Skulls and the negative “science” of the Left

I picked up a book today called “The Skull Measurer’s Mistake” by Sven Lindqvist.  Reading through it for a few moments, I noticed that Lindqvist did not seem to cite any racial research, done by leftists, that supports his position: that there are no substantial racial differences in cranial capacity.  This is probably because leftists deny the validity of race as a biological concept.  Since they claim race does not exist, they see no more reason to research it than to research the Easter Bunny.  So any “research” done by them is strictly comprised of trying to find flaws in the research of “racist” scientists who preceded them.  The circular nature of their beliefs never dawns on them.  Since they deny the existence of race, they will not research it.  Since they do not research it, they deny its existence.

Lindqvist tries to pick apart the research done by “racist” scientists.  He accuses them of inconsistencies, of fudging the data, of bias and of sloppy methodology.  Let us assume that all this is true – then those who wish to get to the bottom of the matter will conduct their own research and make sure they adhere to higher standards.  Those who condemn the research of others, but refuse to do their own, are engaging in a sort of “negative science”.  If they were actually interested in reaching the truth, then at least some of the multitude of leftist academic institutions would fund such research.

In a 1993 Discover Magazine article, Anne Fausto-Sterling mocks Rushton’s theories on the correlation of brain size and I.Q. scores.  Though I am certain that her objections have already been answered by others, here I shall expose some of the fallacies behind her reasoning myself.  It does not say much for Discover Magazine that they would allow such biased drivel to pass as “science” on their website.

She writes:

Franz Boas, the pioneering Columbia University anthropologist, also studied skull sizes. His results present Rushton with a different problem. From 1910 to 1916 Boas published a series of studies showing that racial characteristics such as average height and the shape of the face and skull, which everyone had assumed to be unalterably inherited, change with the environment. He reported that the size and shape of heads (and hence cranial capacity) of American-born children differed markedly from those of their European-born immigrant parents. For example, U.S.-born Bohemians had shorter, narrower heads than their parents. U.S.-born Sicilians, on the other hand, had shorter, wider heads than their parents, while U.S.-born Jews had longer, narrower heads than their parents. Not only did skull shape change with different environments (presumably with different diets, among other factors), but the changes varied among people from different places in the world. Boas’s landmark study threw the entire concept of a fixed racial type into disarray. Yet it is precisely this idea that Rushton clings to in his Intelligence article.

One wonders how Boaz determined who was a “U.S.-born Bohemian” or a “U.S.-born Sicilian”.  Did he present documentation proving that these people were the offspring of actual Bohemians and Sicilians?  Inquiring minds would like to know – because, if he based his research on self descriptions, then how do we reconcile this with Sterling’s own words as follows:

To determine which race recruits belonged to, Rushton used the recruits’ self-descriptions. But that raises another problem, not just for Rushton but for any work involving race. First, enormous differences exist among the peoples designated as Asian, Caucasian, or black. Compare the tall, fair Nordic to the short, dark Italian. Or the tiny Pygmy to the giant Watusi. The variability of outward appearances is mirrored at the level of the gene, where there is almost as much variation within racial groups as between them. Furthermore, there has been a lot of mixing between peoples who were once geographically isolated from one another…

She goes on to write:

One need only look at a cross section of U.S. citizens whom we call black to see the problem. My black friends range from people who are dark brown to people nearly as white as me (a Jew whose ancestors come from Central Europe). They all identify themselves as black for historical and political reasons, but a quick glance shows that the name cannot denote biological unity. In fact, Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin concludes that broad racial classifications have no real biological meaning. If he is right, then Rushton’s interpretation of the Army data becomes mere illusion.

Is Sterling implying that those who call themselves “black” are, on average, no more likely to have a preponderance of negro genes than those who call themselves “Jewish”?  From the above, one gets the impression that she never even bothered to read Rushton’s work – because he was obviously very much aware of the fact that American blacks are not usually pure negroes.  This is why, according to him, they tend to be more intelligent than their African cousins.

Sterling spills much ink showing us how complex brain-size calculations have become and claims that they are pretty much worthless.  She even questions the very concept of larger brain=higher intelligence:

But no matter which measure you choose, the fundamental question remains: Does size really count? Brain size can differ for lots of reasons. For example, children born with a medical condition called hydrocephalus (water on the brain) have huge, fluid-filled brains in which large amounts of nerve tissue have been irrevocably damaged. Some of these children suffer from mental deficiencies. Clearly in this case bigger is not better.

I have never heard of anybody seriously claiming that a larger brain always equates to higher intelligence – or that a smaller brain always equates to lesser intelligence.  What we have here is a typical straw-man.  I found myself wondering, as I read her words, if she also objects to brain size research of proto-humans.  Does she deny that the human brain has gotten larger over the eons and that this increase in size has corresponded with higher intelligence?  Perhaps she believes that Australopithecus and Homo Habilis could have been just as intelligent as modern humans.  Maybe their rudimentary tools and short life-spans were the results of racism by the white man.  If brain size does not matter, she should inform those racist paleontologists that they’ve had it wrong all these years.  Oh but there is a big difference here: there are no Australopithecines or Homo Habilis alive today to get offended – so we may estimate their brain sizes and judge them accordingly.  We cannot do this with blacks because they might get offended.  Worse yet, they might riot (presumably to show us how intelligent they are).

In conclusion, yes it is true that there are serious challenges when it comes to measuring brain size.   It is difficult to account for body mass, height, health and gender.  Yes, it is possible that some brains pack more neurons into a smaller area.  But, if it is possible to study the (now completely decomposed) brains of Australopithecines, then surely there is a way to study brains of living human populations in regard to size.  Where there’s a will, there’s a way.  The problem seems to be that there is no will.

About jewamongyou

I am a paleolibertarian Jew who is also a race-realist. My opinions are often out of the mainstream and often considered "odd" but are they incorrect? Feel free to set me right if you believe so!
This entry was posted in book/movie/video reviews and links, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Skulls and the negative “science” of the Left

  1. I’m pretty sure the research shows that a large round head has a significantly correlative impact on IQ. I can’t remember the numbers of the top of my head, (I’m guessing it’s .4 or more) but it’s not an insignificant correlation. And IQ and other morphological properties are HERITABLE, even if IQ regresses toward the ‘group’ mean. So a race of people who breed together will produce a different distribution. Since intelligence (g) is largely governed by memory, and memory by cerebral surface area (‘grey matter’), then there is reason to think that size is the correlation. We know additional myelination (‘white matter’) decreases signal resistance and improves the amount of information that can be processed within the 3 second boundary (the approximate limit of cognitive synthesis.) We know that diet affects dopamine and allergies affect dopamine, so dietary restrictions can improve cognitive abilities. We are fairly confident that depression and schizophrenia are immuno-disorders. We think that we can increase people’s IQ’s by about 20 points with education. It appears that the presence of environmental patterns are more effective than education, in increasing IQ. We know that smart people gain about .3 per year after leaving school. We know men are more widely distributed than women. We know there are a lot more men at the margins than women, partly because they are ‘bigger’ and partly because men cumulatively favor abstractions and women cumulative favor experiences, meaning that this difference is permanent. It appears that testosterone is highly influential in that process.

    And one thing we do know — and is absolutely consistent in the data despite the opinion from vocal majority outside of the field of research — that genetic testing and blood type testing in combination with IQ testing, confirm that the DISTRIBUTION of IQ is different among the major races, just as is the distribution of testosterone and a number of other chemicals, and that this has been demonstrated by adoption studies which are the best method of confirming tests.

    Denying this reality is just like denying that racism benefits certain societies, that people in general act racist under opportunity or threat, and that the idea of race being irrelevant is property of the religion of democratic secular humanist universalism that falsely believes that all people are the same once they adopt democracy and modernity.

    The question isn’t why different races have different IQ distributions. It’s why some people insist that race isn’t a factor in society despite all the evidence to the contrary.

    It’s very simple: all religions, and democratic movements operate on this principle. That is, to include the disenfranchised across groups in order to seize political power. Whether that means inventing a deity and scripture, or distorting science in support of democratic secular humanism, is irrelevant. These movements like all political movements are not interested in objective truth. They are entirely pragmatic and utilitarian.

    When we embraced democracy we traded violence for fraud.


    NOTE: There is speculation that there were ice age mutations that assisted whites and East Asians. There is speculation that the extra myelination in jews, and therefore their female-like verbal preference, is a recessive adaptation to malaria as is sickle cell anemia in black Africans. However, this is, at least to my knowledge all speculative. We are just too early in our pursuit of understanding to be certain. But the fact of the matter is that there are correlations within and across races and those correlations seem to be meaningful.

  2. jewamongyou says:

    Good to see you back Curt. You’ve been scarce around here lately.

  3. Patrick says:

    JAY I’m too squeamish for your skull posts, whenever I hear about skulls I just don’t read that particular blog entry. I’m not requesting you don’t post about skulls or anything. I’m just saying for the sake of saying I guess.

    • jewamongyou says:

      It never occurred to me that some people would be squeamish about skulls; I’ve had a fascination for them since childhood. But no worries Patrick. There is only so much that can be said about them.

      • Ryan says:

        Jewamongyou, judging from Patrick’s posts in the past, I would say it’s not about being squeamish when confronted with blood and guts, but rather an aversion to using genetics to determine the intellect of a select group.

        Genetics in this case represent skull size, and the IQ that could be derived from that.

  4. B.B. says:

    Rushton (and Ankney) wrote a review article on whole brain size and general
    mental ability
    for the International Journal of Neuroscience last year.

  5. S Schwartz says:

    ***If they were actually interested in reaching the truth, then at least some of the multitude of leftist academic institutions would fund such research.***

    Exactly, it would be easy enough to conduct some MRI scans but I doubt Lindqvist really wants the answers.

  6. Pingback: Why the West Rules – For Now | Jewamongyou's Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s