A Couple of Challenges to Rushton's Theories

Note: Repost from the old blog. Use this video by J. Philippe Rushton below as a counterpoint to this post. IQ’s of NE Asians in the US were behind those of US Whites until the 1970’s or so, when they gradually surpassed them. How does a hereditarian theory of IQ make sense of this?

US NE Asian   96.5
US White      100
US NE Asian   108*
US White      103*

* After renorming. Pre-renorming, the scores would be 105 and 100 for NE Asians and Whites respectively. The actual gain was 7.5 points for NE Asians in the US. Their genes didn’t change one bit. One happened? Keep in mind that all hereditarians say that IQ differentials between races are 70 NE Asians should only have been able to move up a point or so against US Whites. Instead, they not only bridged the gap, but surpassed it. The new data, according to Rushton, is once again 70 Note that each new gap automagically becomes 70 The facts of the NE Asian IQ change in the US over 60 years are impossible to explain according to Rushton’s theory. Conclusion: Rushton’s theory must be wrong. Rushton notes that Whites have larger brains than Africans and that this proves that the difference in IQ between Blacks and Whites is hereditary and intractable. Further, he implies that the head size variance lines up with the IQ variance. But that does not make sense. If brain size always lines up with IQ, explain this: Note that Ugandans (IQ = 67) have larger brains than S. Europeans (IQ = 97). Vietnamese have some of the smallest brains on Earth, but their IQ’s are 99.5. The head size = IQ theory needs a lot of work. This research takes a lot of time, and I do not get paid anything for it. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a a contribution to support more of this valuable research.

Please follow and like us:

9 thoughts on “A Couple of Challenges to Rushton's Theories”

  1. Interesting findings. This is a very exciting topic. I wish I was actually able to talk about this stuff in the real world with people but there’s no way I can ever talk about these topics in public without facing social consequences.

    1. Yeah I know what you mean, bro.
      BTW tulio, AU and I both like you a lot and we are glad that you’re a reg in the comments section. There’s a higher class of folks around now that most of the White racists have taken off.
      And I am so glad that you are supporting my project for an anti-racist race realist movement, bizarre as it sounds in this day and age. I’m just not sure how long the current race denial can hold out in the face of the scientific evidence, which is only going to get stronger every year now.

  2. Thanks. I know I need to start posting on other topics besides race as well. I do have other interests. But this one seems particularly intriguing right now.
    Btw, have you ever seen Xenocrates blog? He’s a Jamaican guy that seems to be a race realist that claims an IQ of 182. By the depth of his writing I believe him. He’s got some pretty interesting things to say on a wide variety of topics. http://xenlogic.wordpress.com/

  3. This is all the wishful thinking on the part of the we’re-all-the-same crew. Pre-70s NE Asians were coolie laborers in California. Post-70s were university educated strivers with green cards.

    1. It’s the same group. The post-1970’s group are the children of the pre-1970’s group. One theory is that the adults created such a great environment for the kids that their IQ’s increased by 7.5 pts.

  4. Regarding head size: it’s not so much the size of the brain; it’s the brain size to body size ratio that matters as brain function isn’t just for intellectual pursuits.
    I’m not sure about the discrepancies in IQ scores for Asians, but there could be a number of factors that affected the scores. What tests were used back then? Were they checked for bias? What percentage of test takers were recent immigrants?
    Regardless, the scores seemed to have remained steady for almost 40 years now and I think that tends to point to a hereditarian model, though I have no doubt that environment played a roll in getting the scores to where they are now. If one assumes a 50/50 split between nature and nurture, I don’t see a 7.5 point increase due to improved environment to be unreasonable.
    One thing that I’ve never seen a study on is the affects of air conditioning on brain growth. This may seem a silly thought at first, but the brain consumes a lot of energy and produces an extraordinary amount of heat in relation to the rest of the human body. Living in an agrarian culture where hours and hours are spent in the sun may retard brain growth as a larger brain becomes a liability, rather than an asset. Was the invention of air conditioning a factor in increased IQ? Is this the reason that southern Americans had such low IQs pre-AC? Is this also a reason that IQ scores lower as you approach the equator? Cold climates allowed brain size to increase for certain groups as overheating could be avoided. In that same way, AC may play an evolutionary role in our development. It may already have.

    1. The tests are good. IQ tests are just fine, always have been. The second group is made up of the children of the first group.
      Actually, the rise is not reasonable. Keep in mind that the hereditarians say that all gaps between racial groups are 70% genetic or 50% genetic, or whatever. Therefore, there is no way on Earth, if gaps are 50-70% genetic, that any gaps could be surmounted completely, let alone surpassed and overtaken.

    2. Never heard of the air conditioning theory, but the body has a mechanism for cooling off the brain, otherwise it will tend to overheat. This mechanism tended to spur brain growth in man.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)