecies and it seems to me that most people do it when they are talking about humanity. But back to your question, it is a hereditary biological characteristic, both physiologically and psychically and obviously it concerns all living beings. If you can not distinguish a racial characteristic you could not distinguish a man from an orangutan or a tortoise from a hare. It’s that simple. The only thing that differentiates a species from a subspecies or ‘race’ is that different subspecies can procreate, that’s all. And I could give you many examples of racial characteristics, from the shape and size of the skull to the shape and position of bones of the face or the duration of the process of maturity to the color of the skin. The famous epicantic fold is the most characteristic form of the Mongoloid eye, and blue, gray and green eye colors are characteristic of Caucasoids.

          • Mike Eisenberg

            You were defining “race” by making reference to the term being defined. It was as if I said: “oh, there are human sniffues.” And when you asked what sniffues were, I replied: “of course, groups between which there are distinctive sniffue differences!” Such a reply merely punts the ball. But now, helpfully, you have offered a definition of a “racial character”: “a hereditary biological characteristic”. A such, according to your revised definition, if I have this right, any “group of organisms within a species that differs from the rest by distinctive inheritable biological characteristics” constitute a race. So, to clarify, albinos constitute a race, as do all people with blood type O? Or would you say that blood types are not inheritable?

            As for “subspecies,” it was my impression that the term is generally used to refer to both the taxonomic rank immediately below species and to the taxa — those formally recognized groups deemed worthy of a Latin name — assigned to this rank. Are you equating “race” with this? What then are the formal Latin names of the so-said human subspecies? And is this then the only valid “racial” division — no subdivision of these groups? If not, if some infrasubspecific divisions are also races, you must be using “subspecies” in an idiosyncratic non-taxonomic way, which allows both divisions at and below the subspecies rank to be called by this name. But, yes, I am familiar with the concept of “a taxonomically recognized subdivision of a species”, typically called “subspecies”, however, I am not aware of any such human groups. Perhaps you could point me to a conservation magazine that lists the trinomen.

          • Homo Sapiens Europaeus

            First of all english is not my language, I did not quite understand what you said at the beginning, sorry. First, albinism is a disease so it would not be something valid it affects not only humans but also other animals, anyway, you went to the extreme and that has nothing to do with reality. You asked me what a racial characteristic was (singular) and I answered you in singular (a hereditary biological characteristic). But the concept of subspecies does not work like that. If we go to the extreme case it would be absurd to say that people who have freckles are other race to those who do not have them, conversely, it would also be absurd to say that monkeys and men are the same species because we have hands. Reality shows us that human groups are markedly different biologically as I said and that is clearly shown in genetics, where you can see that the allelic frequencies that shape the phenotype, vary clearly from one continent to another coinciding almost perfectly with the classic traditional categories of ‘races’, you need a set of distinctive hereditary characteristics to identify a race not just a single feature as you claim, you would tell me that bonobos and chimpanzees are not different species because they are virtually identical, right? In fact they are much more similar to each other, than what a Chinese and a Congolese look like at first glance. But if we use science, we can clearly see that chimpanzees form different species and humans form different subspecies, end of story.

            I actually use race (though it has more meanings) as subspecies equivalent just like Charles Darwin. Do you want me to show you the different human subspecies? Are you blind and unaware of genetics? In that case, in my opinion the best classification is ‘Race’, John R. Baker, but there is plenty of scientists who have made racial classifications of humanity since the founder and considered ‘father’ of the modern taxonomy Carolus Linnaeus made his own classification to which I pay tribute (Homo Sapiens Europaeus), to the most recent book on the subject (I believe) by Nicolas Wade, is ‘A Troublesome Inheritance’ (2014), risking being defamed and ostracized by the inquisitorial antiracist establishment. If you want to find a human racial classification, you do not need to dig much you will find it. Anyway, there are a lot of scientists both ancient and modern that despite not doing their own classifications have shown agreement on the reality of human subspecies, including co-discoverers of the DNA structure, Francis Crick and James D. Watson (Both Nobel), despite the current social/official pressure.

          • Mike Eisenberg

            Darwin used “sub-species” to describe those “hereditary varieties” which were close to but not so differentiated to deserve the rank of “species”. As his hereditary varieties were “communities of descent,” delineated in terms of overall descent, his subspecies were likewise. He used “race” more inclusively; thus his infrasubspecific varieties, sub-specific varieties, and species were all races. See, for example, his discussion on p. 497 to 501 in Origin. It’s not clear that your usage is the same. For one, groups delineated by a set of distinctive hereditary characteristics, depending on that selected, need not correspond with ones delineated by pedigree.

          • Homo Sapiens Europaeus

            I know very well that in the nineteenth century the word ‘race’ was even used to refer to the social classes, but I think I explained it wrong, I’m sorry. My intention was not to use the term race as Darwin, my point was that Darwin used the term subspecies (as well as race) in humans.

          • Mike Eisenberg

            Since you are not adopting the Darwinian understanding, I am left wondering how you precisely delineate groups. Let’s start here: Can your races be polyphyletic like certain of Mayr’s polytypic subspecies (“the evolutionist knows that such populations are not identical genetically, but since the subspecies is not an evolutionary concept, taxonomists sometimes combine such visually identical populations into a single subspecific taxon”) or certain biologists’ ecotypes (“populations with convergent morphological, demographic and behavioural adaptations to similar ecological conditions … [which] are designated based on ecological criteria, not phylogenetic criteria”)? The recognition of such polyphyletic groups as your sense races would seem to be consistent with your formal definition, though not with your suggestion that races are also way stations, as Wade put it, to species — a qualification which would also require that they be, as far as I can tell, evolutionary and phylogenetic units.

          • Homo Sapiens Europaeus

            To make things clear, I’m a darwinist. In Darwin’s time the word ‘race’ had a diffuse and undefined meaning (as it is nowadays), so Darwin used it fickle and also for subspecies, which is why I said that I used race like Darwin. That does not mean that I use it exactly like Darwin, I use it as a term equivalent to subspecies in humans, that’s all.

            Polyphyletic groups are artificial joints of dispersed branches of the evolutionary tree that exclude the most recent common ancestor and are due to errors in the interpretation of kinship and are universally rejected in modern classifications. There are no polyphyletic groups in mankind. The common characteristics between humans races or between chimpanzees are not the product of an independent evolution, but of a common ancestor. Therefore they are phylogenetic and evolutionary beings. The concept of subspecies that I defend in humans is the same that by biologists use in animals. For more information look up. :]

          • Mike Eisenberg

            The term “subspecies” doesn’t call to mind one specific concept, so, I confess, I am still a bit uncertain as to what is precisely meant. Are you referring to the taxonomic category immediately below species and to the taxa assigned to it — a taxa being a “formally recognized taxonomic group that is assigned to a definite category of a hierarchical classification” (Mayr and Ashhlock, 1991)? I think this is how the term is now mostly used i.e., as a taxonomic not systematic unit. In this case, if you mean that there are human subspecific taxa then you should be able to point to a contemporaneous handbook that lists these and their trinomen. Also, if you mean that “race” is synonymous with “the subspecies category” / “subspecific taxon” then you must agree that there can be no subdivisions of races, since these would then be sub-subspecies etc., This is what you mean?

          • Homo Sapiens Europaeus

            Are you saying that reality is what majority say? According to this logic the earth was flat and Galileo was not right, right? And what else are we talking about? According to the survey by Lieberman et al. (1992), 85% of biologists and 64% of evolutionary psychologists answered affirmatively to the question: There are biological races in the species Homo Sapiens. Does not it seem that most of experts were on your side at least in 1992, then the majority were wrong? While another survey of 2001 among Polish anthropologists only 25% rejected the concept of race. In another survey in 2001, 69% of American physical anthropologists and 80% of social anthropologists surveyed responded negatively. I have several very beautiful books from the eighties and nineties that I inherited from my father that show not only the great human races but also the subdivisions of them. Recently every few years a new article emerges in the press calling for the return of the race in human populations. It seems that the situation you alluded to is far removed from a consensus, taking into account this majority logic, of course. It’s absurd. When Hitler attempted to prove that Einstein’s theory was false he recruited about 100 German scientists for the cause. And Einstein said: You do not need 100 scientists to prove that I’m not right, just one.

            Does the way you talk about subspecies imply that they can not be added any more? Are you saying that the tiger subspecies did not exist before being classified? You say that the concept of subspecies is tied to a taxonomically recognized group, of course, that happens when it is already classified! But when a scientist identifies a new subspecies of gazelle, not being previously classified or officially recognized, does it mean it does not exist?? How can a scientist identify a newly discovered subspecies if it is not taxonomically recognized by the scientific community? He can because the real concept of subspecies are groups that in addition to the characters of the species, have in common other morphological characters by which they resemble each other and are distinguished from those of other subspecies; everyone can because that’s how science works and once classified then it is already taxonomically recognized by the majority. Don’t you agree? And I ask you: How you define the concept of subspecies, what is a subespecies? How do you identify a subspecies?

          • Mike Eisenberg

            “Are you saying that reality is what majority say?” No, I am saying that convention is what the majority says. And that taxa are groups recognized for convenience sake (Simpson, 1969; Mayr and Ashlock, 1991). They are groups formally recognized. And “subspecies” often refers to subspecific taxa. Here are two current definitions of “subspecies”: In “A dictionary of zoology” Allaby
            (2014) says: “Technically, a race of a species that is allocated a Latin name….” “Allocated a name”, a trinomen, is to say formally recognized. In “A dictionary of genetics”, giving two definitions, one taxonomic and another systematic, King, Mulligan & Stansfield (2013) say: “1 a taxonomically recognized subdivision of a species. 2. geographically and/or ecologically defined subdivisions of a species with distinctive characteristics. See race” The first definition refers to our formally recognized groups or taxa subspecies, the second to a more general, and somewhat vague, concept. I am simply trying to clarify if by “subspecies” you mean infraspecific taxa or something else. This is relevant since there are often criteria for formally recognizing infraspecific branches and twigs of the evolutionary tree (i.e., taxonomically significant enough differences, where this is conventionally defined and changes based on the whims of taxonomists) and since, as said, if races are subspecific taxa, there must be one accepted division and not hierarchy of them, as classically thought.

            Now you say, “There is no subspecies because it does not have a trinomial assigned? Does not a subspecies exist because it has not yet been integrated into a taxon?” I thought I was clear in distinguishing subspecies in the taxonomic sense, which we might call “taxa subspecies”, from “subspecies in a more general sense. And I was attempting to clarify if you meant the former or the latter. Now you said that you used “subspecies” similar to how Darwin did, but I know Darwin used the term more in the taxonomic sense as a taxonomic rank immediately below species. Below that he had lesser differentiated hereditary varieties and above more differentiated ones, or species, all of these were called “races” used in a systematic sense to describe communities of descent.

            As I said, Darwin’s understanding is quite clear to me. It’s that I more or less adopt. Yours is not. Now, you make some other interesting assertions, but let’s clear up this issue first. So you don’t mean “subspecies” in a strictly taxonomic sense i.e., subspecific taxa?

          • Medieval Knievel

            Jesus, you’re still going on with your retarded comments.

          • Homo Sapiens Europaeus

            You again ….. hahaha lmao. Man, why is it so hard for you to understand that humanity is divided into genetically different races? This is a scientifically proven fact.

  • Chaim Goldberg

    Heritability does not mean portion of a trait affected by genes vs environment. It means to represent how variation in
    DNA relates to variation in traits across a population.

    “Although it would, of course, be useful to have a measure of the biological inheritability of complex
    traits, scientists have never been able to develop such a measure.”

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcs.1400/pdf

    • Medieval Knievel

      Ryan and Sean already know this. We all do.

      • Chaim Goldberg

        If he knows it why is he saying that 50% of IQ is from genetics?

        • Medieval Knievel

          You obviously don’t know what you are talking about. The degree of variance between races attributable to genetics. He is using it validly.

    • Yes, heritability refers to the proportion of variance in a trait attributable to variance in genetics. In this article, I am talking about the degree of variance between races attributable to genetics, a perfectly valid use of the term.

      • Chaim Goldberg

        But your claim that “Large reviews of more than 200 such studies have determined that the
        heritability of IQ lies somewhere between .5 and .7, meaning that 50-70%
        of IQ variance in the population is explained by genes” is not true, right?

        If heritability is variance, then if a group is more homogeneous, then heritability goes down. If we do not know the portion of IQ that dependent on genes than how can you claim that racial differences, or any differences are based on genetics?

        • Medieval Knievel

          Heritability estimates how much variation of a trait is due to genetic variation. Basically how many difference are due to genetic differences. Again this doesn’t disprove us.

  • Emil Kirkegaard

    You did not include any admixture data, but this data is very relevant. Null findings would disprove genetic models outright, and while they don’t prove genetic models, they do increase their likelihood.

    Aggregate-level genetic admixture studies consistent with genetic models. See e.g. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298214364_Admixture_in_the_Americas_Regional_and_National_Differences

    There is not yet sufficient individual-level genetic admixture data for IQ, at least that I can get a hold of (it does exist, but is hard to get access to). However, we did manage to find some data and it does show the expected relationship. Preprint: https://osf.io/z8dy5/ There are plenty of reported results for social measures (education, income etc.), and these also show pretty robust relationships to European ancestry, mean r ≈ .18 (meta-analysis). Preprint: https://osf.io/ydc3f/.

    There’s also a lot of adoption data. E.g. large scale Swedish study discussed here: http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=5663

    There is not yet a completely convincing study, but the overall evidence is considerably in favor of genetic models. Still we get articles like this one http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886916303099

  • I disagree with your statement of racial inequality being a permanent part of society, at least to the extent that it may imply. African Americans have experienced increasing social mobility over the years despite being outnumbered. If positive progress can be made, you will need to introduce a factor that presents a ceiling of sorts to make inequality an insurmountable aspect of society.

    • Medieval Knievel

      Wrong again

      • Elaborate. Instead of denying, support your claim with a logical argument.

        • Medieval Knievel

          You gave no logical argument so I’m not going to.

          • Fine by me if you don’t consider my argument logical, I’ll just believe that you can’t back your words. Continue to regurgitate what you read without considering the implications.

          • Medieval Knievel

            Continue ignoring evidence because of personal requirements of sample size. MUH SAMPLE SIZE

          • So it’s come to this. Please say something intellectually stimulating if you want my further attention. I have better things to do than argue inanely with someone I don’t know.

          • Medieval Knievel

            All you’ve said is MUH SAMPLE SIZE. Sample size is stupid criticism.

          • Yup… they’re always big on the demands for evidence but will not oblige when countered on their assertions.

      • ClimateWhat

        What is he stating that is wrong?
        Only an idiot thinks the childish argument – “Nah-uh” is a valid rebuttal.
        Do you have anything intelligent to say?

        • Medieval Knievel

          He’s wrong. Thats it

          • ClimateWhat

            Yea right butt wipe.
            Your rebuttal is ‘He’s wrong I’ve already proved it”

            All you’ve proved is idiots like you have no clue what debate or logical reasoning is. You really are clueless.

          • Medieval Knievel

            Lol I really Don’t care buddy. We’ve argued on another article. Nothing else needs to be said.

          • ClimateWhat

            If you don’t care, why did you reply?
            . . . just sayin’

          • Medieval Knievel

            To make it clear that I’ve already spoken with this guy and nothing more needs to be said.

          • ClimateWhat

            But if you don’t care? Why waste time replying?
            Methinks the lady doth protest too much perhaps?

          • Medieval Knievel

            No not really. And I was saying that i didn’t really care if you believed me or not about speaking with that guy.

          • We did talk it out on other articles, but the conclusion wasn’t any admission of my statements being wrong. Strangely enough, someone marked the comment I made in reply to his 3 days old (as of writing) comment that included links to the two articles we talked on as spam.

          • Medieval Knievel

            Playing victim now?

          • At this point, I find it hard to believe that you are legitimately putting your concerns out here rather than stirring the pot. Playing victim would imply that I said someone attacked me unjustly. I made no such statement.

            What was the point of your comment? If you want to reopen our previously concluded line of discourse, and posses the means to make doing so worth my time, please don’t hesitate.

          • Medieval Knievel

            We all know that you were insinuating that I was the one that flagged your comments. And no, I don’t feel like getting into another argument about your personal requirements on sample size.

          • Not my intention. You have my apologies if the comment provoked you. Personally, I thought that it was flagged because it linked to two articles within the site. And the argument isn’t personal, it’s a standard. In fact, one of the many disqualifiers for scientific studies are uneven sample sizes as it allows you to easily stack outcomes in one direction or the other.

          • Medieval Knievel

            It is a personal requirement. We can continually argue that a sample size is not enough until we’re saying that we need to sample the whole population. You do realize that we’ve only sampled like 1-2% of the whole population to figure out the average IQ of black and whites and the sample sizes weren’t equal to each other yet its seen as extremely reliable and representative. Again, the only thing that I will concede is that the sample sizes for the MAOA study can be bigger but I will not concede that we don’t have any evidence or that it is unreliable.

          • Link to the average IQ test please? I actually enjoy looking into these things. Also, why is it seen as “extremely reliable and representative” ?

            Like I said before, sample size isn’t needed for all tests, but it is for one like this. This is an argument we’ve already had. Addressing the unreliability of uneven sample sizes takes a lot of explanation for those unaccustomed to research or statistics, but I’ll try.

            Let’s pose a hypothetical:

            Within the forest of elucidation, there lives 11,000 pygmy dragons and 18,000 dusk dragons. The researchers of the Institute of Arcane Studies wishes to gauge the difference in mana capacity between the two dragon species.

            A legitimate study would be run with even sample sizes multiple times, with each trial taking in different subjects. This is to ensure that randomization does not impede the accuracy of a trial of averages. Even if there are more dusk dragons than pygmy dragons, a test where the pygmy dragon sample size is smaller than that of the dusk dragons means that randomization has a greater effect on the pygmy dragons than the dusk dragons. Observe.

            Lets assign the abbreviation mc for mana capacity. If a small test sample includes 10 pygmy dragons and 30 dusk dragons who all happen to have the same mc we’ll get the same average.

            Dusk: 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45> average = 45

            Pygmy: 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45 > average = 45

            Now let’s replace one value with an outlier on both samplings.

            Dusk: 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 190 > average = 49.8333333333

            Pygmy: 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 190 > average = 59.5

            The sample set with less subjects are more drastically impacted by outliers than the sample set with more subjects, despite their total population differences. The formula for an average does not change to accommodate the total number of beings within a species. In order to get a true comparison for this kind of data, we need even sample sizes.

            This is all before we go into the importance of ensuring that sampling is truly random rather than targeted, which would include selecting subjects from a wide swath of areas in which both of the subject groupings being compared were raised with near-identical environmental factors.

            Explain to me how this is a personal requirement, and we can move on to the shadier aspects of the studies on these articles.

          • Wrote a reply to you, did you read it before the spam detector filed another false positive?

          • Medieval Knievel

            Lets just call it quits. I’m getting quite bored and I don’t feel like arguing about this again.

          • Fair enough, but you’ll see me again if I find another instance of something like this.

          • Medieval Knievel

            Ok

  • Charles Ray

    Could one make the argument that black Americans were breed to be dumb? Seeing as how African slaves were picked for how strong (not smart) they were it makes sense no?

    • Ryan Faulk

      Why would they be picked for strength? Were they lifting heavy boulders or something?

      • Charles Ray

        I mean they were slaves and it would help if they were strong and had lots endurance no? Were African slave not more expensive because they were stronger?

  • AdeloVant

    By analogy: Big multi-layer cake (Genetics & Science) with one layer of icing (single study narrow interpretation) may be valid, if reproducible. Like children adding more icing, the cake appears better, but…. Finally like this Bigot $hit Ho/Ha, the children have added icing until the cake90% & gods hope you ain’t a stupid diabetic about to eat the icing called cake.