To me the real issue here is “denialism”, and the ensuing required effort to maintain such against observable reality. In short, we won’t accept the differences in IQ (and certain behavioral characteristics) among the races, so we heretofore explained those differences in environmental ways. Those “theories” were shown one after another to fail explain inherent differences until at last such efforts have simply been abandoned in favor of DEI. Standards are lowered across the board and in most all institutions to meet DEI demands.
DEI is not only the latest “thing”, but perhaps the most pernicious of them all. It serves to simply ignore differences and promote mediocrity over meritocracy. In a society of generally declining IQ, with a public school system on life support attempting to “educate” our newly diverse population, how much more can society absorb before the “Critical Fraction” reaches its limit? Not much I think.
Really good rebuttal. Oh, but you two must get heartily sick of having to defend yourselves again and again against these 'good' people. People like Rutherford have no shame and no inellectual integrity. In a just world he would be made to resit his degree in biology before he can continue teaching.
It is usual for for those in denial about group differences to be indifferent to the sufferings of the "beneficiaries" of their doctrines. Ideological callousness. For example Meyr cites Asian (3 hours homework) and black (no homework) predictors of test results. The black kids can only flourish in a high discipline environment (eg at the Michaela school in London). Similarly, boys education can be thwarted by the ignorance of female teachers - not recognising a much greater need for physical activity than girls. Recognition of group differences - eg by Charles Murray in "Facing Reality" is forced by the destructive fantasies of deniers like Adam. Ideological falsehoods always bite their alleged beneficiaries.
Seems to border (imply toward) a bit on the environmental view of IQ, or learning. Blacks would learn more if they behaved like Asians and studied. To a certain degree, improve, sure. But I would maintain they would never reach the level of Asians in schooling.
This effect I believe is covered by Warne who calls this the “reaction range” of your genetic composition. Sure, better nutrition produced a generation of Japanese after WWII that grew 4-6 inches taller than their parents, but they never reached the height of the average Northern European White.
yes. The ideologues never escape from there never being any group differnces, however caused, other than the perfidy of someone else. "Reaction range" sounds interesting - reference for Warne?
Yes. “In the Know: Debunking 35 Myths about Human Intelligence” by Russell T. Warne. IIR, he discusses and gives direct citations to the concept in one of his discussed “myths”. Further specification, I didn’t have time for, but the book in general is a good overview of the current situation wrt IQ and the hereditarian position.
You guys should really reach out to Dr. Shi Huang on X, his Maximum Genetic Diversity theory has been published in multiple peer-reviewed journals, and when you understand its explanation of why the Neutral Theory and its broken Molecular Clock make no sense - all of the current thinking around race science quickly dissolves.
Along those same lines, it also explains why Out of Africa is hilariously wrong.
Look, the references you cite are extensive. To read and study and understand is a great undertaking. How about telling us the essence of MGD and why “current thinking around race science dissolves”. Like in what way? In favor of genetic racial differences or not in favor? After a quick read of your personal specific reference, your description of MGD, I cannot exactly pinpoint/understand where such fits into the OP and this commentary.
Specifically, does MGD support or void the current understanding of racial differences as the man in the street perceives of them in his daily life?
Any living organism can only tolerate a limited number of random mutations, so they all have an upper limit on the amount of genetic diversity they can tolerate, which is termed maximum genetic diversity (MGD). For a shorthand you can think of MGD as "margin-of-error," so complex species like humans will have a lower MGD than snails, just like an MRI machine will have a much lower margin-of-error than a can-opener. A can opener can still work just fine if its parts aren't the exact right sizes, an MRI machine not so much - living organisms are no different.
Evolution from simple to complex is associated with a drop in MGD, a drop in the amount of genetic error that can be tolerated as a living machine grows more complex. The popular theory (the neutral theory and the molecular clock that is derived from it) implies that there is no upper limit on genetic diversity, and mis-reads genetic diversity as always scaling with time. So the neutral theory and its molecular clock argue that with more time always comes more genetic diversity, since it erroneously argues that mutations will always continue to accumulate in any given population over time.
It's true that Eurasians has lower genetic diversity than Africans. But this has nothing to do with bottlenecks in Africans. Current thinking around race science is based on the neutral theory and the molecular clock. But these two theories are widely acknowledged to be at best incomplete. A better and more complete theory is the maximum genetic diversity theory.
So the MGD theory supports the common sense understanding of racial differences and allows for differences between groups to accumulate over time, something that’s been found more and more as scientists document more and more parts of the genome like satellite repeats which are hard to see with the old technology, but show clear differences between geographic racial groups. This recent mini-review may help. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383281214_New_insights_shed_light_on_the_enigma_of_genetic_diversity_and_species_complexity
I already came up with the language analogy in discussions with people who insist that there is no biological variation.
Black men have higher rates of prostate cancer than white men.
Extra money should be spent on screening black men.
Why should black men die so that Adam Rutherford can feel proud of not being a racist?
To me the real issue here is “denialism”, and the ensuing required effort to maintain such against observable reality. In short, we won’t accept the differences in IQ (and certain behavioral characteristics) among the races, so we heretofore explained those differences in environmental ways. Those “theories” were shown one after another to fail explain inherent differences until at last such efforts have simply been abandoned in favor of DEI. Standards are lowered across the board and in most all institutions to meet DEI demands.
DEI is not only the latest “thing”, but perhaps the most pernicious of them all. It serves to simply ignore differences and promote mediocrity over meritocracy. In a society of generally declining IQ, with a public school system on life support attempting to “educate” our newly diverse population, how much more can society absorb before the “Critical Fraction” reaches its limit? Not much I think.
Really good rebuttal. Oh, but you two must get heartily sick of having to defend yourselves again and again against these 'good' people. People like Rutherford have no shame and no inellectual integrity. In a just world he would be made to resit his degree in biology before he can continue teaching.
Excellent rebuttals, thanks.
The search for truth and knowledge should never be denied.
It is usual for for those in denial about group differences to be indifferent to the sufferings of the "beneficiaries" of their doctrines. Ideological callousness. For example Meyr cites Asian (3 hours homework) and black (no homework) predictors of test results. The black kids can only flourish in a high discipline environment (eg at the Michaela school in London). Similarly, boys education can be thwarted by the ignorance of female teachers - not recognising a much greater need for physical activity than girls. Recognition of group differences - eg by Charles Murray in "Facing Reality" is forced by the destructive fantasies of deniers like Adam. Ideological falsehoods always bite their alleged beneficiaries.
Seems to border (imply toward) a bit on the environmental view of IQ, or learning. Blacks would learn more if they behaved like Asians and studied. To a certain degree, improve, sure. But I would maintain they would never reach the level of Asians in schooling.
This effect I believe is covered by Warne who calls this the “reaction range” of your genetic composition. Sure, better nutrition produced a generation of Japanese after WWII that grew 4-6 inches taller than their parents, but they never reached the height of the average Northern European White.
yes. The ideologues never escape from there never being any group differnces, however caused, other than the perfidy of someone else. "Reaction range" sounds interesting - reference for Warne?
Yes. “In the Know: Debunking 35 Myths about Human Intelligence” by Russell T. Warne. IIR, he discusses and gives direct citations to the concept in one of his discussed “myths”. Further specification, I didn’t have time for, but the book in general is a good overview of the current situation wrt IQ and the hereditarian position.
You guys should really reach out to Dr. Shi Huang on X, his Maximum Genetic Diversity theory has been published in multiple peer-reviewed journals, and when you understand its explanation of why the Neutral Theory and its broken Molecular Clock make no sense - all of the current thinking around race science quickly dissolves.
Along those same lines, it also explains why Out of Africa is hilariously wrong.
https://x.com/shi_huang5/status/1856572460566536496
https://x.com/shi_huang5/status/1855840684424532142
https://x.com/shi_huang5/status/1854998976195707012
https://www.harvard2thebighouse.com/p/maximum-genetic-diversity-mgd
Look, the references you cite are extensive. To read and study and understand is a great undertaking. How about telling us the essence of MGD and why “current thinking around race science dissolves”. Like in what way? In favor of genetic racial differences or not in favor? After a quick read of your personal specific reference, your description of MGD, I cannot exactly pinpoint/understand where such fits into the OP and this commentary.
Specifically, does MGD support or void the current understanding of racial differences as the man in the street perceives of them in his daily life?
Any living organism can only tolerate a limited number of random mutations, so they all have an upper limit on the amount of genetic diversity they can tolerate, which is termed maximum genetic diversity (MGD). For a shorthand you can think of MGD as "margin-of-error," so complex species like humans will have a lower MGD than snails, just like an MRI machine will have a much lower margin-of-error than a can-opener. A can opener can still work just fine if its parts aren't the exact right sizes, an MRI machine not so much - living organisms are no different.
Evolution from simple to complex is associated with a drop in MGD, a drop in the amount of genetic error that can be tolerated as a living machine grows more complex. The popular theory (the neutral theory and the molecular clock that is derived from it) implies that there is no upper limit on genetic diversity, and mis-reads genetic diversity as always scaling with time. So the neutral theory and its molecular clock argue that with more time always comes more genetic diversity, since it erroneously argues that mutations will always continue to accumulate in any given population over time.
It's true that Eurasians has lower genetic diversity than Africans. But this has nothing to do with bottlenecks in Africans. Current thinking around race science is based on the neutral theory and the molecular clock. But these two theories are widely acknowledged to be at best incomplete. A better and more complete theory is the maximum genetic diversity theory.
So the MGD theory supports the common sense understanding of racial differences and allows for differences between groups to accumulate over time, something that’s been found more and more as scientists document more and more parts of the genome like satellite repeats which are hard to see with the old technology, but show clear differences between geographic racial groups. This recent mini-review may help. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383281214_New_insights_shed_light_on_the_enigma_of_genetic_diversity_and_species_complexity
Thanks. I have subscribed and shall learn more from you.
Oh wow thanks so much, and thank you for pointing out that I needed to refine my explanation a lot more!!
'When loutish football fans throw a banana at a black player, it isn’t because they are well-versed in the writings of Ernst Haeckel.'
When I was young , racists 'explained' the 'inferiority' of black people entirely in terms of culture.