Sunday, July 29, 2012

LR vs. EvG

This is the weirdest video response I've gotten to date:

EvG vs. LR: Evolution vs. Racism, Part 7: Extant Humanity, Neanderthals, and Skulls

EvoGen speaks in 10-second snippets stitched together. A sentence may begin with him clean shaven during the day and end with him at night in a different outfit, bearded, wearing glasses, and slipping uncontrollably (he says) into a Southern drawl.  All this to refute a couple of minor statistical errors he thinks he caught me making.

I had said that there were only about 10,000 Neanderthals. Obviously, I meant that 10,000 was the population size before it went into terminal decline, not the total number that ever existed.

I had said that modern humans appeared about 100,000 years ago (based on a PBS Evolution screenshot).  EvoGen made a fuss about it being closer to 200,000. Estimates vary from 100,000-200,000, but the higher-end of the range is now to be more widely accepted. I actually beat him to the punch on this. I edited out my 100,000 claim when I reuploaded my videos to EvoGen in this series:

Race and IQ Equalitarianism Destroyed: LibertarianRealist vs. EvoGen

I don't know if Neanderthals were the smarter of the two subspecies.  Nor can anyone without actually being able to test Neanderthals.  What we do know is that humans today with Neanderthal admixture tend to have higher IQs than sub-Saharan Africans who lack it.

For all of EvoGen's citations, none show sub-Saharan Africans performing similarly to Europeans or Asians when put in similar environments. Equal net environmental advantages don't produce equal outcomes.  EvoGen still can't accept this crucial fact.  The only reasonable explanation for the racial IQ orderings that persist after controlling for socioeconomic status is that they flow primarily from genetic differences.


  1. At this point, I think Evogen is wasting your time. What would happen if you started a series of videos discussing ideas with the guys you respect the most on YouTube? You might have a lot of common ground, which you could briefly state, then move along to "work the seams" of more challenging & nuanced issues you'd never get to if you spend all your time "jousting at retards" à la Don Quixote. Just a thought. Regards.

  2. "Equal net environmental advantages don't produce equal outcomes."
    You've failed to show , yet again,that generally sub-saharan africans live in the same environments or have the same cultural attitudes collectively as europeans and asians. All the data I've looked at supports the notion that sub-saharan africans, in disapora and in africa, do not generally share the exact same environment with europeans and asians.Having the same socio-economic status does not equate to living in the same environment. Besides the fact that there are studies that show black people in the united states are more likely to live in a substandard neighborhood than white people even when controlling for income, living in the same environment doesn't necessarily mean equal outcomes for everyone, if the dominant group in the environment treats the minority differently than a member of the majority or a member of the minority adopts a culture thats different from the culture of the majority.

    1. You'll never be able to compare large groups of people inhabiting the exact "same environment." But adoption studies, trans-national comparisons, and data from mixed-race individuals show that, regardless of culture, East Asian IQs consistently come in higher than sub-saharan african IQs and that mixed race IQs come in intermediate between parents' racial averages. The data is consistent with a hypothesis of a strong pre-existing genetic basis for the observed IQ differences.

    2. Adoption studies are a problem because of not only birth placements at later ages rather than being adopted at birth, but also the parents who give up their children are more likely to have anti-social behavioral problems than the general populations and the adoptive parents are likely to have an upper middle class background because that data is likely skewed. Mixed race IQs are likely to be intermediate? The only mixed race IQ scored that showed intermediate scores between black adoptees and white adoptees that I am aware of is the transracial Minessota adoption study which and that was because the birth placements of biracial children were markeably different from the birth placements of black children and markeably different form white children. That adoption study also showed that asians had an IQ score below that of the white adoptees in the study. There were also adoption studies from the Tizard papers that showed black children and biracial children to have very similar IQ scores and IQ scores above the national average. There was another study published by Scarr that estimated the amount of european heritage in a group of african american school children(whose european heritage ranged from 10 percent to 60 percent) and the study demonstrated that the was no correlation between iq and the degree of european heritage. Regardless of culture? You do know that even with the same SES, different ethnic groups are likely to adopt different cultures.Present me a study that demonstrates that even when ethnic groups adopt similar cultures, there will be differences in IQ scores between the different ethnic groups. Of course East Asian IQ and SSA's IQ scores are going to be different since the cultural attitudes and SES of both ethnic groups tend to be divergent. Native americans share the closest ancestry to east asians compared to any other human population, and yet they have IQ scores that compared to black americans more so than east asians, despite the little ancestry that american indians and black americans share. Hell, black people in the united states share more ancestry with whites than with native americans, but native americans have similar IQ scores with blacks. I would likely attribute this to having a similar SES and have a more similar culture with the natives than with whites.

  3. "I don't know if Neanderthals were the smarter of the two subspecies. Nor can anyone without actually being able to test Neanderthals. What we do know is that humans today with Neanderthal admixture tend to have higher IQs than sub-Saharan Africans who lack it."

    Bear in mind LR that the humans which co-existed in Europe with neanderthals also had (on average) larger brains than any of today's races. European early modern humans (EEMH aka Cro-Magnon Man) split from the mongoloid line about 50,000 years ago and ventured westward. Though distinct from any race alive today, cro-magnon skulls are (in appearance) nearest to white Europeans and are as old as 40,000 years. Neanderthal and Cro Magnon skulls are distinctly different, and I doubt that any proposed interbreeding would have been significant enough to elevate the average IQs of non-Africans. The larger brains and higher IQs of non-Africans may have their origins in climates that require long-term planning ability due to rapidly changing seasons (especially during ice ages for those living close to the ice belts).