EXAMINING PSEUDO RACE IQ THEORIES: PART 3
By Brother Saye





In this article, I will attempt to ask damaging questions and present sound arguments to defend my use of the word pseudo. This article will also begin the transition of me introducing experts to counter arguments against pseude race IQ science. Make sure to read part 1 and 2 (above) before you start reading this article. We will just touch the surface in this article, so don't be alarmed. Nothing too heavy. We will save the fireworks for upcoming articles.



People who beleive in this pseudo science have created a new name.

"Human Biodiversity" or HBD

They have rebranding their White supremacists beleifs under a scientific-sounding label.





Sources used by these individuals -


Faces of the World's Races

Maps: Global Genetic Distances Map

and Races of the World

Official Website: http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com/

They even dedicate an entire section to deal with Affirmative Action.


Here are my questions and comments regarding pseudo IQ race theories. If you have any questions or responses, contact me at @sayetaryor


1) Many of those who support pseudo-science race IQ theories claim that previous studies have analyzed and dissected multiple environmental factors in their research. Which studies can I examine showing test scores from known communities under attack from hazardous environmental racism? Along with the studies highlighting environmental racism in African communities, I would like to see several studies with results showing test scores in American communities as well. There are several communities in America currently experiencing environmental racism. A few examples would be Flint Michigan, West Dallas Texas, Emelle Alabama, Uniontown Alabama, Kettleman City California, Dilkon Arizona, Chester Pennsylvania, and Warren County North Carolina?


2) Recent studies have shown that cognitive development is more closely related to the development of gross motor skills, such as crawling or walking, and fine motor skills, such as grasping and manipulating objects, than many have previously considered. Motor development allows infants to gain knowledge of the world but its vital role in social development is often ignored. A systematic search for papers investigating the relationship between motor and social skills was conducted, including research in typical development and in Developmental Coordination Disorder, Autism Spectrum Disorders and Specific Language Impairment. The search identified 43 studies, many of which highlighted a significant relationship between motor skills and the development of social cognition, language and social interactions. (Hayley C. Leonard and Elisabeth L. Hill - Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London, London, UK)


Previous Studies have shown that Black babies mature faster on average than their White counterparts, even when they are poorer and eat a less healthy diet; they show better hand-eye coordination and walk earlier by about a month.


In fact, it has been suggested that rather than assessing motor and cognitive development separately, they should be viewed as two connected cogs within a large, complex system, each dependent on the other and working together to make small steps forward in development. - Development as a Dynamic System by Esther Thelen


3) Just because you are ignorant about information does not mean you lack the intelligence to comprehend information once it is presented to you. Many people confuse ignorance from never being taught information, with not being able to comprehend information even after it is taught. Some test may contain information that has never been taught to a specific individual, resulting in a lower test score, but if the knowledge was related to the individual beforehand, he or she may be able to grasp the concept faster, and articulate it in a better fashion, than those who have studied the information beforehand. (Example) If you unscramble the letters in CIFAIPC, you would have what?” The choices include the correct answer, “ocean.” This question measures vocabulary, reading, and visual reasoning. But suppose the person taking the test understands English and yet has never heard of the Pacific Ocean. Does a correct answer to this question indicate a higher mental capacity in the child?


4) When testing, comparing African children in highly stressful environments in schools lacking resources vs White children in less stress environments, with abundance of educational access, better test results will “mostly” lean towards those in low stressful environments with an abundance of access to education. Selecting a few children from the stressful environment, & placing them in a less stressful environment, does not give a comprehensive solution to testing the IQ of a population of people. One would actually need to see how “majority” of those who first tested in the less stressful environment, would test in a similar stressful environment as the opposite subject, before one could make a truly comprehensive assessment or sound analysis. Small samples sizes & one sided studies are prime examples of the meaning of pseudo.


5) In 1997, 19.4 percent of all adult African immigrants in the United States held a graduate degree, compared to 8.1 percent of adult white Americans and 3.8 percent of adult black Americans in the United States, respectively. According to the 2000 Census, the percentage of Africans with a graduate degree is highest among Nigerian Americans at 28.3 percent, followed by Egyptian Americans at 23.8 percent. Of the African-born population in the US age 25 and older, 87.9% reported having a high school degree or higher, compared with 78.8% of Asian-born immigrants and 76.8% of European-born immigrants, respectively. Africans from Kenya (90.8 percent), Nigeria (89.1 percent), Ghana (85.9 percent), Botswana (84.7 percent), and Malawi (83 percent) were the most likely to report having a high school degree or higher.


Some argue that “among Nigerians as a whole, less than 10% have college degrees. The immigrants are therefore a highly non-representative selection of the Nigerian population.”


Here is my response to that. “What’s the percentage of non-Africans who live in similar environments receiving similar quality of education, compared to the subject African population who were selected for testing, who didn’t perform as well?” How well did these selected individual from each populations fair when testing under similar conditions? If these studies have been performed, what was the methodology used in selecting the subjects, and what language was used to conduct the test. I would love to examine the studies and evaluate the methodology and sample size of the selected subjects.


Another previous approach would be, we all agree that just because you are ignorant about information does not mean you lack the intelligence to comprehend information once it is presented to you. Many people confuse ignorance from never being taught information, with not being able to comprehend information even after it is taught. I would like to know the percentage of Nigerians who don’t have similar access to quality education, compared to the population they are being compared to. I would also like to examine the environmental conditions and stress levels of the 80% of Nigerians in comparison to the population that the population in which they are being compared to. I would like to examine the study which shows the so called 80% (which I’m not sure is even accurate) and why they don’t have college degree. Where is the evidence that these so called 80% are without college degrees based on their cognitive ability? How many of those 80% are below age? How many are experiencing social or environmental racism?


Since some will refuse the data showing Africans doing well in comparison to other immigrant groups, by similar logic, we should reject and re-evaluate the methodology and analysis being presented by those promoting pseudo IQ race science. “When testing, comparing African children in highly stressful environments, in schools lacking resources vs White children in less stress environments, with abundance of educational access, better test results will “mostly” lean towards those in low stressful environments with an abundance of access to education. Selecting a few children from a stressful environment, & placing them in a less stressful environment, does not give a comprehensive solution to testing the IQ of a population of people. One would actually need to see how “majority” of those who first tested in the less stressful environment, would test in a similar stressful environment as the opposite subject, before one could make a truly comprehensive assessment or sound analysis. Small samples sizes & one sided studies are prime examples of the meaning of pseudo.”


6) Since the study of pseudo-science in America originally started by testing different populous of Europeans immigrants, why is there not extensive knowledge and data currently detailing how selective groups of White Americans, “descendants of European immigrants” currently test on average? Why all of a sudden a lack of needing to highlighting the differences in testing among different subgroups of Whites living in America. Using the pseudo methodology currently being used in gathering test IQ for race, what is the current ranking of Whites in America who are descendants of immigrant who are German, Italian, Eastern European Jews, who are from Greece, Spain, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia, Albania, and so on?


7) There seems to be an open, bias, and selective definition of the term White. Based on the results recorded from Pseudo science, it’s interesting how its supporters conveniently neglect to note that there are vast populations of non-Sub Sharan African such as South Asians and MENA’s who have IQs lower than African-Americans. Among these MENA’s, who are classified as White Caucasians by the US Census Bureau, the lowest IQ of Levantine Syrians and Lebanese are similar to Europeans in phenotype. Also ignored are the lower than global average IQs of European ethnicities like the Serbs and Irish based on these pseudo measurements.


Pseudo IQ World Rankings


8) From my studies, the four aspects of IQ testing of children include:

a) Testing processing speed

b) Testing working memory

c) Testing nonverbal reasoning

d) Testing the verbal comprehension index scale


Black children seem perform the same as Whites in their processing speed, working memory and nonverbal reasoning on these test. The difference between Whites and Blacks seems to take place with the verbal comprehension index scale results. Before I continue, my personal opinion is that verbal comprehension has very little, if anything at all, to do with intelligence. The reason people still argue that the tests are racially bias is due to the words, definitions and ideas that are on the test. These tests are constructed with only vernacular used often by Whites. Often, words on these tests are foreign to the vocabulary of even middle class Blacks. This goes back to my argument about ignorance deriving from never being taught vs inability to comprehend or grasp what you have already been taught. Those are two totally different things. Blacks are scoring lower than Whites on IQ test, due to definitions and word concepts which they don’t normally use, based on cultural differences. If you were to reverse the test and use verbiage often used by Blacks instead, Whites on average would most likely score lower than Blacks on IQ tests. “Verbal comprehension is dependent upon the quality of education one receives.”


All the other aspects of the test are based on one’s intelligence. I agree with those who argue that IQ test should be altered, and verbal comprehension be replaced with a discipline that involves the testing of just one’s actual intelligence. Removing the vocabulary component removes the “White privilege” and prevents tests scores to be used as the new “Jim Crow.”


9) Another example of bias in Pseudo IQ testing seems to be that IQ test are based upon Euclidean Geometry, when the Geometry in most African cultures are Fractal based and non-Euclidean.


10) I am not sure why Richard Lynn's findings were ever widely documented as the standard for global IQ. Jelte M. Wicherts, destroys Lynn’s theories in this article (Racial Reality: Devastating Criticism of Richard Lynn) He shows Lynn has repeatedly cherry picking data. Lynn ignores the Nigerian IQ samples placing their avg IQ from 85-92. I call his work pseudo because he is accused of purposely selecting samples that had Nigerians at retardation level IQ. Lynn has been show to tamper with numbers, and use unrepresentative samples to present the IQ of nearly all African nations. Lynn’s pseudo methodology is so obvious, European nations have also complained about the inaccuracy of Lynn work. Wicherts' work is an attempt to point out and correct these errors. I’ve been told the average IQ of a 1940's British man would be an 82 on today's scale...It’s safe to say that IQ changes with each generation due to the Flynn effect. Even for those who believe in pseudo-science, based Wichert's study, if Sub-Saharan Africans took a 1940's IQ test they'd be placed around 94-100. So the notion that blacks are too dumb to be capable of "civilization" is suspected White supremacists propaganda.


The pseudo analysis of the Bell Curve tends to connect high IQ scores to wealth, but the high IQ Asian nations are neither the wealthiest nor the best intellectual performers. Below are the world's wealthiest countries as measured by GDP per capita (adjusted for purchasing power parity) in 2017.


Worlds Wealthiest Countries by Rankings

1) Qatar 78 IQ

2) Luxembourg 100 IQ

3) Singapore 108 IQ

4) Brunei Darussalam 91 IQ

5) Ireland 92 IQ

6) Norway 100 IQ

7) Kuwait 86 IQ

8) United Arab Emirates 84 IQ

9) Switzerland 101 IQ

10)Hong Kong 108 IQ

Entire Rankings


Highest IQ Rankings by Country

1) Hong Kong 108

2) Singapore 108

3) South Korea 106

4) Japan 105

5) China 105

6) Taiwan 104

7) Italy 102

8) Iceland 101

9) Mongolia 101

10)Switzerland 101


As of 2010, 314 people in the United States own 42% of all the wealth in America. What evidence do we have these are the elitist of America’s IQ tester’s? Can we link the studies taught by Charles Murray in the Bell Curve and link IQ with the remaining 58% of the US population


Less than 1% own 42% of the wealth

4% own 30% of the wealth

5% own 13% of the wealth

10% own 11% of the wealth

80% own 5% of the wealth


Blacks are only 12% of the population

Hispanics are 16% of population

Whites are 64% of the population


Let’s pretend all 28% of the population of Blacks and Hispanics are all in the 80 percent box. That leaves 52 percent of the US population with only 5 % of the wealth. Let’s continue and add the remainder of the non-White’s in the 80% box, including American Asians. That’s around 7% of the population. If we place every single race in the 80% box, it still leaves 45% of WHITES who are also stuck in the 80% box. Charles Murray’s claim that wage is linked to IQ does not match the numbers. 45% of Whites own only 5% of the wealth in America, even after we add every other race in the 80% box? This seems like a great way to create White Nationalists and White Supremacists. It’s easy to convince poor Whites that Blacks and foreigners are the reason that they are financially stuck at the bottom, when in reality, 312 whites and 2 blacks own 42% of the wealth. In reality, we know that more than 45% of Whites are in the 80% box, because not all Blacks and other non-white groups are actually in the 80% box.


If IQ is linked to wages; as Charles Murray points out in his book “The Bell Curve” this data would confirm that more Whites have a much average IQ of lower than 100, than we are being lead to believe. The White IQ average in America would have to be much lower than 100, since over 45% of Whites are in the 80% box of wealth ownership. Now since we know that Murray also is projecting these numbers from test, we have to conclude that he was obviously wrong by trying to link wage to IQ. It’s actually just plain common sense to comprehend that people can be oppressed or denied wealth regardless of their IQ. My argument is a simple evaluation that any 13 year old child could have analyzed and concluded.


In Part 4, I will present more arguments against pseudo IQ race science made by experts.


Brother Saye

@sayetaryor



Voices Against Pseudo Science ?





This letter was submitted on behalf of more than 100 faculty members in population genetics and evolutionary biology (listed below). The letter appears online in the August 8, 2014 issue of The New York Times Book Review. - Stanford University https://cehg.stanford.edu/letter-from-population-geneticists


Published in The New York Times Book Review August 8, 2014

To the Editor:

As scientists dedicated to studying genetic variation, we thank David Dobbs for his review of Nicholas Wade’s “A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History” (July 13), and for his description of Wade’s misappropriation of research from our field to support arguments about differences among human societies.

As discussed by Dobbs and many others, Wade juxtaposes an incomplete and inaccurate account of our research on human genetic differences with speculation that recent natural selection has led to worldwide differences in I.Q. test results, political institutions and economic development. We reject Wade’s implication that our findings substantiate his guesswork. They do not.

We are in full agreement that there is no support from the field of population genetics for Wade’s conjectures.

GRAHAM COOP

DAVIS, CALIF.

The writer is a professor of evolution and ecology at the University of California, Davis.


MICHAEL B. EISEN

BERKELEY, CALIF.

The writer is a professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley, and investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute.


RASMUS NIELSEN

BERKELEY, CALIF.

The writer is a professor of computational biology at the University of California, Berkeley.


MOLLY PRZEWORSKI

NEW YORK

The writer is a professor of biology at Columbia University.


NOAH ROSENBERG

STANFORD, CALIF.

The writer is a professor of biology at Stanford University.

This letter was submitted on behalf of more than 100 faculty members in population genetics and evolutionary biology (listed below). The New York Times Book Review.


Signatures


NAME

AFFILIATION

1

Goncalo Abecasis

University of Michigan

2

Devin Absher

HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology

3

Joshua Akey

University of Washington

4

David Altshuler

Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT

5

Peter Andolfatto

Princeton University

6

Adam Auton

Albert Einstein College of Medicine

7

Doris Bachtrog

University of California, Berkeley

8

David Balding

University College London, United Kingdom

9

Michael Bamshad

University of Washington

10

Guido Barbujani

Università di Ferrara

11

Gregory Barsh

Stanford University & HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology

12

Doron Behar

Rambam Medical Center, Israel

13

Jada Benn Torres

University of Notre Dame

14

Jaume Bertranpetit

Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Spain

15

Abigail Bigham

University of Michigan

16

Michael Boehnke

University of Michigan

17

Deborah Bolnick

University of Texas, Austin

18

Anne Bowcock

Imperial College London, United Kingdom

19

Carlos Bustamante

Stanford University

20

Francesc Calafell

Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Spain

21

Ranajit Chakraborty

University of North Texas Health Science Center

22

Aravinda Chakravarti

Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

23

Andrew Clark

Cornell University

24

Graham Coop

University of California, Davis

25

Jerry Coyne

University of Chicago

26

Michael DeGiorgio

Pennsylvania State University

27

Anna Di Rienzo

University of Chicago

28

Peter Donnelly

University of Oxford, United Kingdom

29

Richard Durbin

Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, United Kingdom

30

Evan Eichler

University of Washington & Howard Hughes Medical Institute

31

Michael Eisen

University of California, Berkeley & Howard Hughes Medical Institute

32

Yaniv Erlich

New York Genome Center & Columbia University

33

Laurent Excoffier

University of Bern, Switzerland

34

Daniel Falush

Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Germany

35

Justin Fay

Washington University in St. Louis

36

Marcus Feldman

Stanford University

37

Joseph Felsenstein

University of Washington

38

Greg Gibson

Georgia Institute of Technology

39

Yoav Gilad

University of Chicago

40

David Goldstein

Duke University

41

Esteban Gonzalez Burchard

University of California, San Francisco

42

Joseph Graves

North Carolina A&T State University & University of North Carolina, Greensboro

43

Matthew Hahn

Indiana University, Bloomington

44

Michael Hammer

University of Arizona, Tucson

45

John Hardy

University College London, United Kingdom

46

Garrett Hellenthal

University College London, United Kingdom

47

Brenna Henn

State University of New York, Stony Brook

48

Ryan Hernandez

University of California, San Francisco

49

Evelyne Heyer

Museum national d'Histoire naturelle, France

50

Joel Hirschhorn

Boston Children's Hospital & Harvard University

51

Richard Hudson

University of Chicago

52

Keith Hunley

University of New Mexico

53

Mattias Jakobsson

Uppsala University, Sweden

54

Mark Jobling

University of Leicester, United Kingdom

55

Lynn Jorde

University of Utah

56

Henrik Kaessmann

University of Lausanne, Switzerland

57

Alon Keinan

Cornell University

58

Joanna Kelley

Washington State University

59

Brian Kemp

Washington State University

60

Eimear Kenny

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

61

Jeffrey Kidd

University of Michigan

62

Kenneth Kidd

Yale University

63

Mary-Claire King

University of Washington

64

Mark Kirkpatrick

University of Texas, Austin

65

Rick Kittles

University of Illinois, Chicago

66

Toomas Kivisild

University of Cambridge, United Kingdom

67

Joseph Lachance

Georgia Institute of Technology

68

Marta Mirazón Lahr

University of Cambridge, United Kingdom

69

Tuuli Lappalainen

New York Genome Center & Columbia University

70

Cecil Lewis

University of Oklahoma

71

Jun Li

University of Michigan

72

Kirk Lohmueller

University of California, Los Angeles

73

Jeffrey Long

University of New Mexico

74

Daniel MacArthur

Massachusetts General Hospital & Harvard University

75

Ripan Malhi

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

76

Franz Manni

Museum national d'Histoire naturelle, France

77

Tomas Marques-Bonet

Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Spain

78

Gil McVean

Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, United Kingdom

79

Joanna Mountain

23andMe, Inc.

80

Connie Mulligan

University of Florida

81

Richard Myers

HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology

82

Michael Nachman

University of California, Berkeley

83

Rasmus Nielsen

University of California, Berkeley

84

Magnus Nordborg

Gregor Mendel Institute, Austria

85

John Novembre

University of Chicago

86

Harry Ostrer

Albert Einstein College of Medicine

87

Sarah Otto

University of British Columbia, Canada

88

Svante Paabo

Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Germany

89

Lior Pachter

University of California, Berkeley

90

Nick Patterson

Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT

91

Bret Payseur

University of Wisconsin, Madison

92

Itsik Pe'er

Columbia University

93

Trevor Pemberton

University of Manitoba, Canada

94

George (PJ) Perry

Pennsylvania State University

95

Dmitri Petrov

Stanford University

96

Vincent Plagnol

University College London, United Kingdom

97

Alkes Price

Harvard University

98

Jonathan Pritchard

Stanford University & Howard Hughes Medical Institute

99

Molly Przeworski

Columbia University

100

Lluis Quintana-Murci

Institut Pasteur, France

101

Peter Ralph

University of Southern California

102

Sohini Ramachandran

Brown University

103

Bruce Rannala

University of California, Davis

104

David Reich

Harvard University & Howard Hughes Medical Institute

105

Neil Risch

University of California, San Francisco

106

Matthew Rockman

New York University

107

Noah Rosenberg

Stanford University

108

Charles Rotimi

In a personal capacity

109

Aylwyn Scally

University of Cambridge, United Kingdom

110

Michael Seldin

University of California, Davis

111

Guy Sella

Columbia University

112

David Serre

Cleveland Clinic

113

Mark Shriver

Pennsylvania State University

114

Adam Siepel

Cornell University

115

Andrew B. Singleton

In a personal capacity

116

Karl Skorecki

Technion Ð Israel Institute of Technology, Israel

117

Montgomery Slatkin

University of California, Berkeley

118

Yun S. Song

University of California, Berkeley

119

Chris Spencer

Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, United Kingdom

120

Stephen Stearns

Yale University

121

Anne Stone

Arizona State University

122

Mark Stoneking

Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Germany

123

Hua Tang

Stanford University

124

Alan Templeton

Washington University in St. Louis

125

Mark G. Thomas

University College London, United Kingdom

126

Sarah Tishkoff

University of Pennsylvania

127

Paul Verdu

Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, France

128

Richard Villems

University of Tartu, Estonia

129

Benjamin Voight

University of Pennsylvania

130

John Wakeley

Harvard University

131

Jeffrey Wall

University of California, San Francisco

132

James Weber

PreventionGenetics

133

Kenneth Weiss

Pennsylvania State University

134

Spencer Wells

The Genographic Project, National Geographic Society

135

Eske Willerslev

University of Copenhagen, Denmark

136

Amy L. Williams

Cornell University

137

Scott Williams

Dartmouth College

138

Elad Ziv

University of California, San Francisco

139

Sebastian Zöllner

University of Michigan