The Dissident Right/WN obsesses too much over race-mixing. It's really not that big of a deal, IMO.

submitted by AltAlt from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]FoxySDTWhite Nationalist 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

The mean between black and white IQ is 92.5 which is what mulatto's would be expected to have. The Eyferth study showed male mulatto's have 97 IQ on average. The hereditarian Arthur Jensen stated heterosis may have contributed to that.

We already went through this. The blacks in the Eyferth sample had above-average IQ so their mulatto offspring would not have IQ of 92.5 but around 95-96. Precisely as the study found.

Group Eyferth IQ Hereditarian “Prediction”
White Males 101 100.5
White Females 93 100.5
Mixed Males 97 95.6
Mixed Females 96 95.6

The Eyferth study supports hereditarianism more than it does environmentalism. And as for Jensen, as far as I know, he only suggested heterosis as one possible explanation. And given that he didn't mention it when discussing Eyferth study in his 2005 review of literature he did with Rushton, it's safe to conclude he does no longer believe that. Not even as a possibility.

[–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The blacks in the Eyferth sample had above-average IQ

You forget 80% of the Africans in the study were French Africans during WW2. As I've already mentioned in our last debate, military service is required in France and they were scraping the barrel to begin with. French Africans AFAIK aren't even 85 average IQ like African-Americans who are 20% white, which makes even a mulatto score of 95.6 more impressive as it's higher than the mean of white and black IQ. The mean would be expected with French Africans and whites to be 90, assuming the genotypic IQ of 80 for Africans.

Besides the Eyferth study anyway, my main argument that the beneficial genes will be preserved while inferior ones discarded long-term from the bigger gene pool is supported by evolution and what we've seen regarding the Neanderthal example. The key is just maintaining a strong white majority to avoid short-term issues.

[–]FoxySDTWhite Nationalist 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You forget 80% of the Africans in the study were French Africans during WW2.

It's the other way around. 20% French North Africans and 80% American blacks. This is stated by both by Jencks & Phillips (1998) (the one cited by wikipedia) and by Rushton and Jensen (2005). Some wiki editor must have mixed up the percentages.

my main argument that the beneficial genes will be preserved while inferior ones discarded long-term from the bigger gene pool is supported by evolution

I don't know what you mean by this. Beneficial for what? Evolution selects for genes beneficial for further reproduction. Right now, low IQ people have higher birth rates and so genes for lower intelligence are being selected for. But I doubt most people would consider those genes to be beneficial.

[–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Some wiki editor must have mixed up the percentages.

I see.

I don't know what you mean by this. Beneficial for what? Evolution selects for genes beneficial for further reproduction.

When whites mixed with Neanderthals we only kept beneficial genes for the immune system over time while discarding others that were inferior. Blacks have some minor advantages such as the bone strength example I cited earlier that can be carried on while others, like lower intelligence, will be discarded on a large scale over time.

Osteoporosis has been defined as a systemic skeletal disorder characterized by compromised bone strength predisposing to an increased risk of fracture. The clinical consequences of fracture include short- and long-term morbidity as well as increased mortality. Several authors have examined data from the Health Care Financing Administration and noted that fracture risk, particularly risk of hip fracture, is higher in whites than blacks in both sexes

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1863580/

The small amount of mulattos and hapas breeding with other whites will over time select for the best contributions. Which is why it isn't dysgenic in the long-term, especially if we remove low IQ blacks in the US.

[–]FoxySDTWhite Nationalist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

When whites mixed with Neanderthals we only kept beneficial genes for the immune system over time while discarding others that were inferior.

We kept those genes because individuals who possessed those genes reproduced more and spread them to whole population over time. Right now, individuals with low IQ are reproducing more and they will spread their genes for low IQ to whole population. This does not make it beneficial. Being high IQ now is similar to not having genes for the immune system in prehistoric era. Perhaps not to the same degree but the principle is the same. Both these groups reproduced less and their genes died out. Lower intelligence won't be discarded because we humans decided that being stupid is bad. As long as low IQ people will have higher birthrates their genes will spread through population.

The small amount of mulattos and hapas breeding with other whites will over time select for the best contributions.

It will only select for contributions that have the best chance of further spreading. That would not make them the best. Evolution doesn't know what is "the best". If people with low IQ ans schizophrenia would have the highest birthrates then the world in few centuries would be full of low IQ schizophrenics. Doesn't mean it is beneficial just because it was selected for.

[–]AltAlt[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

White women having an IQ of 93 (and a lower IQ than mixed-race people) sounds like pure bullshit to me. What German women were in that sample? Prostitutes and clinical retards?

[–]FoxySDTWhite Nationalist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Those are IQs of children. But yes, 93 is unrealistically low by all means. It's probably result of sampling error. Eyferth only studied 5% of these children after all so this is expected.