The impossibility of racial equality

Discussing race and the various differences we see in humans due to it is definitely a sensitive topic and one where it's very easy to take it to extremes, as we've seen in the past and currently(Nazi Germany, KKK, Neo-Nazis, etc). The differences that divide us do not warrant the sentiments that define these groups/movements of intolerance, slavery, and genocide. In my opinion, to make this topic much more approachable, one should look at dogs to make sense of what variance within a subspecies can look like. We all acknowledge that some breeds are smarter than others, that some have better and worse attributes, and that some are predisposed to health issues while others are not. Some are clearly superior and inferior to each other, depending on what you are using to compare them. 

With dogs such as pit bulls, it's completely fair to say that they are predisposed to aggression, courtesy of their genetic makeup and its effects on brain development, which can have negative outcomes. Couple that with the fact that many pit bulls come from less than ideal situations(dog fighting, abuse, etc), it's understandable that a lot of them will lash out, thus creating a negative stigma around them, which people use to issue bans on 

pitbulls and say that they should be euthanized. There are plenty of parallels to be made in recent human history when people obsess a little too much about what makes us different instead of trying to bridge differences. Proper training goes a long way in remedying a pit bull's issues, and the sentiments surrounding them would be improved if people were willing to invest the time and effort to raising the dog properly.

If we were to look at health issues, we could draw a comparison to our situation where we have Neanderthal DNA(and the health implications it entails) to what dogs inherit due to their breed. German Shepherds are inclined to experience hip problems due to their lineage just as some of us are inclined to experience allergies due to inheriting Neanderthal DNA.

While brain size may differ and may be a manifestation of race/differences between us(I would like something other than 'alternative hypothesis' as a source), I believe that is generally a poor indicator of a race's intelligence. A chihuahua has the highest brain to body ratio of any dog, yet there are many breeds that outshine it when it comes to trainability, learning commands, etc. https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/pets/g4748/top-smartest-dog-breeds/ 

If we were to look at human brain size directly, males generally have a larger brain to body ratio than females. Despite this, men have shown to have a lot more variance with their IQ, which means you'll have a lot more men deviating from the average in both directions. The result is that, sure, more men may have higher IQ's than women, but you'll also have a lot more men that are idiots despite having a larger brain on average. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/study-finds-some-significant-differences-brains-men-and-women

Differences between us have inspired a lot of evil in our past. Some people literally make up silly metrics to divide us. It's understandable that a lot of people would not want to talk about us as inequals based on our race. However, it's important to acknowledge our differences and work to remedy them. In acknowledging them, it is also important not to take a wrong turn and demonize people or say that they have less of a right to live or that they are destined to live in poverty due to their race.

If RM isn't another New Zealand shooter in the making, I'm not sure who is.

You are not worth substantive discussion. You are hideous beyond repair. You are not welcome on this site.

We want you to leave.

You need to be mocked, ridiculed, denounced and eschewed from all societies, be it this online one or one irl.

The Alternative Hypothesis evidence is not compelling to me for a few reasons. 

First, the science on the correlation between brain size and intelligence is far from concrete. The Scientific American explains that when volunteers undergo MRI scans on their brains, researchers typically find a weak correlation between brain size and intelligence. Brain size only accounts for about 9-16% of variability in general intelligence according to the article (1). The article also explains neanderthal brains are actually bigger than the brains of the modern day human. Despite this difference in brain size, the modern day human is accomplishing more in the realms of technology and medicine than ever before.

A large portion of the evidence provided in the article you cited came from Rushton's studies, some of which are littered with major logistical issues. Specifically, his 1995 study, in which he suggested that Mongoloid brains were bigger than Caucasian brains, which, in turn, were bigger than African-American brains. In the study, Rushton controlled for body size when making the measurements. Michael Peters of the University of Guelph cites 3 separate studies which show that body parameters are independent of brain size. Also, he shows that when not accounting for body size, whites have larger brains than Asians (2). Rushton acknowledged that Asian children had higher IQ scores than other races (3). Unless these IQ differences are somehow eliminated by adulthood, there emerges a major contradiction. If Asians have less brain mass, then how could they be smarter if brain size determines intelligence? 

Second, there is a large potential for bias in the work done by many of the researchers cited. I understand that in the era of "fake news," it seems redundant, (some might even say impertinent) to show bias within the sources. However, at least 2 of the people in the link, Rushton and Lynn, were at one point members of the Pioneer Fund (4). This fund is a non-profit group founded by people who were inspired by the Nazi eugenics program, and, later funded people such as Roger Pearson. Pearson was not only a eugenicist, he was also the creator of the Northern League, a neo-Nazi organization. 

Third, and most importantly, the conclusion drawn does not seem to have much support. Even if there are physical differences between races, why would that necessarily stop people from reaching success? Great strides have been made to further the rights of blacks, and many have been able to become doctors, lawyers, politicians etc. Intelligence, which you seem to suggest is lacking in blacks, is determined through more than genetics. The U.S. National Library of Medicine suggests that nutrition, education, and home environment all affect IQ (6). Given the persistent gap between white and black earnings, perhaps some of these observed differences on IQ scores are to be expected (7). Poor households are ones that cannot afford tutoring, medicine, or healthy food. 

I suppose that IQ and race could be correlated. However, I am confused as to what US lawmakers. or in fact, anyone is supposed to do with that information. Creating a caste system by which only certain races can take certain jobs seems ridiculous. Obviously, not all black, white, or Asian people have IQs which are average for their race. If you don't believe me, listen to Jimi Hendrix and tell me with a straight face that the man was not a musical genius. 

IQ tests happen to be antiquated as well, and not good predictors of actual intelligence. A study published from the journal "Neuron" found that there are multiple, independent components of intelligence that a single integer cannot describe (8). Multiple "compartments" in the brain are used for different functions. These functions are largely determined by the external environment. For instance, those with chronic anxiety are less capable when it comes to short-term memory storage, and yet, could have extraordinary planning skills (8). Smoking, playing video games, and other choices that people make can also influence IQ (8). If the IQ is supposed to be an instrument which analyzes people's natural ability to learn, retain information, and analyze, then how can it change with external factors and still be considered to be a flawless test? In truth, science can do a lot, but it cannot reduce someone's brainpower to a mere number.

Interesting post by the way. It is not letting me tag you for some reason Zarro. It is probably my computer.

First, the science on the correlation between brain size and intelligence is far from concrete. The Scientific American explains that when volunteers undergo MRI scans on their brains, researchers typically find a weak correlation between brain size and intelligence. Brain size only accounts for about 9-16% of variability in general intelligence according to the article (1). The article also explains neanderthal brains are actually bigger than the brains of the modern day human. Despite this difference in brain size, the modern day human is accomplishing more in the realms of technology and medicine than ever before. 

A large portion of the evidence provided in the article you cited came from Rushton's studies, some of which are littered with major logistical issues. Specifically, his 1995 study, in which he suggested that Mongoloid brains were bigger than Caucasian brains, which, in turn, were bigger than African-American brains. In the study, Rushton controlled for body size when making the measurements. Michael Peters of the University of Guelph cites 3 separate studies which show that body parameters are independent of brain size. Also, he shows that when not accounting for body size, whites have larger brains than Asians (2). Rushton acknowledged that Asian children had higher IQ scores than other races (3). Unless these IQ differences are somehow eliminated by adulthood, there emerges a major contradiction. If Asians have less brain mass, then how could they be smarter if brain size determines intelligence? 

Second, there is a large potential for bias in the work done by many of the researchers cited...

Third, and most importantly, the conclusion drawn does not seem to have much support. Even if there are physical differences between races, why would that necessarily stop people from reaching success? Great strides have been made to further the rights of blacks, and many have been able to become doctors, lawyers, politicians etc. Intelligence, which you seem to suggest is lacking in blacks, is determined through more than genetics. The U.S. National Library of Medicine suggests that nutrition, education, and home environment all affect IQ (6). Given the persistent gap between white and black earnings, perhaps some of these observed differences on IQ scores are to be expected (7). Poor households are ones that cannot afford tutoring, medicine, or healthy food. 

I suppose that IQ and race could be correlated. However, I am confused as to what US lawmakers. or in fact, anyone is supposed to do with that information. Creating a caste system by which only certain races can take certain jobs seems ridiculous. Obviously, not all black, white, or Asian people have IQs which are average for their race. If you don't believe me, listen to Jimi Hendrix and tell me with a straight face that the man was not a musical genius.

I'm glad this issue is being discussed. I've been thinking about this topic off and on for seven months now. This is a huge and complex topic, and neither the hereditarian or environmentalist view on race and IQ is obvious to me.

Arriving at answers on these questions is extremely important. If the race realist view is true, for example, then this does suggest politicians in the U.S. should restrict immigration to high IQ nations such as Japan or South Korea. As Nathan Cofnas pointed out to me in an email exchange, Garett Jones's book, Have Mind, shows that the economic prospects of a nation are closely tied to its average IQ. This is because higher-IQ societies tend to function better for a variety of reasons. One important factor is that people with high IQs make better voters: they support better policies and are better at holding their leaders accountable, which reduces corruption. If race realism is true, then it's plausible that, at least for the foreseeable future, immigration policies that reduce the average IQ of the US will tend to have a negative effect on economic development and corruption.

I often look at threads like this and sigh.

Before claiming one race is smarter than another, why don't we start with definitions:

What is the definition of intelligence?

What is the delineation of a race? 

What is the definition of the environment? 

Only when all of these are answered can this oh so strange discussion be had. 

This selective pressure would've been tiny and for an insignificant amount of time. Firstly, most executions would've occurred in urban areas, Most people were farmers. Secondly, the amount of people actually killed divided by the whole population is minuscule. Third, the killing would've have to have occurred before they had children. People tended to have children a lot younger then. Fourthly, poorer people are much more likely to commit murder than rich ones, so the expression of killing might be repressed, but the tendency might've been repressed by money. So all the rich Englishpeople could've had a tendency to kill but never a reason to express it. We would have very few warlike people if this line of reasoning held up since they tend to go and die in battle. But that doesn't seem to be the case at all.

Most of your lines of reasoning are this bad.  

Let's assume those numbers are true (which is highly suspect)

how would that have anything to do with intelligence.

Yeah, I saw in Ryan Faulk’s video and a couple of books written by philosophers that intelligence researchers think that genes do play a role in the black/white IQ gap. This suggests that, as you pointed out, the claim that race differences in intelligence are 100% environmental is completely rejected by scientists working in the relevant fields.

What books have you read on white nationalism in general? I finished reading Paved with Good Intentions by Jared Taylor a couple of weeks ago. Currently, I’m reading Michael Levin’s book Race Matters, and plan to read more books on this subject. If there is any information you’d recommend that I check out, let me know!

When the average I.Q. of your race is nearly 60, as is the case with Australian Aboriginies 

Are you claiming that I.Q. has nothing to do with intelligence?

Firstly, I.Q. isn't necessarily intelligence.